What constitutes "marriage"?

[Gina B]

Karen: In addition to the things already stated by others, there is every need to have the state, an institution established by God, regulate marriage.
For example, people die. When they do, they leave children and property. Marriage controls a great deal of the disposition of such matters.

Gina: That is very true. However, one can also simply leave this information in their will.

Keep in mind that I am not against people going in front of the government and involving them in the marriage. I simply do not believe that the government can validate/invalidate a marriage in God's eyes. How many divorces has the government given that had no biblical basis? Was there authority in that? I think not, no more than there are in government condoned marriages.

For earthly legal purposes, go for it. For decided if a marriage or divorce exists, no way.

Karen: There are many valid ways the state DOES regulate marriage. Such as control of some communicable diseases, a valid age, not marrying under duress or compulsion.

Gina: The government no longer requires a blood test for marriage.
A valid age is nice in theory, but in reality, child brides still exist. Underagers can get the parent's permission. An ethical person will not perform a marriage ceremony for underagers, an unethical person will regardless of the law.

Marriage under duress or compulsion still happens. Granted, you usually don't see it happen in the form it takes place in movies!

In other words, it's a giant leap in logic to say that the belief that government authority concerning marriage carries weight in heaven is cause for worry, based on the concern of people under duress or compulsion, communicable diseases, and underage marriages. There's no connection there.

Karen: The contract of marriage affects all of society. The fact that people perform it imperfectly does not mean that doing it less formally would help things at all.

Gina: Which ceremony is less formal? The one with God as the witness, or the one with the government as the witness?

 

[rjprince]

Gina,

Once you have taken a position, is there any point for us to interact further?

 

[Gina B]

Originally posted by rjprince:
Gina,

Once you have taken a position, is there any point for us to interact further?

On this particular issue? Not if you want to change my mind. It's one of a few things I haven't changed on, but I always do find it interesting to read the ideas and thoughts of others, and see what they believe and why.

As far as interacting, you're not obligated. I have read your posts in the past and do continue to read them and find them interesting, but there's no law that says you have to feel that way about me too. Maybe there should be though.

The opening thread asked a question. I answered it. I am sensing that this somehow bothers you, because I answered it, and still feel the same way one day later, even though not everyone agreed with me. I don't understand why this would bother you. Please explain.

 

[rjprince]

Gina,

OK. You are right. Maybe it is because everyone else finally agreed with me on the water into wine thing! HAH!

And, yes, sometimes in the intensity of the debate I do let it bother me when I cannot convince others to my opinion. What's wrong with all y'all anyway!?!?

Yes, my remark was a bit snide. Sorry. Sometimes I get a bit too testy for my own good. At least that is what my wife tells me...

(seems like I am apologizing a lot lately. maybe i should take a few days off?)

Have a great evening, and don't let old grouches like me get to you. What? Oh. You weren't anyway. OK... I like talking to myself. Sometimes that is the only way I understand the conversation...

 

[paidagogos]

With the confusion about marriage among the posters on this thread, I can more readily understand the high divorce rate, immoral relationships, and broken down marriages. It seems that more people borrow their view of love and marriage from Hollywood and the pop culture than from the Bible.

Firstly, marriage is not the sex act and it is not consummated in the sex act. This is Roman Catholic theology and it’s wrong. This is easily proven. Mary and Joseph are called husband and wife in Scripture before they ever experienced sexual intimacy. (I also realize that the Jews viewed them as husband and wife during the betrothal period as well—this portends the covenantal nature of marriage.) Scripture is clear on this. It is perfectly reasonable to infer that they were husband and wife, actually living together, for at least nine months before any sexual intimacy.

Secondly, the “one flesh” relationship is not just the sexual relationship. It is the intimacy of two people becoming one in thought, purpose, etc. It is two people becoming one person—a unit. I am not entirely sure that sex is a part of it. A careful reading and exegesis of Genesis 2:23-24 does not make sex a part of the “one flesh” concept. A man can have sex with a prostitute without being married to her. I believe that a man and woman can be husband and wife without having sex. For example, this may be the case of a paralyzed person who is incapable of performing sexually. Although sex is a blessing of intimacy reserved for the husband-wife relationship, I have heard no one convincingly argue from Scripture that it is an essential part of it. Like our American culture, sex is overblown and overly exalted here.

Thirdly, marriage is a covenant of companionship for life. To properly understand the covenant of marriage, one must properly understand the OT role of covenants and our covenant-making God. After all, our salvation in Christ is referred to as the New Covenant. Marriage is a covenant made before God and is binding for the life of the parties. Therefore, it is pertinent that Christians be married in the presence of a Gospel minister. Supposed private covenants are no covenants at all since no one is witness to them.

Fourthly, marriage is not something that evolved for economic reasons, as some sociologists would have us believe. It is an institution ordained by God for the companionship of man and procreation.

Fifthly, it is God’s plan and will to be the relationship between one man and one woman (Matt. 19:9).

Volumes more could be said regarding the relationship between husband and wife but bandwidth and time will not permit.

[ April 10, 2006, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: paidagogos ]

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Aaron:
A marriage is the union of a man and a woman in a covenant relationship ratified by an oath or vow. There is no other way to enter into a marriage.

Sex does not equal marriage.
Cohabitation (chambering, Rom. 13:13) does not equal marriage.

Since marriage creates the basic unit of society, the family, and since the general welfare of the state is directly dependent on the health of the family, the state has a compelling interest in governing marriage, that is in recognizing and solemnizing a legitimate union and enforcing its maintenance, and in punishing those who abuse or otherwise jeapordize the sanctity of the institution.

Well said. Right!

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by menageriekeeper:
I'm with Le Bel, does shackin' really constitute marriage?

Of course not! The idea is absurd!

 

[blackbird]

What Gina is talking about is adultery and fornication and ones who participate are as "the fools of Israel."

 

[Gina B]

Originally posted by blackbird:
What Gina is talking about is adultery and fornication and ones who participate are as "the fools of Israel."

No, that isn't what Gina was talking about. Gina was talking about marriage, although adultery and fornication were mentioned.

I could be mistaken though. I'll go ask her.

Yep, it was marriage she was talking about.

Seriously now Blackbird, I've known of churches that keep strong distinctions between the government and the things of God. There was a pastor in town back in Ohio that performed marriages unsanctioned by the government for those who did not want the government in their marriage.

He never did it based on someone wanting to hide a marriage, or fool the government. He did it for those who did not want, or did not believe, in the government having a say in their marriage.

I don't consider the couples married in such churches fools.

It was nice that they had a ceremony, but that also could have been done without, and didn't make it anymore "official" than if they'd stood together in front of their witnesses and said their own vows.
Or, if they'd made their commitment and lived together. Holy? Yes, if they involved God. Unholy? Yes, if they were without Christ.
Unmarried? Nope. Still married, whether they did it with Christ as their witness or not.

But please, consider your words before you use them. There are a number of wonderful and loving Christians out there who were married without the witness of the government. Please don't label them as fools and adulterers.

 

[Marcia]

Gina, if Jesus said to render unto Caesar that things that are Caesar's, and if he himself obeyed the requirement for tax and did not disobey the government, do you not think it is a bad Christian witness to not submit to state laws in making a marriage legal?

Essentially, if you take vows in a church but do not get legally married, you are not seen as married by the state and so can be seen as living in sin by many people. In fact, it could be seen as defiance. Jesus did not advocate defiance of the civil government, even an evil one.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Married without government maybe, but Gina, married without witnesses? Where would the proof of the covenant be? What kind of example would it be to the world if Christian's simply began cohabitating because "we made our committment and decided we were married". Marriage is supposed to be the example of the relation that God wishes us to have with His Son. Can we present that example without some form of ceremony to jusify our actions before both man and God?

Shackers have made their committment too. They've committed to live together at least until the first arguement! Are they then "divorced" because they decided not to be committed anymore?

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Gina and RJ...don't feel bad...after page one nobody even bothered to comment on what I had to say.I'm simply devastated that everyone thought my ideas were so insignificant. By the way...good thought provoking discussion ya'll!

Greg Sr.

 

[Gina B]

Originally posted by Marcia:
Gina, if Jesus said to render unto Caesar that things that are Caesar's, and if he himself obeyed the requirement for tax and did not disobey the government, do you not think it is a bad Christian witness to not submit to state laws in making a marriage legal?

Essentially, if you take vows in a church but do not get legally married, you are not seen as married by the state and so can be seen as living in sin by many people. In fact, it could be seen as defiance. Jesus did not advocate defiance of the civil government, even an evil one.

First of all, there is no law that says a couple is not married if they do not have a civil ceremony. It says they are not considered married by the government.

I repeat. There is no law that says God does not recognize a marriage that is not recognized by the state.

There is no law that says that a man and woman cannot live as a married couple unless the state recognizes the marriage.

Marriage is not Caesar's.

As far as disobedience to the law, there is no disobedience to the law by not having your marriage recognized by the courts. You may give up some benefits, but you are not breaking any laws.

Did Christ "appear" to be a sinner by actually breaking laws? Real laws, not ones that didn't exist, like imaginary laws that say one must get married.

Yep. He broke them. Christ broke the laws of the land. So, you can't get too far with me by saying that Christ expects us to obey every jot and tittle of public law, because if you believe that, then it's only logical to say that Christ was guilty of sin. And he wasn't.

However, you may say that we give the appearance of sin by not having our marriage recognized by the civil authorities.

Would that be anything like the appearance of sin by eating with sinners and publicans? By not washing before eating? By holding conversations with prostitutes? Etc. etc..

How about the laws against hate speech? Could your comments in the past about other religions (some classified as cults) and such have broken those laws? Does this mean you were wrong?

 

[Gina B]

Originally posted by Gregory Perry Sr.:

Gina and RJ...don't feel bad...after page one nobody even bothered to comment on what I had to say.I'm simply devastated that everyone thought my ideas were so insignificant. By the way...good thought provoking discussion ya'll!

Greg Sr.

Gregory, would that they would question you rather than me!

For a group that so strongly believes in the value of men's teachings over women's, they sure are ignoring you!

I say they talk to you.

I am but a lowly woman, and some of what I'm saying could be viewed as teaching.

So, I suggest you talk to Gregory. He said the same thing I did!

GET HIM!

(crosses fingers, hopes that works)

 

[Gina B]

Originally posted by menageriekeeper:
Married without government maybe, but Gina, married without witnesses? Where would the proof of the covenant be? What kind of example would it be to the world if Christian's simply began cohabitating because "we made our committment and decided we were married". Marriage is supposed to be the example of the relation that God wishes us to have with His Son. Can we present that example without some form of ceremony to jusify our actions before both man and God?

Shackers have made their committment too. They've committed to live together at least until the first arguement! Are they then "divorced" because they decided not to be committed anymore?

It certainly doesn't sound like the best option, does it?

For your last comment...no. Not unless they were divorced for biblical reasons. If they weren't, they're still married, even if they remarry. Remember when the Scriptures tell us that if a person is not divorced for biblical reasons, they are committing adultery if they remarry?

 

[Frenchy]

First thanks Marcia for acknowleding my post about Ceasar.

Blackbird wrote

What Gina is talking about is adultery and fornication and ones who participate are as "the fools of Israel."

I agree. so Gina what is your definition of fornication and adultry if it isn't the same definitions as God's?

[Edited to remove personal attack. Debate the issue and do not attack the character of the person holding the opposing view.]

[ April 12, 2006, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[menageriekeeper]

Now Gina, what do you suppose that first arguement was about?

So, I can move in with Man #1 and consider myself married, but when I catch him lookin' at the girl across the hall in her bikini, I get to decide that he's lusting and move out, considering myself now divorced because he committed adultry(after all, Christ says if a man lusts in his heart he has already committed adultry)? Then I can move on to Man #2 until I decide the same about him?

And you think God wouldn't mind all this cause after all I'm following His own Words? Or maybe I'm twisting things just a little to get my own way while still making it look like I'm doing what He expects?

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Wow Gina....you really did get these guys cranked up! Greg?..Greg who..? I don't know no Greg!

Greg Sr.(oops)

 

[bapmom]

Gina,

I hope I haven't come across as attacking you.

I in no way think you have this viewpoint because you are trying to "justify" something in your life. I even think I know where you are coming from.

My problem is that there are many who take this same viewpoint and ARE trying to justify living together without any committment. It has hit home in my own extended family far too often for me to not say anything, ya know?

I do believe that God ordained both the institution of marriage, AND the institution of government.

Just as an aside, I didn't respond much to Gregory's posts because he seemed bent on blaming pastors and "pharisees" for all of this, and Im just so tired of being called a "legalist" and a "pharisee" simply because I believe in a few rules. Not bitter, honest.....just being open.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Umm, Greg, you were responded too. First page after Gina and yourself had presented your opinions my response was equally to you both. Notice I didn't refer to anyone specific.

Aaron responded to your next post quite well.

So, I like, don't understand why you think you've been ignored?