What constitutes "marriage"?

[Brother Bob]

Is "shacking up" really tolerated in some of the churches represented here?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Bob, I don't think anyone in this thread has advocated "shacking up". The question is about what constitutes a marriage.

IMO if the commitment is there and the legal Ts & Cs are all met, then a marriage exists. There is nothing magical about a ceremony. However, laws do vary form jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

 

[Brother Bob]

Magnetic Poles;
Don't mean to be disagreeable here but to me the Church laws are what I am concerned with, and it don't hold water in our church.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Bob, I don't consider you disagreeable at all. Your church is certainly entitled to set its own rules, which may or may not be at variance with civil law.

 

[Bible-boy]

I seem to remember a common law marriage case that happened in the late 1980s or early 1990s involving the actor William Hurt. If I remember correctly he lived with a woman for three months while he was filming The Big Chill in South Carolina. Later the woman filed suit against him for alimony based on their SC common law marriage (which Hurt knew nothing about) and she won a rather healthy chunk of his money.

 

[Hope of Glory]

If I remember correctly, she failed to prove her case, and he wasn't ordered to pay her anything because he had already made several sizable child support payments. In other words, she got money and they weren't married according to NY courts where she filed.

 

[Benjamin]

Brother Bob,

Just curious, when you say we would not “accept” or “tolerate” a couple shacking up what would your reaction be? Also when you mention the church laws you are concerned with and not holding water, how does your church laws effect membership? Or what would your church do if a couple in that situation started attending your service?

 

[Wildfire]

Originally posted by Gina L:
It works both ways.
My opinion is that when two people decide to be man and wife to each other, they are man and wife.

Whether or not they admit it. There is no "faking" it, it's always real.

You live together, you are intimate , you're married.

I take it a step further and say if you are intimate, you're married. You don't even have to live together. This does not include anything except mutual consent between two people who understand what they are doing.

I don't believe the government has to be involved at all.

I don't believe that the government can perform a spiritually binding marriage.

I don't believe that if the government performs a marriage, it has any automatic validity in the eyes of anyone but those in the physical, earthly courts.

I stand by what I have always said on here...it is not illegal for a man and woman to live as husband and wife without the consent of the court. It's simply not recognized by the courts, and that ain't illegal. A marriage is perfectly valid without the interference/inclusion of the state/courts/other government agencies.

Have I ever mentioned this before?

I think many of us are uncomfortable with anything that smacks of an excuse to just "shack up." But I believe Gina makes a very solid point. Jesus told us not only to "render unto Caesar," but also to render unto God what is His. Marriage doesn't belong to Caesar, and there is no reason we should accept government's conventions for it. I don't see a single word in the Bible that tells us how God prescribes for us to "get married." I only see that He tells us to take it seriously and permanently. Clearly, that's not working with the current social order, so I see no reason for us to passionately defend that order. Couples should give their relationship passionately to God and stay that way. How they get there is between them and their Creator.

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
If I remember correctly, she failed to prove her case, and he wasn't ordered to pay her anything because he had already made several sizable child support payments. In other words, she got money and they weren't married according to NY courts where she filed.

Like I said I'm going solely on memory (not such a good thing anymore at my age). I just remembered seeing an interview with him where he talked about what happened and the fact the he paid her lots of money. So I don't know if any state ever considered them to really have been married (only that that was the basis of her claim).

[ April 14, 2006, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Wildfire:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gina L:
It works both ways.
My opinion is that when two people decide to be man and wife to each other, they are man and wife.

Whether or not they admit it. There is no "faking" it, it's always real.

You live together, you are intimate , you're married.

I take it a step further and say if you are intimate, you're married. You don't even have to live together. This does not include anything except mutual consent between two people who understand what they are doing.

I don't believe the government has to be involved at all.

I don't believe that the government can perform a spiritually binding marriage.

I don't believe that if the government performs a marriage, it has any automatic validity in the eyes of anyone but those in the physical, earthly courts.

I stand by what I have always said on here...it is not illegal for a man and woman to live as husband and wife without the consent of the court. It's simply not recognized by the courts, and that ain't illegal. A marriage is perfectly valid without the interference/inclusion of the state/courts/other government agencies.

Have I ever mentioned this before?

I think many of us are uncomfortable with anything that smacks of an excuse to just "shack up." But I believe Gina makes a very solid point. Jesus told us not only to "render unto Caesar," but also to render unto God what is His. Marriage doesn't belong to Caesar, and there is no reason we should accept government's conventions for it. I don't see a single word in the Bible that tells us how God prescribes for us to "get married." I only see that He tells us to take it seriously and permanently. Clearly, that's not working with the current social order, so I see no reason for us to passionately defend that order. Couples should give their relationship passionately to God and stay that way. How they get there is between them and their Creator. </font>[/QUOTE]However, Romans 13 tells us that we are to be subject to those in authority that God has placed over us (Rom 13:1a). Also that there is no authority except from God and those that exist have been instituted by God (Rom. 13:1b). Likewise, these authorities, or rulers, are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad (Rom. 13:3). Finally, these rulers are God's servants for our good (Rom. 13:4a). As such we should not have any problems submitting to the authority of the state with respect to our marriages.

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by Wildfire:

............Jesus told us not only to "render unto Caesar," but also to render unto God what is His. Marriage doesn't belong to Caesar, and there is no reason we should accept government's conventions for it..........Couples should give their relationship passionately to God and stay that way. How they get there is between them and their Creator.

There's where you and I will continue to disagree. As others and I previously discussed on this thread, marriage in a sense does belong to Caesar. How it is carried out affects all of society, nonbelievers as well as believers. It affects far more people than just the two people who "give their relationship passionately to God".
Also, as an extreme example, I recall a former poster on the BB. The spouse had a major personality change because of an auto accident. There need to be societal protections that go beyond the initial good feelings of the immediate two involved.

Karen

 

[Frenchy]

"Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion ." (1 Corinthians 7:8-9)

In the above passage, notice that Paul had a very specific reason why people should get married: "to avoid fornication." Here is what the English word "fornication" means:

"to have sex with someone who you are not married to" (Freesearch Dictionary)
"Fornication: Sexual intercourse that is "illicit", outside of marriage." (Medical Dictionary)
"fornication n. sexual intercourse between a man and woman who are not married to each other." (Law Dictionary)
"consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
"NOUN: Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.

WORD HISTORY: The word fornication had a lowly beginning suitable to what has long been the low moral status of the act to which it refers. The Latin word fornix, from which fornicti, the ancestor of fornication, is derived, meant "a vault, an arch." The term also referred to a vaulted cellar or similar place where prostitutes plied their trade. This sense of fornix in Late Latin yielded the verb fornicr, "to commit fornication," from which is derived fornicti, "whoredom, fornication." Our word is first recorded in Middle English about 1303." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.)

"c.1300, from O.Fr. fornication, from L.L. fornicationem (nom. fornicatio), from fornicari "fornicate," from L. fornix (gen. fornicis) "brothel," originally "arch, vaulted chamber" (Roman prostitutes commonly solicited from under the arches of certain buildings), from fornus "oven of arched or domed shape." Strictly, "voluntary sex between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman;" extended in the Bible to adultery." (Online Etymology Dictionary)

"Fornication - Hebrew: zanah / Greek: porneia
Fornication is voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and woman who are not married to each other. Adultery is one type of fornication.

In every form, fornication was sternly condemned by the Mosaic law among God's people, the Israelites (Lev. 21:9; 19:29; Deut. 22:20-11, 23-29; 23:18; Ex. 22:16). (See ADULTERY.)

Fornication is also mentioned many times in the New Testament (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor 5:1, 6:13, 18, 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Jude 1:7; Rev. 2:14, 20-21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4).

"The Greek word for 'fornication' (porneia) could include any sexual sin committed after the betrothal contract. ...In Biblical usage, 'fornication' can mean any sexual congress outside monogamous marriage. It thus includes not only premarital sex, but also adultery, homosexual acts, incest, remarriage after un-Biblical divorce, and sexual acts with animals, all of which are explicitly forbidden in the law as given through Moses (Leviticus 20:10-21). Christ expanded the prohibition against adultery to include even sexual lusting (Matthew 5:28)." (Dr. Henry M. Morris)
The word "fornication" is sometimes used in a symbolic sense in the Bible, for example, meaning a forsaking of God or a following after idols (Isa. 1:2; Jer. 2:20; Ezek. 16; Hos. 1:2; 2:1-5; Jer. 3:8-9)." (christiananswers.net, emphasis added)

So depending on the context, the Greek word porneia can mean adultery, incest, prostitution, idolatry, etc., but the important point here is that porneia also means fornication (premarital sex) as in this example:

http://www.layhands.com/IsPremaritalSexASin.htm

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by Wildfire:

Originally posted by Gina L:
[qb]I don't see a single word in the Bible that tells us how God prescribes for us to "get married."

Male and female created he them. God blessed them and said, “be fruitful and multiply”.
He said they were to become one, and there is only one way they can “marry” and this is it. Surprisingly the Homosexual mind may see the connection, perhaps believing part of what God says, but in their confusion, marriage escapes them.

Christian faith, ituttut

 

[Brother Bob]

Benjamin;
We have no objections to anyone attending our services. If we had members shacking up or just living together we would withdraw fellowship from them. It would not bar them from coming to our services though if that is what you mean? If a couple came to our church and wanted baptism and membership we would not accept them until they were legally married. If others want to do different then that is their right but we would not fellowship it.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Gina L:
It works both ways.
My opinion is that when two people decide to be man and wife to each other, they are man and wife.

Then it follows that they are divorced when they decide that they are no longer married and separate. You’ve opened up a can of worms here with this nonsense. How do you know this?

Whether or not they admit it. There is no "faking" it, it's always real.

How do you know the difference between real and fake? It seems that you are basing a lot of things on feelings and emotions.

You live together, you are intimate , you're married.

How do you know this? Do you have any Scriptural basis? Define intimate. At what point does intimacy, thus marriage, occur?

I take it a step further and say if you are intimate, you're married. You don't even have to live together. This does not include anything except mutual consent between two people who understand what they are doing.

Does this necessarily meet the Biblical definition of leaving one’s father and mother cleaving to his wife? What about the guy sleeping with his girlfriend on weekends and living at home with his parents. He provides no support or protection for his girlfriend.

I don't believe the government has to be involved at all.

Why did Moses proscribe a bill of divorce?

I don't believe that the government can perform a spiritually binding marriage.

What about marriage between two unbelievers? Is this a spiritual bonding? How so?

I don't believe that if the government performs a marriage, it has any automatic validity in the eyes of anyone but those in the physical, earthly courts.

However, the church does have spiritual authority. Jesus said what it binds on earth is bound in heaven, did He not? Furthermore, I am not sure that you can convincingly argue that marriage does not fall within the God-ordained function of government in Romans 13. Can you?

I stand by what I have always said on here...it is not illegal for a man and woman to live as husband and wife without the consent of the court. It's simply not recognized by the courts, and that ain't illegal. A marriage is perfectly valid without the interference/inclusion of the state/courts/other government agencies.

Yes, you may be right about what’s legal and illegal but I am more concerned about what’s right and wrong before God. After all, some states have sanctioned civil unions between homosexual couples and I say it is an abomination in the eyes of God.

Have I ever mentioned this before?

Yes, you’ve said a lot but it has been your unfounded and irrational opinion. You do seem adamant and closed minded to any Biblical argument.

 

[Brother Bob]

What about a man or woman that is jumping from one to another does that mean he or she is married that many times?

 

[Frenchy]

Brother Bob if you just found out that two people were "shacking up" wouldn't you FIRST apply Matt 18 before not fellowshipping with them anymore?

 

[Frenchy]

What about a man or woman that is jumping from one to another does that mean he or she is married that many times?

exactly Brother Bob that is why this whole discussion is foolish! no one now in days stays together for very long. even people who get married the right way end up divorced for the majority. there is not a state or a country that doesn't perform some kind of ceremony with witnesses in a covenant situation, which results in consumation finallizing the union.

to agree with all this hogwash is to condone sin and open a door to all kinds of perversions like homosexuality!

 

[Gina B]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gina L:[qb]
It works both ways.
My opinion is that when two people decide to be man and wife to each other, they are man and wife.

Then it follows that they are divorced when they decide that they are no longer married and separate. You’ve opened up a can of worms here with this nonsense. How do you know this? </font>[/QUOTE]That is exactly what follows. It isn't a can of worms. If you are married, you need to be divorced.
In fact, I did this myself. I did not recognize the divorce as given by the state, until Biblical reasons for it were completely fulfilled. I was confused a bit as there was little guidance from my church in the situation, but based on prayer and scripture, which clearly states for what causes a divorce may occur, I came to terms with obeying God rather than man.

Whether or not they admit it. There is no "faking" it, it's always real.

How do you know the difference between real and fake? It seems that you are basing a lot of things on feelings and emotions. [/quote]

What is the fake version? You make replicas of yourself from clay and put them in a house? Either you're together or you're not.

You live together, you are intimate , you're married.

How do you know this? Do you have any Scriptural basis? Define intimate. At what point does intimacy, thus marriage, occur? [/quote]

I don't wish to get into that aspect of it on the open board. My scriptural basis consists of the examples of marriage given in the Bible.

I take it a step further and say if you are intimate, you're married. You don't even have to live together. This does not include anything except mutual consent between two people who understand what they are doing.
[qb] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
I don't believe the government has to be involved at all.

Why did Moses proscribe a bill of divorce? </font>[/QUOTE]Why was this given by the religious leaders and not the equivalent of what would be the "state" in that time period?

I don't believe that the government can perform a spiritually binding marriage.

What about marriage between two unbelievers? Is this a spiritual bonding? How so? [/quote]

Spiritual? Maybe, but not in the sense of spiritual as far as religious goes, IMO. I would think that if they became believers, their commitment and reason for it and how they live it out would change. They may even wish to rededicate themselves, this time involving God in the equation.

I don't believe that if the government performs a marriage, it has any automatic validity in the eyes of anyone but those in the physical, earthly courts.

However, the church does have spiritual authority. Jesus said what it binds on earth is bound in heaven, did He not? Furthermore, I am not sure that you can convincingly argue that marriage does not fall within the God-ordained function of government in Romans 13. Can you?

[/quote]

Jesus did not speak of the government or of all things on earth. He was speaking to Peter, to the founders of the church, in that passage.

I will have to look up Romans 13 and get back to you, as the passage is not coming to mind right now. Remind me if I don't, I have my hair set right now and have to go rinse it.

[ April 14, 2006, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

[Gina B]

Double post..