Marriage, is it already bastardised beyond recognition by the world?

JimiTime

There is a lot of conversation in Britain, Ireland and the states at the moment about the institute of marriage, its definition etc. The conversation has been prompted by the LGBT lobby about redefining marriage to include same sex unions etc. Heres the thing, is there anything to be saved? For example, its a humorous cliché these days to talk about divorce for leaving the toilet seat up. If a marriage can be so easily left behind, has it not already lost its meaning? Here are the questions that I think are pertinent to the discussion:

1) What is marriage to a Christian, and what did Jesus actually mean when he said 'Two become one flesh'?


2) Is the marriage we have today recognisable from the institute set-up by God? If not, what is it that we are fighting to save from being re-defined?

3) We often hear it said, that allowing gay marriage for instance, will undermine marriage. What does this actually mean? And if marriage is re-defined etc, what do you see the consequence being for the future?

Thanks for your opinions in advance.

Morag

So you think Christianity and the christian God invented marriage?

Marriage and different types of marriage existed before the time of Jesus and before the codifying of Christianity and it's church. I don't see how or why the rite of matrimony and those who are married by and in the eyes of the church has to change one iota, but there needs to be an acknowledgement of civil marriages and how those can and do differ.

If 3 couples are married, chirstian, jewish and humanist each legally so but with religious rite according to their wishes then they are all the same in the eyes of the state. The christian churches only need concern themselves with the couple who is christian and they are the ones how have undertaken vows before the christian god and their family and communities.

Is christian matrimony different then civil/legal marriage?
It is and should remain so.

PDN

True, before Christian marriage ever existed there were various forms of marriage - including child brides and polygamy.

I think part of our current problem is that, in the West, we have long-based our understanding of marriage on something that has evolved from Christian values. Therefore we expected marriage to be:
a) A lifetime commitment
b) Between one man and one woman.
c) Something that had a special dignity because it was carried out in a church "in the sight of God".

Both (a) and (c) have largely gone, and (b) looks like it is on the way out.

What puzzles me is how non-Christians still seem to want marriage to be special in some way, yet want to dump the distinctives that have made marriage special.

When I got married, my wife and I saw our marriage as the biggest day of our lives. We were making promises to each other that we would honour and love each other for as long we both would live, we had refrained from sexual intercourse and saw our wedding night as something special to be greatly anticipated, and we believed that getting married in a church before our friends was a way of asking God to beautify and dignify our marriage with His presence.

Recently I've attended one or two weddings where they sign prenuptial agreements because they don't really trust each other or expect the marriage to last that long, where they've already been shacking up together for years anyway, and where the 'wedding' is a soulless affair in a rather grotty Registrar's office with some uninspiring official droning on. And I find myself wondering why anyone would bother.

PDN

I think there is a major problem when you try to confuse the (one particular) religious aspect and more secular aspect of it

if you want the religious version to be for life one man one woman etc then it's your club your rules

when it comes to legal partnerships, romantic or otherwise, i think that should be a different version

so fight for what values you want in your religious marriage really. just because other religions/non religious people have different priorities in it doesn't mean they're less or more than yours

PDN wrote: »

True, before Christian marriage ever existed there were various forms of marriage - including child brides and polygamy.

What a snide thing for you to say

Manach

I think that society has moved away to its determent from the defined marriage as per Hyde's
"What, then, is the nature of this institution as understood in Christendom?...If it be of common acceptance and existence, it must needs have some pervading identity and universal basis. I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others."
Marriage in the traditional sense evolved in response to the openness of arrangements in the Classical world. Here the state had to step in to enforce mores to ensure that the contract based approach to marriage led to decreases in the birthrate. The Church by elevating marriage as a sacrament, lead to the attribute of lifelong commitment and hence provided a more stable environment for the family. This viewpoint held up till the watershed of the 1960s and beginnings of the self-centric worldview in the West.

Benny_Cake

PDN wrote: »

When I got married, my wife and I saw our marriage as the biggest day of our lives. We were making promises to each other that we would honour and love each other for as long we both would live, we had refrained from sexual intercourse and saw our wedding night as something special to be greatly anticipated, and we believed that getting married in a church before our friends was a way of asking God to beautify and dignify our marriage with His presence.

Recently I've attended one or two weddings where they sign prenuptial agreements because they don't really trust each other or expect the marriage to last that long, where they've already been shacking up together for years anyway, and where the 'wedding' is a soulless affair in a rather grotty Registrar's office with some uninspiring official droning on. And I find myself wondering why anyone would bother.

Horses for courses I think. Ultimately only the couple concerned can decide what their marriage means to them, and I wouldn't see a registry office affair as being any less significant in the life of a couple and their loved ones than a church wedding. I suspect for most that a marriage is still a way of declaring a lifelong commitment to each other, regardless of the venue. This could be the case even if a couple lived together before marriage. I agree with you about pre-nups though, if you feel you need one, you probably shouldn't be getting married.

Morag

PDN wrote: »

What puzzles me is how non-Christians still seem to want marriage to be special in some way, yet want to dump the distinctives that have made marriage special.

I think two people committing to each other publicly and making vows to love and cherish each other in-front of and with the support of their families and friends will always be special not matter the genders of those invovled or what religious rites are invovled.

Benny_Cake

It should also be noted that marriage is not something institution that is frozen in time, it has evolved through history. Up until the 16th century a couple in Europe was deemed to be married if they declared themselves married to each other- no priests or witnesses required - and once the relationship was physically consumated.

Morbert

PDN wrote: »

True, before Christian marriage ever existed there were various forms of marriage - including child brides and polygamy.

I think part of our current problem is that, in the West, we have long-based our understanding of marriage on something that has evolved from Christian values. Therefore we expected marriage to be:
a) A lifetime commitment
b) Between one man and one woman.
c) Something that had a special dignity because it was carried out in a church "in the sight of God".

Both (a) and (c) have largely gone, and (b) looks like it is on the way out.

What puzzles me is how non-Christians still seem to want marriage to be special in some way, yet want to dump the distinctives that have made marriage special.

When I got married, my wife and I saw our marriage as the biggest day of our lives. We were making promises to each other that we would honour and love each other for as long we both would live, we had refrained from sexual intercourse and saw our wedding night as something special to be greatly anticipated, and we believed that getting married in a church before our friends was a way of asking God to beautify and dignify our marriage with His presence.

Recently I've attended one or two weddings where they sign prenuptial agreements because they don't really trust each other or expect the marriage to last that long, where they've already been shacking up together for years anyway, and where the 'wedding' is a soulless affair in a rather grotty Registrar's office with some uninspiring official droning on. And I find myself wondering why anyone would bother.

Did those soulless affairs take anything away from your marriage?

The significance of marriage varies greatly among Non-Christians. Some see it as a pragmatic contract. Others would be enthusiastic as you were. But the treatment of marriage by others shouldn't affect how special it is to you. And you can imagine how you would feel if you were told by society "Sorry, your hair colours are incompatible, it's not a *real* marriage."

seamus

PDN wrote: »

What puzzles me is how non-Christians still seem to want marriage to be special in some way, yet want to dump the distinctives that have made marriage special.

My puzzlement is exactly the reverse tbh. Christians have long lauded marriage as being unique, special, exclusive. Yet the entire process was rendered bland by set rituals, set vows and a very strict structure which the ceremony and resultant marriage had to conform to. A church wedding was for a long time completely cleansed of any distinctiveness.

It's only in recent years as individual marriage ceremonies have become increasingly personalised, unique and special that the christian churches have inexplicably risen up and decried the "loss" of the specialness of marriage. It's almost like doublethink; "conformity is special".

PDN

bluewolf wrote: »

What a snide thing for you to say

And what an asinine thing for you to say.

I simply made the point that marriage existed before Christianity, and that often that marriage existed in forms that most Christians today would feel most uncomfortable with. Therefore it would be foolish for us to claim that Christianity somehow 'owns' marriage, or that marriage in society in general must conform to Christian views and values.

I know that there are visitors to this Forum who seem to specialise in getting offended at every possible opportunity, but I am genuinely flabbergasted than anyone would see my statement of historical fact as snide.

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

Did those soulless affairs take anything away from your marriage?

Not at all, and, once again, I would be amazed if anyone could genuinely think I was claiming such a thing. :rolleyes:

I would, however, see merit in Christians dumping the term 'marriage' and inventing a new word to describe a religious ceremony where a man and a woman pledge their love for a lifetime and then subsequently consummate that relationship sexually.

Morag

Plenty of christian marriages to child brides happened as well, it's only in the last 100 years or so it's stopped.

Penn

In a way, I think marriage is being bastardised. Celebrities getting married so they can make a reality show out of it. Girls who grow up wanting to marry a footballer or an actor just so they can live a life of luxury. Politicians and celebrities cheating on their partners due to the power their fame and fortune gives them.

And yet, all these people can get married pretty much whenever they want, however many times they want. But homosexual couples can't?

The legal definition of marriage should be changed. Replace 'man and woman' with 'any two people with some common sense'.

wolfsbane

Just to point out that marriage existed at the very beginning of mankind - Eve given to Adam by God. The first man and wife. Same God then as now.

********************************************************************
Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Morag

If you are a literalist and that is what you believe then I can respect that but I disagree with you, as there are plenty of examples of other people in the bible who were not of adams and eves line and were not created by your god.

homer911

PDN wrote: »

I would, however, see merit in Christians dumping the term 'marriage' and inventing a new word to describe a religious ceremony where a man and a woman pledge their love for a lifetime and then subsequently consummate that relationship sexually.

It seems the most obvious solution, but we will then go round in circles with that new term being devalued through people being "married" in Christian churches without having a personal faith - where would it stop and how would you draw the line? We see gay priests marrying gay couples in church! Recently I looked up an old (anglican) primary school friend to discover he was now a Catholic Bishop, in a public relationship with another Catholic Bishop!! (not in Ireland!)

wolfsbane

Sharrow wrote: »

If you are a literalist and that is what you believe then I can respect that but I disagree with you, as there are plenty of examples of other people in the bible who were not of adams and eves line and were not created by your god.

News to me! Care to point them out?

**********************************************************************
Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote: »

News to me! Care to point them out?

**********************************************************************
Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Not for here!!

Doc Farrell

What a strange and disappointingly negative thread title.
There was a time when marriage was little more than a property arrangement when the wife was there to provide a male heir and then get out of the way.
Even on this island in recent times young women would marry a man in his fifties because only then was he inheriting the farm. And they would proceed to live unhappily ever after.
Now, people in the developed world have a choice to marry for love, company, friendship and affection.
I'm glad none of you remember the Ireland of the squinting windows, it was a ****ty place to try to live in.
Another thread that has something negative to say about homosexual relationships, is this really the great Christian Adventure of the 21st century? How boring.

JimiTime

Doc Farrell wrote: »

What a strange and disappointingly negative thread title.
There was a time when marriage was little more than a property arrangement when the wife was there to provide a male heir and then get out of the way.
Even on this island in recent times young women would marry a man in his fifties because only then was he inheriting the farm. And they would proceed to live unhappily ever after.
Now, people in the developed world have a choice to marry for love, company, friendship and affection.
I'm glad none of you remember the Ireland of the squinting windows, it was a ****ty place to try to live in.
Another thread that has something negative to say about homosexual relationships, is this really the great Christian Adventure of the 21st century? How boring.

Do you know what the great thing about threads are? You can decide not to read them. Wow, technology ey;) You've already stupendously misrepresented me on another thread, and here you go again. It would probably be better for both of us, if you just ignored me. You'd save yourself the disappointment, and save me from having to correct your stupendous misrepresentations. Of course, you would be welcome to give input relating to what the thread actually asks. To refresh your memory, this is what the thread is ACTUALLY about:

1) What is marriage to a Christian, and what did Jesus actually mean when he said 'Two become one flesh'?


2) Is the marriage we have today recognisable from the institute set-up by God? If not, what is it that we are fighting to save from being re-defined?

3) We often hear it said, that allowing gay marriage for instance, will undermine marriage. What does this actually mean? And if marriage is re-defined etc, what do you see the consequence being for the future?

homer911

For those who have an opinion on this topic, its potentially very interesting one which I am sure we will hear a lot more in the media about in the coming year - I think I heard something about a forthcoming referendum?

Personally I can see the historical concept of marriage and how it has been used and abused over the centuries. Will gay marriage make this worse? A lot of people seem to think so..

Will gay marriage be allowed in Ireland in the future? Probably!

Will some Christians feel their own marriage is devalued by this? Probably!

Will they get over this? More than likely!

Will gay marriage go the way of so many heterosexual marriages with divorce, legal partnerships? More than likely!

Do I have an issue with gay marriage? Yes, but I'll probably get over it. The world is far from perfect.

Can I articulate my objectons? Yes, but probably in no way that hasn't been said a million times already

JimiTime

homer911 wrote: »

For those who have an opinion on this topic, its potentially very interesting one which I am sure we will hear a lot more in the media about in the coming year - I think I heard something about a forthcoming referendum?

Well thats it. Its very current, especially in the US and UK. Its not going to be long before its here.

Personally I can see the historical concept of marriage and how it has been used and abused over the centuries. Will gay marriage make this worse? A lot of people seem to think so..

The question is, what is it actually going to do?

Will some Christians feel their own marriage is devalued by this? Probably!

Now, I've heard this said a lot, but what does it actually mean? Genuine question. I know I wont feel any different about my marriage, and am confused as to why anyone would feel that THEIR marriage has been devalued? When someone else signs a pre-nup or gets divorced due to some trivial matter, I don't feel ANY different about MY marriage. So whats the deal?

Do I have an issue with gay marriage? Yes, but I'll probably get over it. The world is far from perfect.

Thats the pertinent question. Why is it that we'd fight against the re-definition? From a Christian perspective, is marriage not already unrecognisable from what we'd consider the Christian standard?

Can I articulate my objectons? Yes, but probably in no way that hasn't been said a million times already

I'd like to hear your objections:) With particular emphasis on tangeable problems that we will face in the future. 'Its wrong', obviously doesn't count, as the world does what the world does. Is there tangeable risks for us or our children in the future? If not, then why bother objecting. If there are, then what do you reckon they are?

prinz

I think marriage is cheapened more and more. Primarily by heterosexual couples drowning in stupidity, selfishness and rose-tinted glasses. It means very little on a wider scale these days tbh. Married to your 'one true love' on a Monday, irreconcilable differences by Tuesday, divorced by Wednesday, engaged to your next 'this is the one' by Thursday, married again by Friday and so on. If you look at TV programming aimed at the say 15-30 year old market how many happily (and faithfully) married couples (on the first marriage) are represented?

I think Penn's earlier reference to common sense is the key point to this.

Zombrex

seamus wrote: »

My puzzlement is exactly the reverse tbh. Christians have long lauded marriage as being unique, special, exclusive. Yet the entire process was rendered bland by set rituals, set vows and a very strict structure which the ceremony and resultant marriage had to conform to. A church wedding was for a long time completely cleansed of any distinctiveness.

It's only in recent years as individual marriage ceremonies have become increasingly personalised, unique and special that the christian churches have inexplicably risen up and decried the "loss" of the specialness of marriage. It's almost like doublethink; "conformity is special".

Agreed, I've never witness something so completely devoid of personality, romance or uniqueness as a Catholic wedding. It literally felt like the entire process was run off a script with "insert brides name here" filled in. Also the entire ceremony is based around the Church and God and their acceptance of the wedding, with the unique commitment of the couple a distant second.

I appreciate that PDN is not Catholic, so maybe he is used to much more personalized Christian weddings, but the idea that the modernization and secularization of marriage has deluded its specialness is a concept I find very odd. I've seen more personality in a 20 minute registry wedding with 6 people than in an hour long Catholic ceremony in a church full of people.

Liamario

Marriage has been cheapened, but only by divorce being so easy in some countries. I don't think it's going to change either.
I don't like the implication that theists own marriage and that it doesn't count unless it's done under the eyes of "God".

Zombrex

homer911 wrote: »

It seems the most obvious solution, but we will then go round in circles with that new term being devalued through people being "married" in Christian churches without having a personal faith - where would it stop and how would you draw the line? We see gay priests marrying gay couples in church! Recently I looked up an old (anglican) primary school friend to discover he was now a Catholic Bishop, in a public relationship with another Catholic Bishop!! (not in Ireland!)

Marriage is not a Christian term, it is far more wide spread and vague than that.

Commonly if one wanted to clarify a particular type of marriage the simple use of a qualifier before the term marriage is used.

For example someone might say they have an traditional Indian marriage, clarifying the type of marriage in more detail. What that actually means will of course be contextual, but at least doesn't give any impression that this couple has a typical western Christian marriage.

I don't think you guys need a new word at all. I think you just need to get use to saying Christian marriage, rather than simply assuming that "marriage" alone refers to a Christian marriage. After all that was probably never a particularly sound assumption to make in the first place.

johnners2981

PDN wrote: »

we had refrained from sexual intercourse and saw our wedding night as something special to be greatly anticipated

Don't understand people who do this at all. Is it to make marriage more desirable?
And I can imagine that special night being over quickly due to anticipation:D

tommy2bad

JimiTime wrote: »

, this is what the thread is ACTUALLY about:

1) What is marriage to a Christian, and what did Jesus actually mean when he said 'Two become one flesh'?


2) Is the marriage we have today recognisable from the institute set-up by God? If not, what is it that we are fighting to save from being re-defined?

3) We often hear it said, that allowing gay marriage for instance, will undermine marriage. What does this actually mean? And if marriage is re-defined etc, what do you see the consequence being for the future?

1, A commitment made before God. What did Jesus mean? it could be the sex act He was referring to or it could be the direction their life would go in. He could mean that one becomes as important to the other as they are to themselves.
2 No, God set up no institute. Man did and it changed as we changed.
I'm not fighting to save anything.
3 We hear it said by conservatives who divorce, commit adultery, and all sorts of things. What they mean is they are uncomfortable with De Gayz, nothing more.
Consequences? None. well get on with it. Might be a small push for polygamous marriage to be legally recognized but I don't think that will take off. Probably polygamy will become more socially accepted like homosexuality was but again well deal with it.
Marriage is just the legal formation of a family. It also has a social aspect of validating and celebrating the love of two people. If those people want to take a religious vow at the same time thats their business. The state has no business forcing the religious aspect or obligation on them.

Zombrex

johnners2981 wrote: »

Don't understand people who do this at all. Is it to make marriage more desirable?
And I can imagine that special night being over quickly due to anticipation:D

I'm guessing Christians do it because the Bible says that fornication is sinful.

JimiTime

tommy2bad wrote: »

1, A commitment made before God. What did Jesus mean? it could be the sex act He was referring to or it could be the direction their life would go in. He could mean that one becomes as important to the other as they are to themselves.

Firstly, thanks for taking a shot at all the questions.
Indeed, it could be all of the above.

2 No, God set up no institute.

Not according to Jesus:

“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Man did and it changed as we changed.

According to Jesus, God did, but man changed it. Moses granting divorce, according to Jesus, because of our "hard heartedness".

3 We hear it said by conservatives who divorce, commit adultery, and all sorts of things. What they mean is they are uncomfortable with De Gayz, nothing more.

Well thats what the question is to provoke. Many Christians are fighting to save the definition of marriage, I'm asking for what reason.

Consequences? None. well get on with it. Might be a small push for polygamous marriage to be legally recognized but I don't think that will take off. Probably polygamy will become more socially accepted like homosexuality was but again well deal with it.
Marriage is just the legal formation of a family. It also has a social aspect of validating and celebrating the love of two people. If those people want to take a religious vow at the same time thats their business. The state has no business forcing the religious aspect or obligation on them.

Do you think society will in any way be negatively affected by marriage being nothing more than a contract between two parties?

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

Marriage is not a Christian term, it is far more wide spread and vague than that.

Commonly if one wanted to clarify a particular type of marriage the simple use of a qualifier before the term marriage is used.

For example someone might say they have an traditional Indian marriage, clarifying the type of marriage in more detail. What that actually means will of course be contextual, but at least doesn't give any impression that this couple has a typical western Christian marriage.

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about a 'wedding', but rather a 'marriage'. It seems some have been talking about weddings (Not sure if thats what you are talking about).

Anyway, I don't think the term marriage is at all vague in the west. Whether you think its wrong or right, its always understood to be One man and one woman married to each other exclusively.

I don't think you guys need a new word at all. I think you just need to get use to saying Christian marriage, rather than simply assuming that "marriage" alone refers to a Christian marriage. After all that was probably never a particularly sound assumption to make in the first place.

Thats what I'm asking. Do the objectors to the re-definition believe that there are tangeable consequences?

tommy2bad

Do the objectors to the re-definition believe that there are tangeable consequences?

Well thats the thing, some do, just like they thought their would be tangible consequences if divorce was allowed. Some don't even get as far as consequences, they baulk at change, full stop.
What exactly is a Christian marriage? Is it the same as the legal contract that we call marriage? What is the purpose of Christian marriage and is it the same purpose as civil marriage?
Is their a socialital benefit to limiting marriage or is it just a theological thing?
If we say that marriage is restricted to one man and one woman what reason do we give other that God set it up that way?
Someone already posted that it was a property deal originally.
What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.
But what of what man joined?

I really think the opposition to gay marriage is based on fear of change and homophobia of one kind or another.

PDN

johnners2981 wrote: »

Don't understand people who do this at all. Is it to make marriage more desirable?

No, it stems from a belief that sexual intercourse is an incredible gift from God that is best enjoyed in its proper setting (marriage).

And I can imagine that special night being over quickly due to anticipation:D

While I sympathise with your lack of stamina, I remember my wedding night as being long and enjoyable.

johnners2981

PDN wrote: »

No, it stems from a belief that sexual intercourse is an incredible gift from God that is best enjoyed in its proper setting (marriage).

While I sympathise with your lack of stamina, I remember my wedding night as being long and enjoyable.

What's this, a mod making negative personal remarks about a poster? But let me alleviate you of that worry, I have no problems in that regard.

Sexual intercourse was happening a long time before marriage so it seems a bit foolish to believe that marriage is it's proper setting.

Good for you but I'm sure most people would agree that it gets better with experience so the first night is very rarely the most enjoyable which could lead to some expectations not being met.

As you can probably tell I do not agree with waiting until marriage and if the only reason people wait is because they think it's the 'proper setting' I doubt I'll be convinced otherwise

tommy2bad

johnners2981 wrote: »

What's this, a mod making negative personal remarks about a poster? But let me alleviate you of that worry, I have no problems in that regard.

Sexual intercourse was happening a long time before marriage so it seems a bit foolish to believe that marriage is it's proper setting.
Was it? shocked I tell you!!
Good for you but I'm sure most people would agree that it gets better with experience so the first night is very rarely the most enjoyable which could lead to some expectations not being met.
Depends on what you were expecting
As you can probably tell I do not agree with waiting until marriage and if the only reason people wait is because they think it's the 'proper setting' I doubt I'll be convinced otherwise

Yeah but the definition of marriage is so vague hat any sex between two people who love each other could be the proper setting.
I'm kinda with PDN here, sex is best in the confines of a loving committed relationship. but best isn't always the only option. Steak at home never stopped a hungry man from eating a burger. he might regret the burger when his appetite for the steak is ruined tho.

johnners2981

tommy2bad wrote: »

sex is best in the confines of a loving committed relationship.

But you don't have to be married to be in a loving committed relationship so why wait?

tommy2bad

johnners2981 wrote: »

But you don't have to be married to be in a loving committed relationship so why wait?

Some would argue that a loving commitment relationship is marriage.
Remember in the terms of Christian marriage the couple marries each other, the priest blesses the marriage and the congregation witness it.
Traditionally in the order, blessing, witnessing, marring then sex, but not necessarily in that order. For a long time priests were scarce and would call to a place annually. Blessing any unions that happened in the preceding 12 months. Needs must and all.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about a 'wedding', but rather a 'marriage'. It seems some have been talking about weddings (Not sure if thats what you are talking about).

Anyway, I don't think the term marriage is at all vague in the west. Whether you think its wrong or right, its always understood to be One man and one woman married to each other exclusively.

Well that again is sort of my point, that statement itself required a qualifier of "in the west".

You might say that a couple has a western style marriage, to differentiate between say an Afgan farmer married to 16 wives.

Such marriages have existed for centuries and perhaps I'm wrong but I don't think many people would be saying that we need a new word to describe the farmer's relationship with his wives because it breaks the one man one woman tradition common of western marriages.

In fact you could argue that western homosexual marriages are in fact far closer to the traditional notion of a western marriage because they keep the notion of a commitment between two people, it is simply two people of the same sex. But the foundational principles of the marriage, commitment to each other, commitment to respect the relationship and not to share themselves with someone else etc etc are far similar to a western heterosexual marriage than say to a polygamous Asian marriage.

Marriage is already a vague term that is stretch to fit around a number of instances far removed from a traditional Christian marriage, so i really can't see what the big deal is with calling a homosexual commitment a "marriage"* If people want to qualify it by saying a non-Christian marriage they can but that of course would also include a heck of a lot of heterosexual marriages as well.

*I appreciate you are just asking what is the big deal, not asserting that it is a big deal.

Zombrex

johnners2981 wrote: »

As you can probably tell I do not agree with waiting until marriage and if the only reason people wait is because they think it's the 'proper setting' I doubt I'll be convinced otherwise

Are you a Christian who follows the Bible's teachings on sin?

If not then I'm guessing you wouldn't be convinced by any Christian teachings on sin, let alone the Christian teaching on fornication. It seems a bit odd to come onto the Christian forum to ponder why Christians do Christian things but have little awareness of Biblical teaching in this regard.

as125634do

badge of honour to display ur not a slut. come back 15 20 yar later and magic theyre single onto another one. dont start on discrete prostitutes used by married men all over the world. or the odd marriage that stays together will have plenty of external stimulus(mostly wars/violence shock) to bond them as partners for life

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Someone is home early from the pub tonight :P

PDN

johnners2981 wrote: »

But you don't have to be married to be in a loving committed relationship so why wait?

If you aren't married, then how 'committed' is it? Committed as in "I'll stick with you until I feel differently"?

There can be something very special indeed when two people agree that their first acts of sexual intimacy will follow immediately after the point where they have pledged, in front of God,family, friends and witnesses, to love and honour each other for life.

Think about that. No worrying about, "Will he/she still feel the same way about this relationship tomorrow?" No wondering, "If I don't perform well enough then will this happen again?" Just two people who love each other, are committed to each other, are secure in each other, and who are looking forward to a lifetime of exploring each other's bodies and learning how to give pleasure to one another.

johnners2981

Zombrex wrote: »

Are you a Christian who follows the Bible's teachings on sin?

If not then I'm guessing you wouldn't be convinced by any Christian teachings on sin, let alone the Christian teaching on fornication. It seems a bit odd to come onto the Christian forum to ponder why Christians do Christian things but have little awareness of Biblical teaching in this regard.

There are plenty of christians in the atheist forum so why not vice versa?

PDN wrote: »

If you aren't married, then how 'committed' is it? Committed as in "I'll stick with you until I feel differently"?

There can be something very special indeed when two people agree that their first acts of sexual intimacy will follow immediately after the point where they have pledged, in front of God,family, friends and witnesses, to love and honour each other for life.

Think about that. No worrying about, "Will he/she still feel the same way about this relationship tomorrow?" No wondering, "If I don't perform well enough then will this happen again?" Just two people who love each other, are committed to each other, are secure in each other, and who are looking forward to a lifetime of exploring each other's bodies and learning how to give pleasure to one another.

If you're in a loving relationship you're not thinking "I'll stick with you until I feel differently" or worrying "Will he/she still feel the same way about this relationship tomorrow?"
Everything you stated above can happen in any relationship, married or not.

Zombrex

johnners2981 wrote: »

There are plenty of christians in the atheist forum so why not vice versa?

There is no issue with non-Christians being in this forum, I myself am an atheist.

But I'm struggling to see the point of simply informing people that you are not convinced by Christian teaching and you don't see why people should follow it.

Great, but what do you want the Christians to do about it?

tommy2bad

PDN;
Just two people who love each other, are committed to each other, are secure in each other, and who are looking forward to a lifetime of exploring each other's bodies and learning how to give pleasure to one another.

Pay the morgage, put up with inlaws, take out the bins, do the laundry.....
Marriage is more than sex. Sex is an important part of it, it leads to children. Probably why we hold marriage to be so important.
But it not all of the story and we don't just celebrate another breeding couple. Theirs an element of validation by your tribe of the love the couple feel and an element of publicly claiming status in that tribe. Are thees elements not as important as the reproductive element, should the right to claim that status be exclusive to the ones who can reproduce or should we as Christians not recognize and celebrate love, more importantly should we not offer support to the ideal of a love based, committed relationship without any expectation of it providing more souls for God?

HamletOrHecuba

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/new_age_philosophy.htm

We should dwell on what those who went before us thought.

"... since lawful intercourse must be accompanied by bodily desire, it is fitting to refrain from entering a holy place [immediately after], since this desire itself is not blameless. For David, who said: behold, I was shapened in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me, was not himself born of any illicit union, but in lawful wedlock. But knowing himself to have been conceived in iniquity, he grieved that he had been born in sin, like a tree bearing in its branches the sap of evil drawn up from its root. In saying this, he does not term the bodily union of married people iniquity, but the desire of such union.

... when lust takes the place of desire for children, the mere act of union becomes something that the pair have cause to regret; ... this carries a warning with it. For when the Apostle Paul said, If they cannot contain themselves, let them marry, he at once added, I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. This concession makes it lawful, yet not good; so when he spoke of permission, he indicated that it was not blameless." (Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, London: Penguin Books, 1990, pp. 85-86)

tommy2bad

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/new_age_philosophy.htm

We should dwell on what those who went before us thought.

"... since lawful intercourse must be accompanied by bodily desire, it is fitting to refrain from entering a holy place [immediately after], since this desire itself is not blameless. For David, who said: behold, I was shapened in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me, was not himself born of any illicit union, but in lawful wedlock. But knowing himself to have been conceived in iniquity, he grieved that he had been born in sin, like a tree bearing in its branches the sap of evil drawn up from its root. In saying this, he does not term the bodily union of married people iniquity, but the desire of such union.

... when lust takes the place of desire for children, the mere act of union becomes something that the pair have cause to regret; ... this carries a warning with it. For when the Apostle Paul said, If they cannot contain themselves, let them marry, he at once added, I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. This concession makes it lawful, yet not good; so when he spoke of permission, he indicated that it was not blameless." (Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, London: Penguin Books, 1990, pp. 85-86)

You have to laugh.

SonOfAdam

@HamletOrHecuba - You should see what God has to say about sex within the context of marriage and how good it is - not sinful or dirty or unholy -


Gen1:28 to be fruitful
Gen2:24 for oneness, intimacy
2 Sam12:24 for comfort
Song of Songs for pleasure
1 Cor 7:3-5 for protection of relationship

jeeez even the church don't get it (well, some of it ).

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

Well that again is sort of my point, that statement itself required a qualifier of "in the west".

The point is, that it is by no means vague, or misunderstood in western culture which is what is relevant to us. The reason why I said 'In the west', is just to prevent someone saying, 'Well theres this tribe in the amazon that marry fish' or something.

*I appreciate you are just asking what is the big deal, not asserting that it is a big deal.

And I appreciate you get that:)