Who owns Marriage?

[Yoshi]

So the question is... Who owns Marriage - Church or State? It kinda seems to have come up in a few threads, and I thought i'd create a thread to discuss it...

The separation between Church and State is universal, and marriage, at least in my view, has become nothing more than a way for the Government and a number of businesses to make a putload of money...

Anyway, share your views..

H.

[Jesuslove]

So the question is... Who owns Marriage - Church or State? It kinda seems to have come up in a few threads, and I thought i'd create a thread to discuss it...

The separation between Church and State is universal, and marriage, at least in my view, has become nothing more than a way for the Government and a number of businesses to make a putload of money...

Anyway, share your views..

H.

I believe any church should have the right to marry whomever they want. Religious marriage is just that: a symbol of religious recognition for a relationship. That will always be and never change. Beyond that, I feel that two non-related adults with sound mind, should have the same opportunities, or rights to marry and receive the same benefits as those who get married in a religious setting. I believe civil marriage should exist.

Those that argue that marriage is a religious institution for the purpose of procreation, I say:
- not all people who marry are religious.
- not all people who marry want, or are capable of having children.

It is unclear whether or not those who drafted the Constitution would have envisioned gay marriage, but it was certainly the intention of those who drafted the Constitution that all men (and women) be treated equal.

I have often argued if marriage is so sacred, why not ban divorce. As I've said previously, Jesus was much more vocal about divorce than gay marriage, yet banning divorce in America, even in the most religious Bible Belt states, would never fly. I don't necessarily believe in banning divorce, but I do believe in everyone being treated equal. To me, that is God's intention whether or not we agree wth someone's lifestyle.

Finally I will share a personal story. I have a close friend at work who happens to be a lesbian. She is a churchgoing upstanding Christian. She has been partnered for close than 20 years. My quasi-government empolyer offers domestic partner benefits. My coworker's partner is sickly and unable to work. She has no private health insurance. My coworker opts to get healthcare for her partner through work. Because the federal government doesn't recognize their relationship, she has to pay income tax on the full benefit offered by our empolyer. She pays about $4,000 more in tax to get health benefits for her partner then any heterosexual married couple. Like I said, she's been partnered for nearly 20 years, yet someone that gets married after knowing their spouse for 1 week, is eligible for health benefits at a much cheaper rate. It seems unfair to me.

I think this is a good debate to have, and I hope it will be conducted in a civil, respectful way as should all threads on this board.

[in hiding]

i think religion "owns" marriage, b/c the foundation for it is in the bible. I think the state owns civil unions and the legal ramifications (insurance, taxes, etc..) of being married or legally devoted.

[clemsontigers23]

I believe any church should have the right to marry whomever they want. Religious marriage is just that: a symbol of religious recognition for a relationship. That will always be and never change. Beyond that, I feel that two non-related adults with sound mind, should have the same opportunities, or rights to marry and receive the same benefits as those who get married in a religious setting. I believe civil marriage should exist.

Those that argue that marriage is a religious institution for the purpose of procreation, I say:
- not all people who marry are religious.
- not all people who marry want, or are capable of having children.

It is unclear whether or not those who drafted the Constitution would have envisioned gay marriage, but it was certainly the intention of those who drafted the Constitution that all men (and women) be treated equal.

I have often argued if marriage is so sacred, why not ban divorce. As I've said previously, Jesus was much more vocal about divorce than gay marriage, yet banning divorce in America, even in the most religious Bible Belt states, would never fly. I don't necessarily believe in banning divorce, but I do believe in everyone being treated equal. To me, that is God's intention whether or not we agree wth someone's lifestyle.

Finally I will share a personal story. I have a close friend at work who happens to be a lesbian. She is a churchgoing upstanding Christian. She has been partnered for close than 20 years. My quasi-government empolyer offers domestic partner benefits. My coworker's partner is sickly and unable to work. She has no private health insurance. My coworker opts to get healthcare for her partner through work. Because the federal government doesn't recognize their relationship, she has to pay income tax on the full benefit offered by our empolyer. She pays about $4,000 more in tax to get health benefits for her partner then any heterosexual married couple. Like I said, she's been partnered for nearly 20 years, yet someone that gets married after knowing their spouse for 1 week, is eligible for health benefits at a much cheaper rate. It seems unfair to me.

I think this is a good debate to have, and I hope it will be conducted in a civil, respectful way as should all threads on this board.

A lesbian who is an upstanding Christian. Right. That's like saying a child molestor who is an upstanding Christian and churchgoer, or a serial killer. Homosexuality is a sin, and God made marriage sacred between a man and a woman. Why should people who are sinning get rewarded for that sin with the same benefits that people who are doing it the right way get? That makes no sense.

Homosexuality is a sin. It's clear that it's a sin. If you make it legal, then you're telling young people that it's okay and you'll start to see more people fall into it and away from God. I've seen it myself. And you're saying legalize it? Sorry bro, but that's completely ridiculous.

[Sam!]

Personal stories like yours certainly remind us that it's not just issues or theology we're talking about, but real people. Real people, with legitimate feelings and struggles and pain and sorrow.

But things that are truly Right and Just do not always meet our standards of "fairness." We all know someone who's a good person, never hurts anybody, never breaks the law, is kind to strangers. And who doesn't know the Lord. And whose eternal life is in jeopardy, because of it. You can claim that's not fair - but that depends on the standard.

Yoshi: the answer isn't clear. The separation of church and state isn't universal, as you suggest, and that has muddied the waters. While marriage ceremonies and guidelines were not very prominent in written Jewish law, there was no segregation of the religious and secular. Family traditions were tightly integrated with spiritual and religious ones. For a long time, though, the church did not have any real authority in the area of marriage - after a time when a clearer separation of the church and state had risen.

I'm not sure there's a right or wrong answer here.

[VerbumReale]

As I've said previously, Jesus was much more vocal about divorce than gay marriage, yet banning divorce in America, even in the most religious Bible Belt states, would never fly.


And as I pointed out to you in another thread the notion that Jesus not mentioning a certain behavior by name somehow implies tacit approval does not hold water. Simply because Jesus may have never actually mentioned gay-marriage doesn't mean He never addressed it. He absolutely addressed it.

Matthew 19
19:4
He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
19:5
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'?
19:6
So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

Mark 10
10:6
But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'
10:7
'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
10:8
and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.

Notice in both passages Jesus uses marriage language (man leaving his mother and father and being joined to his wife). Clealry Jesus is concerned about every aspect of marriage. He clearly has a standard for marriage and it is the standard that was set clear back in creation of one man and one woman.

By this one could argue that any time marriage is brought up in scripture, any standard that violates the biblically ordained standard is being addressed. Gay-marriage is one way that standard is violated. I would even argue that any time adultery is addressed, gay marriage is at least being indirectly addressed.

Now clearly in our culture there are two lenses through which we look at marriage; civil and religious. I could see your point that with civil-marriages, theoretically gay-marriages should be allowed. And I am opposed to a federal amendment that would ban gay-marriage. However I do have trouble with the use of the word marriage. I have no problem with homosexual civil-unions nor do I have a problem with people in civil unions receiving the same benefits as married people. But the reality is that marriage is a word and concept derived from religious and biblical roots.

Regardless, we certainly shouldn't pretend that for those of us who confess Christ as their Savior, that there is no biblically ordained standard for marriage. There most certainly is, and the fact that we as a church have dropped the ball on divorce is no excuse to ignore that.

[Jesuslove]

A lesbian who is an upstanding Christian. Right. That's like saying a child molestor who is an upstanding Christian and churchgoer, or a serial killer. Homosexuality is a sin, and God made marriage sacred between a man and a woman. Why should people who are sinning get rewarded for that sin with the same benefits that people who are doing it the right way get? That makes no sense.

Homosexuality is a sin. It's clear that it's a sin. If you make it legal, then you're telling young people that it's okay and you'll start to see more people fall into it and away from God. I've seen it myself. And you're saying legalize it? Sorry bro, but that's completely ridiculous.

That's like saying all divorced people go to hell, unless their spouse cheated on him. Those that judge the world in absolutes, will themselves be judged in absolutes. Comparing homosexuality between two adults and child molestation is in itself insulting and unfair. And for you to summarily say homosexuals can't be Christian is offensive and wrong. We are all sinners. Like I said earlier, if the goal was to strengthen marriage, I think we should start by banning divorce; that would make people think very carefully before marrying. But that will never happen because most conservative Christians don't equate heterosexual sin to homosexual sin.

[Jesuslove]

- I'm not sure there's a right or wrong answer here.

I agree. I think there is some room for debate. Some Christian denominations recognize gay people as Christian and their partnerships as valid relationships. I find it difficult to judge other's relationships when I have never walked in another individual's shoes. I do know that God loves us all, and I believe universally, he wants us all treated with love, respect, and dignity. God wouldn't want some to be treated better than others, even if they professed a different faith. God loves us all.

Back to what Clemson said again, comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is insulting and unfair. Could any of you as individual people, imagine how hurt and insulted you would be if someone unfoundedly compared you to a child molester? That just seems unfair.

[Valpo]

I agree. I think there is some room for debate. Some Christian denominations recognize gay people as Christian and their partnerships as valid relationships. I find it difficult to judge other's relationships when I have never walked in another individual's shoes. I do know that God loves us all, and I believe universally, he wants us all treated with love, respect, and dignity. God wouldn't want some to be treated better than others, even if they professed a different faith. God loves us all.

Back to what Clemson said again, comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is insulting and unfair. Could any of you as individual people, imagine how hurt and insulted you would be if someone unfoundedly compared you to a child molester? That just seems unfair.

Civil marriages ought to exist, we do live in a world where many people are not Christians, so a civil marriage is something that ought to exist, there is a demand for it. However, that does not make homosexuality "okay." JL, I admire your love for the downtrodden, and even though our buddy Clemson came off a tad rough there he is essentially correct. Sin is sin is sin. The things I struggle with I do not find any better or worse than sins such as homosexuality. I have no doubt that gay people can be good parents, or even stay together for a long time, if not for life, but that does not validate the lifestyle. Mob bosses are big on family too, yet I do not condone the lifestyle of a mob boss. Now our experiences say there is nothing harmful about being gay and it certainly is absurd to compare it to a murderous thug mob boss. But in God's eyes, there are no differences. In civil society, based on keeping order in a society, we need to have laws and punishments for certain laws being broken. But according to God, a wonderful mother living in a committed relationship with a woman of the same sex is seen just like the rest of humans, as a sinner. Thank God she is a Christian, but is living in unrepentant sin at the same time, and that is not good.

Civilly, there is no problem with homosexuality, but civil society and human "feelings" ought not shape a theology, and that is what many wind up doing. The whole "experience theology" is exactly my problem with Liberation Theology as well, but that's another story.

[Yoshi]

Woah, can of worms... This was about marriage and who "owns" it... not Gay marraige, that's a whole different debate!

My question stems from the fact that there's a lot of pressure on young couples in this time of economic difficulty in a lot of countries, and the fact that parents no longer have the resources to pay for the children's weddings. I'm certain I'd be married by now, but for the cost..

If you go through the Old Testament, it's "they went into his mother's tent, and was married" (think Isaac and Rebekah). Then the world gets ahold of it in the New Testament and it's a party that lasts for a whole week and leaves the family extremely out of pocket and potentially embarrassed when the wine runs out (Jesus turning Water into Wine).

Is one married when you promise to commit the rest of your life to another person, or when you have a piece of paper from the Government to say so?

[pamcharlie]

God owns Marriage because he though of it and created it and for a christian man and woman to marry is according to the bible however lesbian and gay marriages are not of god since God created adam and eve not adam and steve and the church the body of christ should actual make a stand on marriage because very soon our marriage to our heavenly bridegroom will take place and as people of God we should study what God has to say about marriage .

[clemsontigers23]

That's like saying all divorced people go to hell, unless their spouse cheated on him. Those that judge the world in absolutes, will themselves be judged in absolutes. Comparing homosexuality between two adults and child molestation is in itself insulting and unfair. And for you to summarily say homosexuals can't be Christian is offensive and wrong. We are all sinners. Like I said earlier, if the goal was to strengthen marriage, I think we should start by banning divorce; that would make people think very carefully before marrying. But that will never happen because most conservative Christians don't equate heterosexual sin to homosexual sin.

We are all sinners, but we repent for those sins. A person who lives an openly homosexual lifestyle with no regrets and no repentance does not repent for their sin. Until they relinquish their homosexual lifestyle, they have not repented for they have not even made an effort to overcome it. That's why living as an openly homosexual Christian is a paradox. It's like a Christian Satanist. The two are openly opposed to each other, therefore it is impossible to be both. I never said homosexuals were as bad as child molestors, but as Valpo put it, sin is sin. You can't justify one sin by naming a worse sin. It's all disobedience and rebellion against God. Homosexuality is open rebellion against God and refused to reject the lifestyle when supposedly accepting Christ is like making war on the One who you supposedly accepted as the Ruler of your life.

As far as who owns marriage, God does. Our country's marriage values are based on the values given by Jesus Christ (so far, but that could change starting next year) and the reason divorce isn't illegal is because there are those occasions when it's necessary for the safety of the wife and children. I've been through that and it was entirely necessary in our situation.

[Gaudete]

When I was Catholic, I was taught by the Church that homosexuality itself is not a sin, but acting upon it is. How can it be a sin when you are what God made you to be? I truly don't think that homosexuality is a choice; I know that many of you will disagree. I don't think, however, that celibacy is realistic for any human being, except one who is asexual, maybe. Thus the paradox.

[Jesuslove]

But according to God, a wonderful mother living in a committed relationship with a woman of the same sex is seen just like the rest of humans, as a sinner. Thank God she is a Christian, but is living in unrepentant.

One could argue a divorced mother is more unrepentant than a homosexual mother. Jesus was very very clear about divorce. He wasn't as clear about sexuality. And the concept of sexuality from a scientific perspective has changed over the last 2000 years, whereas the concept of divorce has not changed. Therefore a divorced / remarried person is more of an unrepentant sinner. If a divorced/remarried person can live and call themselves Christian, how can you then say a homosexual is not? Look, I'm not one to judge divorced people, but I am also not one to judge a homosexual.

[Jason]

Let's please leave homosexuality out of this discussion.

Jason
Moderator

[Jesuslove]

We are all sinners, but we repent for those sins. A person who lives an openly homosexual lifestyle with no regrets and no repentance does not repent for their sin. Until they relinquish their homosexual lifestyle, they have not repented for they have not even made an effort to overcome it. That's why living as an openly homosexual Christian is a paradox. It's like a Christian Satanist. The two are openly opposed to each other, therefore it is impossible to be both. I never said homosexuals were as bad as child molestors, but as Valpo put it, sin is sin. You can't justify one sin by naming a worse sin. It's all disobedience and rebellion against God. Homosexuality is open rebellion against God and refused to reject the lifestyle when supposedly accepting Christ is like making war on the One who you supposedly accepted as the Ruler of your life.
So a divorced/remarried Christian is a paradox too, right?? A divorced/remarried person is unrepentant and living in sin according to the Bible. IT is very clear in Matthew 5: 31-32. I can't see how you can argue with the word of God.

As for sin, I do think some are worse than others. Murder is worse than stealing. Child molestation and rape is worse than a simple white lie. Although you say sin is sin, you surely wouldn't like your sin to be compared to that of a child molester. Your feelings would be more hurt if someone called to a child molester, than a liar.

[clemsontigers23]

So a divorced/remarried Christian is a paradox too, right?? A divorced/remarried person is unrepentant and living in sin according to the Bible. IT is very clear in Matthew 5: 31-32. I can't see how you can argue with the word of God.

As for sin, I do think some are worse than others. Murder is worse than stealing. Child molestation and rape is worse than a simple white lie. Although you say sin is sin, you surely wouldn't like your sin to be compared to that of a child molester. Your feelings would be more hurt if someone called to a child molester, than a liar.

Like I said before, I think an understanding and loving God doesn't consider divorce in life threatening situations to be a sin. He obviously had bigger plans for me and my mother.

[hochspeyer]

Before we put our God into a neat box, let's not forget He'll forgive most any sin. And, if we were to be honest, most (if not all of us) have recurrent, habitual sins. Only He knows our heart condition.

[Jesuslove]

Like I said before, I think an understanding and loving God doesn't consider divorce in life threatening situations to be a sin. He obviously had bigger plans for me and my mother.

I agree. God has no issue with divorce in some situations, but divorce and remarriage is clearly living in sin according to Jesus (via Matthew). It is more concrete than Jesus' view of homosexuality.

[Jesuslove]

Before we put our God into a neat box, let's not forget He'll forgive most any sin. And, if we were to be honest, most (if not all of us) have recurrent, habitual sins. Only He knows our heart condition.
Amen!

[hochspeyer]

I believe the only unforgiveable sin is blaspheming the Spirit.

I firmly believe homosexuality is a sin- it is condemned often in the Bible. I also believe defending it is a sin, because God condemns it. However, there is nothing special about it: it is no worse than inflating your resume, taking an extra tax write-off, or claiming personal expenses as business expenses on your taxes. We have GOT to get this straight (no pun intended.)

[Jason]

We're getting off-topic and I asked that homosexuality be left out of this discussion.

Jason
Moderator

[hochspeyer]

Sorry- but it is part and parcel of the marriage discussion these days. And, for what it is worth, I think that being gay does not necessarily preclude salvation.

[Jason]

Sorry- but it is part and parcel of the marriage discussion these days. And, for what it is worth, I think that being gay does not necessarily preclude salvation.

Yes, but it won't be part of the discussion here.

Jason
Moderator

[hochspeyer]

I'm not going to argue it any further.

[VerbumReale]

One could argue a divorced mother is more unrepentant than a homosexual mother. Jesus was very very clear about divorce. He wasn't as clear about sexuality. And the concept of sexuality from a scientific perspective has changed over the last 2000 years, whereas the concept of divorce has not changed. Therefore a divorced / remarried person is more of an unrepentant sinner. If a divorced/remarried person can live and call themselves Christian, how can you then say a homosexual is not? Look, I'm not one to judge divorced people, but I am also not one to judge a homosexual.


I have pointed out to you twice now only to be ignored that two Gospels have Jesus clearly laying out the standard for marriage as being between one man and one woman. Yes He is a addressing divorce but by setting one man and one woman as the only standard He is also addressing gay marriage, polygamy etc. or anything else that is in vilolation of that standard. You can deny it all you want but it is the truth. From creation on that has been the standard. I fully expect that you will just ignore this post like the other two where I pointed this out to you.

[VerbumReale]

When I was Catholic, I was taught by the Church that homosexuality itself is not a sin, but acting upon it is. How can it be a sin when you are what God made you to be? I truly don't think that homosexuality is a choice; I know that many of you will disagree. I don't think, however, that celibacy is realistic for any human being, except one who is asexual, maybe. Thus the paradox.

How about priests?? Gay or straight they're all celibate. And I can already anticipate you'll bring up the child-molestation cases, but that is a very small percentage and that problem exists among Protestant clergy also. Celibacy is hardly for everybody and personally I believe that the Catholic church should drop the celibacy vow for priests but the truth is there are people who choose a celibate lifestyle, some for their entire lives.

As far as whether someone being born with a certain orientation negates the possibility that giving in to that orientation is sinful, you can say that about anything. What if I found myself mutually attracted to a woman I work with and we had an affair? Should I tell my wife that it's OK because I was born attracted to other women??

[Gaudete]

"What if I found myself mutually attracted to a woman I work with and we had an affair?"

But you wouldn't act on it, would you? People are attracted to others all the time; it's human nature. But acting on it would be wrong. Hence the sin.

[VerbumReale]

Let's please leave homosexuality out of this discussion.

Jason
Moderator


With all due respect I Really don't see how we can discuss the topic of whether the church or state defines marriage without homosexuality entering into the discussion. I appreciate you trying to keep things civil, but I think the tone of this thread has remained civil.

If you're going to take homosexuality out of the discussion you may as well just delete the thread, as homosexuality is a core aspect of this discussion.

[Gaudete]

Oh, and one more thing: you say, "How about priests?? Gay or straight they're all celibate."

Be careful of blanket statements.

And for the record, even though I'm a former Catholic, I've not turned into a Catholic-basher. The Church was my spiritual home for many years, but my reasons for leaving are varied and have nothing to do with anything I've said here.

[Jason]

With all due respect I Really don't see how we can discuss the topic of whether the church or state defines marriage without homosexuality entering into the discussion. I appreciate you trying to keep things civil, but I think the tone of this thread has remained civil.

If you're going to take homosexuality out of the discussion you may as well just delete the thread, as homosexuality is a core aspect of this discussion.

The thread starter himself stated:

Woah, can of worms... This was about marriage and who "owns" it... not Gay marraige, that's a whole different debate!

[Valpo]

One could argue a divorced mother is more unrepentant than a homosexual mother. Jesus was very very clear about divorce. He wasn't as clear about sexuality. And the concept of sexuality from a scientific perspective has changed over the last 2000 years, whereas the concept of divorce has not changed. Therefore a divorced / remarried person is more of an unrepentant sinner. If a divorced/remarried person can live and call themselves Christian, how can you then say a homosexual is not? Look, I'm not one to judge divorced people, but I am also not one to judge a homosexual.

No no, there is no "more unrepentant." An unrepentant sinner is just that, an unrepentant sinner. There aren't any levels, because one sin has sentenced us to death. Nor am I judging anyone, but scripture is clear and I go by that, I don't allow my feelings to shape my theology.

[Jake]

No no, there is no "more unrepentant." An unrepentant sinner is just that, an unrepentant sinner. There aren't any levels, because one sin has sentenced us to death. Nor am I judging anyone, but scripture is clear and I go by that, I don't allow my feelings to shape my theology.

That's something we all struggle with, whether we admit it or not.

And Jason, I don't think the thread starter can exactly dictate what gets discussed in his/her thread, can they? Not being disrespectful, but conversations take various twists and turns.

[Jason]

And Jason, I don't think the thread starter can exactly dictate what gets discussed in his/her thread, can they? Not being disrespectful, but conversations take various twists and turns.

No, but the moderator can and has.

[VerbumReale]

"What if I found myself mutually attracted to a woman I work with and we had an affair?"

But you wouldn't act on it, would you? People are attracted to others all the time; it's human nature. But acting on it would be wrong. Hence the sin.

You asked "How can it be a sin when you are what God made you to be?" And then you said that you thought celibacy was not realistic for any human being. It seemed like you were suggesting that if someone was born with homosexual tendencies then we can't realisticaly expect them to resist those feelings. I say of course we can, the same we would with any other sinful tendecies.

[VerbumReale]

The thread starter himself stated:

It was not stated in the opening post. If a person is going to put the topic out there for discussion then people are going to react in ways that they think resonate with the topic and whoever puts the topic out there should realize that.

I realize that as a moderator you can determine what is appropriate for discussion on the threads. But again the thread has remained respectful. I appreciate your dilligence but I really think you are jumping the gun.

This thread is a tea-party compared to some in the Word section. Many of the threads in that forum are rife with insults and condescension and nothing is done. I don't even go that forum any more because I kow that I am just going to end up getting insulted. And yet here someone simply brings up homosexuality, as they should since it is integral to this discussion, and all of the sudden a line has been crossed. I am sorry but it makes no sense.

[Jesuslove]

It was not stated in the opening post. If a person is going to put the topic out there for discussion then people are going to react in ways that they think resonate with the topic and whoever puts the topic out there should realize that.

I realize that as a moderator you can determine what is appropriate for discussion on the threads. But again the thread has remained respectful. I appreciate your dilligence but I really think you are jumping the gun.

This thread is a tea-party compared to some in the Word section.

I agree. People are being respectful thus far. These topics, whether we talk about marriage or homosexuality are relevant, and current topics and are topics many Christians struggle with. As a Christian site talking about current topics, there should be little off limits. Surely if Jesus were here, these topics would be discussed.

[VerbumReale]

Oh, and one more thing: you say, "How about priests?? Gay or straight they're all celibate."

Be careful of blanket statements.

.


It's not a blanket-statement it's a fact. Are not all Catholic priests required to take a vow of celibacy??

[Jason]

As stated here:
http://www.thirdday.com/boards/announcement.php?f=20&a=184

The board administration has come to a conclusion regarding past and recent conversations on the subject of homosexuality. The following explains the boards position on the topic.

Topics concerning various sexual acts or preferences are not appropriate for a "family-friendly" website. In order to maintain an atmosphere on the boards that is family-friendly and appropriate for all readers, we will not allow specific discussions of sexuality, including homosexuality.

Scripture is quite clear that (1) sexual immorality (including homosexuality) is sin, and (2) Christianity is about us being transformed into Christ's image, with a result being that we are free from bondage to sin. There is nothing to be gained from arguments about these points; the Bible explicitly and definitively states the truth regarding the matter, and it would be denying the power of the gospel to say that people cannot be changed by God, or cannot be free from sin.

We are not sticking our heads in the sand, ignoring a topic that is prevalent in our society (and even in the church) today. We are simply saying that it is not appropriate to discuss things of a sexual nature on a website that children visit. We realize that with our culture's push for acceptance of certain forms of immorality, some topics may arise that are related to homosexuality. The root issue behind such topics, however, is not actually homosexuality, but how to handle situations that involve sexual immorality (or perhaps sin in general); homosexuality is merely a currently relevant application of the principles in question. These underlying issues may be discussed in general terms, so long as it is without reference to specific sexual acts or preferences, including homosexuality.

[VerbumReale]

That's something we all struggle with, whether we admit it or not.

And Jason, I don't think the thread starter can exactly dictate what gets discussed in his/her thread, can they? Not being disrespectful, but conversations take various twists and turns.

Not necessarily. When your theology begins with the cross and an understanding of yourself as a repentant and humble sinner at the foot of the cross then your theology will be based on the Gospel and the Gospel will rightly be seen as something that your Lord brings to you from outside of you (as opposed to from within you) and we are freed from our fear of calling a sin a sin and calling forgiveness forgiveness and we are then able to separate our feelings from our theology.

Unfortanately too much preaching and theology in contemporary Christianity are based in our feelings.

I found a quote from Bono that illustrates what it means to be able to separate our feelings from our theology. Here is the quote.

That the scriptures are brim full of hustlers, murderers, cowards, adulterers and mercenaries used to shock me; now it is a source of great comfort.

Anyway not trying to de-rail the thread, just wanted to point that out.

[Yoshi]

Turn my back for 2 seconds... and look what happens..

Thanks Jason, for recognising my intent and supporting it!

Is a Christian required to have the marriage recognised by the State for it to be biblical?

And... before this descends into chaos again... Remember this..

"And they shall know you are My disciples by your LOVE for one another"...

[Jesuslove]

As stated here:
http://www.thirdday.com/boards/announcement.php?f=20&a=184

The board administration has come to a conclusion regarding past and recent conversations on the subject of homosexuality. The following explains the boards position on the topic.

Topics concerning various sexual acts or preferences are not appropriate for a "family-friendly" website. In order to maintain an atmosphere on the boards that is family-friendly and appropriate for all readers, we will not allow specific discussions of sexuality, including homosexuality.

Scripture is quite clear that (1) sexual immorality (including homosexuality) is sin, and (2) Christianity is about us being transformed into Christ's image, with a result being that we are free from bondage to sin. There is nothing to be gained from arguments about these points; the Bible explicitly and definitively states the truth regarding the matter, and it would be denying the power of the gospel to say that people cannot be changed by God, or cannot be free from sin.

We are not sticking our heads in the sand, ignoring a topic that is prevalent in our society (and even in the church) today. We are simply saying that it is not appropriate to discuss things of a sexual nature on a website that children visit. We realize that with our culture's push for acceptance of certain forms of immorality, some topics may arise that are related to homosexuality. The root issue behind such topics, however, is not actually homosexuality, but how to handle situations that involve sexual immorality (or perhaps sin in general); homosexuality is merely a currently relevant application of the principles in question. These underlying issues may be discussed in general terms, so long as it is without reference to specific sexual acts or preferences, including homosexuality.

Just one question.... Divorce and remarriage, which would be Biblically considered (hetero)sexual sin.... is that appropriate for discussion?

[middletree]

"And they shall know you are My disciples by your LOVE for one another"...

Not sure why you included this. This thread has been respectful all the way through. Certainly not chaotic.

[Jesuslove]

Not sure why you included this. This thread has been respectful all the way through. Certainly not chaotic.

Yes, it has been respectful and it has not been a debate of sexual sin. It has been a debate on how we (individually) define marriage. There was no discussion of acts or inappropriate content. These discussions are healthy in my opinion. If Jesus were here today, he would be discussing this.

[Sam!]

I'm not sure I would say that as long as a wedding occurs in a religous context, then it's biblical. While nobody needed a wedding certificate to be married in ancient Israel, the marriages in the Bible did occur according to local/societal norms and conditions. I know that for the most part, no pastor or priest is going to marry two people who don't have a valid marriage license... so in this country it is a bit of a moot point. Churches tend to have HIGHER restrictions on marriage than the state, not fewer. There's generally no good reason why a marriage can't be both legal and recognized by the Church... with the one exception, perhaps, of the administrative cost. And I think most pastors would happily donate the cash to see two people married who couldn't afford the fee.

Basically, what I'm saying is that I'm not sure how useful of a debate it is realistically.

[middletree]

Basically, what I'm saying is that I'm not sure how useful of a debate it is realistically.

Useful? This thread has more substance than those millions of Loons threads.

[The Unknown Gomer]

Useful? This thread has more substance than those millions of Loons threads.

Forget about closing the thread down due to the discussion including the subject of homosexuality, now THEMS is fightin' words! Where's The Fuzz when you need him!?!

:P ;)

'Course I'd think that any of the regular Loons would be horrified to think that anyone actually thought that the Loon threads actually contained anything of any substance, anyway. :D

[Gaudete]

You asked "How can it be a sin when you are what God made you to be?" And then you said that you thought celibacy was not realistic for any human being. It seemed like you were suggesting that if someone was born with homosexual tendencies then we can't realisticaly expect them to resist those feelings. I say of course we can, the same we would with any other sinful tendecies.

I'm agreeing with you on that one, Verbum. Maybe I didn't put forth my thoughts well.

[Gaudete]

It's not a blanket-statement it's a fact. Are not all Catholic priests required to take a vow of celibacy??

Yes, they are. I'm simply saying that not all adhere to that vow. And that fact was verified to me by more than one priest. I wish they would do away with the celibacy requirement. There are alot of priests out there who are very unhappy and there is simply no need for that.

[Jesuslove]

Yes, they are. I'm simply saying that not all adhere to that vow. And that fact was verified to me by more than one priest. I wish they would do away with the celibacy requirement. There are alot of priests out there who are very unhappy and there is simply no need for that.

Not to get off subject on this thread, BUT I believe Catholic priests will never be allowed to marry simply because of economics. If priests had to live by the rules they preach: no use of birth control, and procreation, the Church would have to support many large families and would eventually go bankrupt.

[mat1583]

One of the reasons the state governments have laws concerning marriage is because of contractual issues. Marriage is basically a contract between two people that they promise not to break. If they do break it (in the case of divorce), civil marriage laws determine who gets the kids, the money, the truck, and the dog - unless there is a choice of law clause in contracts such as prenuptial agreements. In this case, the two parties can decide to let the law determine how things are split of if a divorce occurs or determine it themselves.

When people in the US get married, the official marrying the couple (be it a priest, pastor, friend, etc....) often acts as an agent of the state, certifying the civil marriage between the couple. A civil marriage must occur to validate the contract between the couple. The idea of a civil marriage in addition to a religious ceremony is not a new idea. The Marriage Ordinance of 1546 somewhat redefined a Christian marriage. It reflected John Calvin's view of marriage including, "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage )

To answer the question, in our society both the state and religion 'own' distinct parts of a marriage. The state dictates the legal, contractual side of marriage while religion dictates spiritual matters. In the Old Testament, this was not completely necessary since Jewish marriage laws took care of the civil aspect (legal, contractual). Jewish leaders could enforce this law. Now, the culture we live in cannot enforce the same laws itself - it requires the state to step in.

This is where the problem begins to occur. Although the two processes are distinct, religious conservatives do not recognize the two as separate. They see marriage as a completely religious matter and do not recognize the state's side of the marital agreement. The second problem occurs when the state started giving benefits to married couples. And what does all this lead to? Opposition to any kind of marriage by religious conservatives who believe the marriage is not scripturally acceptable. They believe that although civil marriage and religious ceremonies are distinct, you cannot have one without the other - and thus if it is scripturally unacceptable, the civil marriage should not legally occur. The separation of church and state is obviously not clear enough in marriage.

What's the solution to the problem? I'm not an expert, but I would suggest abolishing the income tax and you can abolish the tax benefits associated with a civil marriage. Require couples that are marrying to have two separate ceremonies - a civil marriage and a religious marriage, or only one of the two.

This may sound surprising to a few of you that have heard me say that I think the government should get completely out of marriages. This is before I really started to educate myself about the topic, so I apologize. After doing more research, I have concluded that it is necessary for the state to be involved regarding the civil and legal matters of marriage. If we were living in OT times, it would not be...but it is not so. I also now recognize the distinct parts of marriage. I still believe that the government should not give certain benefits to married couples since this creates an unequal rift between religious conservatives and scripturally unsupported marriages.

-washboard

[mat1583]

Not to get off subject on this thread, BUT I believe Catholic priests will never be allowed to marry simply because of economics. If priests had to live by the rules they preach: no use of birth control, and procreation, the Church would have to support many large families and would eventually go bankrupt.

heh, reminds me of a song from a particularly funny movie :)

-washboard

[VerbumReale]

Turn my back for 2 seconds... and look what happens..

Thanks Jason, for recognising my intent and supporting it!

Is a Christian required to have the marriage recognised by the State for it to be biblical?

And... before this descends into chaos again... Remember this..

"And they shall know you are My disciples by your LOVE for one another"...


Oh please, this is hardly chaos. The thread has remained civil. The only argument has been over whether or not homosexuality is integral to the discussion, which of course it is. If you want to see chaos check out a baptism-related thread. And whether you want to admit it or not homosexuality is inetgral to this discussion. Again if you're going to throw the topic out there you shouldn't act surprised when people bring perspectives to the discussion that you weren't expecting. I'll respect Jason's wishes and keep homosexuality out of it, but by doing that we are ignoring an essential element to this discussion.

[Sam!]

Useful? This thread has more substance than those millions of Loons threads.
Sorry. THe specific debate about whether a legal marriage is necessary in order to have a "biblical" or "God-approved" marriage may not be very fruitful because it doesn't have a whole heap of practical application. The rest of the debate may be informative.

[Sam!]

Good point. I don't buy the "this is a family message board" rationale. This has come up before, I didn't buy it then I don't buy it now. I am not questioning Jason's sincerity. I beleive he was just doing what he believed was right and appropriate.

I question the powers that be who established the rule in the first place and the rationale that they give. Personally I think it is more about political correctness, and I would respect them more if they just came out and said that.

Pulling the "trying to keep it wholesome" card doesn't work because the truth is there are many topics that come up for discussion that are just as, for lack of a better way to say it "offensive" as homosexual activity, where the discussion will go unchecked.
And the best way to bring your opinion to the mods is to do it by PM or email. Calling out their decisions in public is not the best way to get them to make a change in your favor.

[VerbumReale]

Is a Christian required to have the marriage recognised by the State for it to be biblical?




Biblical?? No. For a marriage to be biblical it has to pretty much fall in line with biblical standards of one man and one woman committing their lives to each other before God and remaining faithful to each other. Now when a couple does that, ie gets married in a church but doesn't go to all the legal rigamoro of getting a marriage license, they may not be married in the eyes of the state but I believe they are married in the eyes of God providing their committment falls in line with His standard.

I have heard of situations where later in life a widow and a widower meet and fall in love and decide they would like to get married. But, and I don't know all the details, but for some reason there are certain rules about taxes or social security or something like that would have meant that if they did get married legally then they would both lose money. But they still want to get married and so they do in the church. They just don't get it recognised by the state. Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

Now since we're apparently not allowed to bring up the topic that dare not speak it's name then that is pretty much what I have to say.

[VerbumReale]

And the best way to bring your opinion to the mods is to do it by PM or email. Calling out their decisions in public is not the best way to get them to make a change in your favor.


Fair enough I deleted the post.

[VerbumReale]

Please read my longer post. I think I chose a good way to "keep it wholesome". Instead of singling out homosexual marriages, how about any marriage which is not scripturally supported? Then the question becomes "should a couple be allowed to marry even if their marriage is not scripturally supported according to the religion that permeates their society?"

In this case our society is in the United States, permeated by Christianity. I say that, yes, they should be allowed to marry. An atheist or agnostic couple does not believe in the holy sanctity of marriage, yet they are allowed by the state to be married and have legal rights based upon that contract. Religious conservatives do not recognize the differences between a religious ceremony and civil ceremony. They believe that any marriage should be banned which is not scripturally supported - even though that a civil marriage has nothing to do with religion. There is no separation between church and state.

-washboard

The post was deleted.

[VerbumReale]

In this case our society is in the United States, permeated by Christianity. I say that, yes, they should be allowed to marry. An atheist or agnostic couple does not believe in the holy sanctity of marriage, yet they are allowed by the state to be married and have legal rights based upon that contract. Religious conservatives do not recognize the differences between a religious ceremony and civil ceremony. They believe that any marriage should be banned which is not scripturally supported - even though that a civil marriage has nothing to do with religion. There is no separation between church and state.

-washboard

Then it comes down to where do you believe marriage has it's origins? If you buy into the secular-humanist argument that marriage has social origins rather than biblical origins then your argument works.

However there is a problem with that argument. Here is a brief summary of the secular social origin argument.

“Some scholars are in inclined to trace the origin of marriage to pairing arrangements of animals below man. Studies reveal that a more or less permanent association between one or more males and one or more females is common among birds and higher mammals” (Locke, p. 311).

Please tell me you can see the problems with that. First of all there is the wording "one or more males" and "one or more females."

But regardless even if that summary was referring to monogomus social relationships, monogomous social relationships among men and women is what is referred from the first use of the word marriage, which is biblical. If you can prove otherwise then I'll buy into your argument. A marriage between a male and female atheist still applies because it still fits within the original standard of marriage of one man and one woman.

The reality is marriage is a religious ceremony. If someone truly were an atheist then theoretically they should have no interest in getting married. Yes we have turned it into a civil ceremony, but the relatiosnhips that such ceremonies honor still fit within the biblical standard of one man and one woman which is where marriage has it's roots.

I absolutely believe in separation of church and state and that is why I feel this way. We forget that separation of church and state works both ways. It is also meant to protect the church from the state.

I have no problem with civil-unions for social arrangements that fall outside of the biblical standard of marriage (wink wink) and could probably even live with a separate category of civil-marriages for those same situations. But let's not kid ourselves, any form of marriage other than the biblical standard of one man and one woman is a re-defining of it.

[Changed 4 Ever]

heh, reminds me of a song from a particularly funny movie :)

-washboard

LOL I wonder if its the same movie I thought of. Monty Python maybe?

[mat1583]

Then it comes down to where do you believe marriage has it's origins? If you buy into the secular-humanist argument that marriage has social origins rather than biblical origins then your argument works.

However there is a problem with that argument. Here is a brief summary of the secular social origin argument.

“Some scholars are in inclined to trace the origin of marriage to pairing arrangements of animals below man. Studies reveal that a more or less permanent association between one or more males and one or more females is common among birds and higher mammals” (Locke, p. 311).

Please tell me you can see the problems with that. First of all there is the wording "one or more males" and "one or more females."

But regardless even if that summary was referring to monogomus social relationships, monogomous social relationships among men and women is what is referred from the first use of the word marriage, which is biblical. If you can prove otherwise then I'll buy into your argument. A marriage between a male and female atheist still applies because it still fits within the original standard of marriage of one man and one woman.

The reality is marriage is a religious ceremony. If someone truly were an atheist then theoretically they should have no interest in getting married. Yes we have turned it into a civil ceremony, but the relatiosnhips that such ceremonies honor still fit within the biblical standard of one man and one woman which is where marriage has it's roots.

I absolutely believe in separation of church and state and that is why I feel this way. We forget that separation of church and state works both ways. It is also meant to protect the church from the state.

I have no problem with civil-unions for social arrangements that fall outside of the biblical standard of marriage (wink wink) and could probably even live with a separate category of civil-marriages for those same situations. But let's not kid ourselves, any form of marriage other than the biblical standard of one man and one woman is a re-defining of it.

Your argument still assumes that in our society a civil marriage and religious marriage are two in the same. It assumes that the one marriage either came from secular origins or it came from religious origins, and that it should remain just one ceremony altogether.

While this was true for the Jewish societies which were governed by Mosaic law, our society is not bound by the same law. In the Jewish society, the leaders could carry out punishment for breaking Mosaic law related to marriage including any breach of contract between the couple. Here, it is our state government which can validate contracts and ensure compensation if there is a breach of contract (divorce). Jewish leaders were upholding laws which pertained only to that religious group (Jews), while state governments are upholding laws that pertain to any group of people - thus the reason it is a completely secular institution in this aspect.

You can see a firsthand account of the difference by reading the Gospels. The Jewish citizens of Rome lived by to sets of laws - one the Mosaic law, and second the Roman law. The Roman officials knew this and even allowed them to operate in such a manner, even to the point of allowing them to inflict punishment (except for capital punishment) if Jews broke the law. The Romans did not live by Jewish law, which means they did not follow the same marriage laws. The Jewish people did not expect gentiles to follow this law either, unless they intended to become Jewish.

It wasn't until Christ fulfilled the Law that we no longer belong to it. If the Law is no longer necessary, what then of institutions like marriage that were once governed by the Mosaic law for Jews? The religious ceremony of marriage stays, but now it is the complete responsibility of the state government to uphold the contract of marriage for both secular couples and Christians. In other words, the already present institution of civil marriage stays in place to govern property rights, but is still completely distinct from the religious ceremony of marriage.

Today we have religious conservatives that are basically trying to force couples to follow religious laws regarding marriage because they do not recognize the difference between a civil marriage and religious marriage. The Romans and Jews knew the difference. If the Jews did not expect the Romans or Greeks to follow their marriage laws, then why should Christians expect all of society to only follow their scripturally based idea of marriage?

-washboard

[mat1583]

LOL I wonder if its the same movie I thought of. Monty Python maybe?

You are indeed a lover of great movies ;)

-washboard

[VerbumReale]

It wasn't until Christ fulfilled the Law that we no longer belong to it. If the Law is no longer necessary, what then of institutions like marriage that were once governed by the Mosaic law for Jews? The religious ceremony of marriage stays, but now it is the complete responsibility of the state government to uphold the contract of marriage for both secular couples and Christians. In other words, the already present institution of civil marriage stays in place to govern property rights, but is still completely distinct from the religious ceremony of marriage.

Today we have religious conservatives that are basically trying to force couples to follow religious laws regarding marriage because they do not recognize the difference between a civil marriage and religious marriage. The Romans and Jews knew the difference. If the Jews did not expect the Romans or Greeks to follow their marriage laws, then why should Christians expect all of society to only follow their scripturally based idea of marriage?

-washboard



And that is my point exactly. There is a difference between civil and religious marriage. The church and state play completely different roles in that. The question being addressed by the person who started the thread (And remember it is apparently very important that we not veer from that question) was is it required for a Christian to have their marriage be recognised by the state for it to be biblical? I say absolutely not. If it's recognised by the church then that is really all that should matter for the Christian at least on a spiritual level. Now if they want all the civil rites and priveleges that go with that then it should be recognized by the state.

And I am well aware of the role the Mosaic law played in civil matters in ancient Jewish societies and I certainly don't need you to remind me that because Christ fulfilled the law that we are no longer bound to it. But none of this changes the fact that the biblical standard for marriage is one man and one woman. This was established in Genesis and echoed by Jesus in Matthew 19 and Mark 10.

I am not siding with the religious conservatives here. I have no problem with esclusively civil marriages not being bound to biblical guidelines, although I believe in recognition of the biblical origins of marriage it would be more appropriate for them not to use the word marriage. But the truth is our culture has pretty much been doing civil marriages so long that it doesn't really matter.

Again I fully recognise that civil and religious marriages are not the same, but I think you're fooling yourself if you don't think that our culture at large at least somewhat fails to recognize this. How many couples get married in churches even though they have not darkened the doorway of a church in several years and have no intention of doing so once the ceremony is over? So essentially what they are seeking is a civil marriage but a religious wedding.

[mat1583]

And that is my point exactly. There is a difference between civil and religious marriage. The church and state play completely different roles in that. The question being addressed by the person who started the thread (And remember it is apparently very important that we not veer from that question) was is it required for a Christian to have their marriage be recognised by the state for it to be biblical? I say absolutely not. If it's recognised by the church then that is really all that should matter for the Christian at least on a spiritual level. Now if they want all the civil rites and priveleges that go with that then it should be recognized by the state.

And I am well aware of the role the Mosaic law played in civil matters in ancient Jewish societies and I certainly don't need you to remind me that because Christ fulfilled the law that we are no longer bound to it. But none of this changes the fact that the biblical standard for marriage is one man and one woman. This was established in Genesis and echoed by Jesus in Matthew 19 and Mark 10.

I am not siding with the religious conservatives here. I have no problem with esclusively civil marriages not being bound to biblical guidelines, although I believe in recognition of the biblical origins of marriage it would be more appropriate for them not to use the word marriage. But the truth is our culture has pretty much been doing civil marriages so long that it doesn't really matter.

Again I fully recognise that civil and religious marriages are not the same, but I think you're fooling yourself if you don't think that our culture at large at least somewhat fails to recognize this. How many couples get married in churches even though they have not darkened the doorway of a church in several years and have no intention of doing so once the ceremony is over? So essentially what they are seeking is a civil marriage but a religious wedding.

Heh, I think we are on the same lines in all aspects here and completely agree with each other. That our culture doesn't recognize the difference was part of the point I was trying to make...although I only pointed out that religious conservatives don't recognize it.

I think that's why there is so much uproar in the Christian community though. Non-believers and anyone wanting a marriage that is not scripturally supported are starting to recognize the difference again - which they have a right to. Glad we agree! :)

-washboard

[Jason]

I just wanted to state that if homosexuality did not exist, the debate on who owns marriage still would. So no it's not a core part of the discussion.

[clemsontigers23]

I just wanted to state that if homosexuality did not exist, the debate on who owns marriage still would. So no it's not a core part of the discussion.

Actually, I believe it is a huge part of the discussion, if I may say so. Because we're talking about the difference between civil and religious marriages, and seeing as how gay marriage has become a huge topic of debate in this country, it fits perfectly. I've never seen a discussion that hasn't branched into small, more specific discussions, and one of the questions that arose in my mind is if gay marriage is legalized, should the church recognize the marriage and should it perform ceremonies for homosexual couples. I don't think it should, and the fact that you can go through a drive-thru and get a marriage license these days, the church and the state are entirely seperate in marital issues. While the traditional couple opts to have a religious ceremony, not all couples do, yet that doesn't make their marriage any less legal. The only possible exception is the Catholic church, which will only marry couples where both partners are members of the Catholic church.

Who should own the marriage? God made it, so His church should own it. However, there should definitely be some legal recognition of the marriage and perhaps some benefits, but I don't believe a nation that was formed on Christian values should give benefits to homosexual couples. It would be like rewarding a child molestor for molesting children. No sin should ever be rewarded by our government. I know it is sometimes but if I can help it I'm going to prevent it.

[Yoshi]

Okay, so this is the only comment I'm going to make in regards to where this debate seems to have headed..

Every religion has, as a part of it, some form of union between man and woman, for the purposes of companionship, multiplication and other important social functions..

Not one supports and recognises a union between the same sex.

Why, then, do same sex couples believe that they can have part of a religion without taking on the rest of it? "...I wanna be president, but I don't want anything to do with running the country..."

The Church does need to claim ownership of marraige. The State needs to have a management role - in big part because it is responsible for managing the country, and marraige can quite literally make or break a community - refer to the current issues around Boys from Fatherless homes..

God created Marraige for a purpose... I think we as a global community need to return to that purpose.

[clemsontigers23]

Okay, so this is the only comment I'm going to make in regards to where this debate seems to have headed..

Every religion has, as a part of it, some form of union between man and woman, for the purposes of companionship, multiplication and other important social functions..

Not one supports and recognises a union between the same sex.

Why, then, do same sex couples believe that they can have part of a religion without taking on the rest of it? "...I wanna be president, but I don't want anything to do with running the country..."

The Church does need to claim ownership of marraige. The State needs to have a management role - in big part because it is responsible for managing the country, and marraige can quite literally make or break a community - refer to the current issues around Boys from Fatherless homes..

God created Marraige for a purpose... I think we as a global community need to return to that purpose.

You don't need to make another comment about it. This post says it all, especially the bolded part. Nice post.

[Gaudete]

"The only possible exception is the Catholic church, which will only marry couples where both partners are members of the Catholic church."

Actually, that's not accurate. The Catholic church will marry a couple if one person is Catholic and the other is not. The church does not, however, recognize a marriage performed in another denomination even if one half of the couple is a Catholic. It also does not recognize a civil marriage, obviously.

[sandyandporter]

Question (not being sarcastic...really looking for opinions). If two people were married in a church and one of them does not believe in God's existence at all, does God recognize/bless that marriage?

[mat1583]

Okay, so this is the only comment I'm going to make in regards to where this debate seems to have headed..

Every religion has, as a part of it, some form of union between man and woman, for the purposes of companionship, multiplication and other important social functions..

Not one supports and recognises a union between the same sex.

Why, then, do same sex couples believe that they can have part of a religion without taking on the rest of it? "...I wanna be president, but I don't want anything to do with running the country..."

The Church does need to claim ownership of marraige. The State needs to have a management role - in big part because it is responsible for managing the country, and marraige can quite literally make or break a community - refer to the current issues around Boys from Fatherless homes..

God created Marraige for a purpose... I think we as a global community need to return to that purpose.

Please read my two longer posts. I believe I answered most of your questions.

-washboard

[Yoshi]

Washboard -

Gave your opinion more so than answered... I think it's very dangerous for anyone to claim they're right.. I know I won't ever claim it..

H.

[Yoshi]

Question (not being sarcastic...really looking for opinions). If two people were married in a church and one of them does not believe in God's existence at all, does God recognize/bless that marriage?

Possibly... But then, we are told as Christians to not be "unequally yolked" with an unbeliever..

I have a belief that one can be unequally yolked and still both be Christians... I've seen relationships of 2 committed Christians blow up 'cause we're all human and interpret things differently.. But anyway, that's another conversation!

[bvc]

Question (not being sarcastic...really looking for opinions). If two people were married in a church and one of them does not believe in God's existence at all, does God recognize/bless that marriage?are we to assume 'getting married' is a ceremony performed in a church? Were Adam and Eve married? What made it so?

[mat1583]

Washboard -

Gave your opinion more so than answered...

Nearly 3/4ths of both posts combined was not opinion, but history. Historically, there have been two different marriages - one civil, one religious. Marriage is not a singular concept. The Jews, Romans, and Greeks all recognized and respected this idea. No one entity 'owns' marriage as you would say. Christians do not 'own' the contractual/legal part of marriage, and the state does not 'own' the spiritual/religious aspect. Christians and much of our society don't recognize the two different parts of marriage, which is the problem we're facing. The only opinion I offered was the solution.


I think it's very dangerous for anyone to claim they're right.. I know I won't ever claim it..

H.
Once again, I presented historical and Biblical facts for my argument.

2+2 = 4. I'm right!!! ;)

-washboard

[Yoshi]

are we to assume 'getting married' is a ceremony performed in a church? Were Adam and Eve married? What made it so?


There is a verse somewhere in there about them being joined under God.. But you raise a good question! (My bible didn't mention anything about a marriage celebrant or a license... or pre-marital counselling for that matter!)

[mat1583]

There is a verse somewhere in there about them being joined under God.. But you raise a good question! (My bible didn't mention anything about a marriage celebrant or a license... or pre-marital counselling for that matter!)

To my knowledge, it never mentions the marriage of Adam and Eve. Proponents of Biblically originated marriage argue that the two were married by the mere act of God creating Eve for Adam. This notion answers the contradiction of Adam and Even engaging in pre-marital sex.

-washboard

[Yoshi]

To my knowledge, it never mentions the marriage of Adam and Eve. Proponents of Biblically originated marriage argue that the two were married by the mere act of God creating Eve for Adam. This notion answers the contradiction of Adam and Even engaging in pre-marital sex.

-washboard

Pre marital COUNSELLING was my comment... let's not get to family-unfriendly here with the topic..

Genesis 2:22 pretty much supports the other statement though - God made Eve and brought her to Adam... Kinda honoured by a traditional wedding ceremony, where the father of the bride brings her to her soon to be husband..

There are a lot of things that are not clearly mentioned in the Bible, but rather implied... I'd like to believe that God presided over the first marriage ceremony with Adam and Eve in the Garden... But that's cause I want an outside wedding in a beautiful garden..

H.

[Jesuslove]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2008/01/44_percent_find_marriage_ unnec.php

A new poll says that 44% of Americans between the age of 20 and 60 find marriage "unnecessary".

[Gaudete]

Wow, that's depressing.

[Yoshi]

It is depressing isn't it..

But not altogether unexpected - Marraige is, in many cases, simply a cost beyond what people can afford.. and if they can't have the wedding they want, why have it at all?

[Gaudete]

That's too bad. What a shame to focus on the wedding but lose sight of the marriage. Typical of society these days.

[Valpo]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2008/01/44_percent_find_marriage_ unnec.php

A new poll says that 44% of Americans between the age of 20 and 60 find marriage "unnecessary".

Yeah that is depressing, but like all numbers we should be skeptical and try and tackle it at the same time. A hard dynamic but a necessary one nonetheless. I like what BVC pointed out, what made their marriage the actual marriage in God's eyes? Certainly there was no "state" with Adam and Eve. So the very joining of the two is what made the marriage, but what exactly is this "joining"? is it the emotional committment? or is is the consumation of the marriage through intercourse (gasp!)? It's a debate/whatever worth discussing

[VerbumReale]

are we to assume 'getting married' is a ceremony performed in a church? Were Adam and Eve married? What made it so?

Well Jesus seemed to see Adam and Eve as being married or at least as setting the biblical relational standard for marriage.

10:6
But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'
10:7
'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
10:8
and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
10:9
What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

But for the purposes of this discusson, it has already been established that we are talking about religious and civil marriage so in that sense not necessarily. And the question asked is whether a marriage has to be recognized by the state for it to be biblical. Personally I don't think it does and as has already been pointed out there was no state with Adam and Eve. And on the same token a marriage being recognized by the state does not make it biblical.

[mat1583]

Pre marital COUNSELLING was my comment... let's not get to family-unfriendly here with the topic..

What was not family-friendly about that statement? Just because I said the word 'sex'? I think most of us are mature enough to handle it. If not, let the mods determine that. After all, it's a true statement. If one were to argue that Adam and Eve weren't truly married, you'd be arguing that they engaged in something Christians continually preach against. Of course, incest was one of those as well...but it had to happen if the human race was to continue. Wrap your head around that one.


Genesis 2:22 pretty much supports the other statement though - God made Eve and brought her to Adam... Kinda honoured by a traditional wedding ceremony, where the father of the bride brings her to her soon to be husband..


Gen 2:22 - And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

The bringing of the woman to Adam is considered the marriage of the two? I think that is a really far stretch.


There are a lot of things that are not clearly mentioned in the Bible, but rather implied... I'd like to believe that God presided over the first marriage ceremony with Adam and Eve in the Garden... But that's cause I want an outside wedding in a beautiful garden..

H.

Just as I need to be careful about saying I'm right, you also need to be careful about saying that somethings are implied. How does Gen 2:22 imply that they were married?

-washboard

[Yoshi]

The statement that God brought her to him, and later references about joining suggests it was a marraige.. Hence why I followed it up with a modern day example.. But hey, if that wasn't enough, my apologies... I'll take it up with God when I get to heaven..

[VerbumReale]

Gen 2:22 - And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

The bringing of the woman to Adam is considered the marriage of the two? I think that is a really far stretch.






As I have already pointed out several times through this and different threads, two Gospels (Matthew 19 and Mark 10) have Jesus holding up the creation account as setting the biblical standard for marriage. He never says that they were actually married but by holding it up as the standard wouldn't that at least imply that He saw Adam and Eve as married?

[middletree]

As I have already pointed out several times through this and different threads, two Gospels (Matthew 19 and Mark 10) have Jesus holding up the creation account as setting the biblical standard for marriage. He never says that they were actually married but by holding it up as the standard wouldn't that at least imply that He saw Adam and Eve as married?

You are correct. And trying to figure out whether they went through a marriage ceremony is a waste of time, like the question about them having belly buttons.

BTW, I can answer the original question that opened this thread: I own marriage. Me. Bought it on eBay a couple years back.

Glad we got that settled.

[sandyandporter]

You are correct. And trying to figure out whether they went through a marriage ceremony is a waste of time, like the question about them having belly buttons.

BTW, I can answer the original question that opened this thread: I own marriage. Me. Bought it on eBay a couple years back.

Glad we got that settled.

ROFL! Since you settled it can you please make my first marriage (to a non believer who cheated on me) null and void so that if I get remarried (only to a born again Christian who loves sports) I won't be living in sin? ;)

[mat1583]

And trying to figure out whether they went through a marriage ceremony is a waste of time, like the question about them having belly buttons.


I agree! Sorry for muddying up the thread.

-washboard

[bvc]

Well Jesus seemed to see Adam and Eve as being married or at least as setting the biblical relational standard for marriage.

10:6
But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'
10:7
'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
10:8
and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
10:9
What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

But for the purposes of this discusson, it has already been established that we are talking about religious and civil marriage so in that sense not necessarily. And the question asked is whether a marriage has to be recognized by the state for it to be biblical. Personally I don't think it does and as has already been pointed out there was no state with Adam and Eve. And on the same token a marriage being recognized by the state does not make it biblical.yep, that's what I said

[nhzhnz]

Guys, I have been divorced since 1999 b/c of abuse and his drug use. I have not dated since then. I guess I still feel married or something. I don't know. I stay in church and live my life for my Savior.

I don't think divorce is a sin in my case. It was just necessary for my well being. It was for my protection.

Sandi

[Gaudete]

Oh, Sandi, how could you have done anything else? I'm glad you got out; I'm sure it took alot of courage and faith. You did the right thing.

[sandyandporter]

Oh, Sandi, how could you have done anything else? I'm glad you got out; I'm sure it took alot of courage and faith. You did the right thing.

Agreed. Maybe we should start a thread just for those of us who have had to endure a divorce.

[Pouye]

I think:

Adam and Eve were "officially" married (became one flesh) when the consummated their relationship sexually.

God doesn't bring all couples together in the world, obviously. But to say that non-believers are not married goes against a very basic principle -- that God acknowledges when a man and a woman become "one flesh", even if it is outside of His godly way:

"Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 1 Corinthians 6:16-

In many societies around the world, marriage happens when a man and a woman have sex. That's it. No papers to sign, no Justice of the Peace, etc. The law in Papua New Guinea is that there are "traditional marriages" and "government instituted" marriages. One you don't get a paper (you sleep with the girl and she is yours - with expected social obligations either before or after that event), and one you pay money and get a piece of paper.

I believe God set the standard -- when a male and female (doesn't say if they are believers in God or not) pairs up sexually, that's it. They are married. It doesn't matter what the Church or State says -- they are "one flesh" in God's eyes. Some people don't like to hear that, and they think that society owns marriage, or that the State owns it. Actually, God instituted it -- and the way He said it happens is like this:

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Genesis 2:24

That's it. No preacher, no priest, no Justice of the Peace. Nothing but the tried and true method of leaving your parents and becoming one flesh through sexual intercourse.

Now, it is quite another thing how your local Pastor, a Catholic theologian, or your County/State recognizes your "one flesh" relationship. They might not consider you "legally" married. You might not be able to file your taxes jointly, or get any legal benefits. You might not be able to participate in leadership in your local church, or take communion. You might not even be allowed to attend certain churches -- or you could be denied membership. If those things matter to you, than by all means do the culturally/legally things you need to do to participate in the "blessing" of your local church or State. In fact, you are likely living in sin (not sexual sin) if you do not! (see below)

None of the opinions of men/women change the fact that if you leave your mother and father and are united together sexually, you are "one flesh" in God's eyes. God recognized pagan marriages all the time. In fact, John the Baptist hounded a pagan man for sleeping with a woman who was not his wife. Obviously God recognized Herod's "marriage" to Herodias was sinful (see Mark 6:17), even though they were both completely as pagan and wicked as can be. Herodias was divorced from her uncle (Phillip I/Herod II), only to marry another uncle (Herod Antipas). It wasn't unlawful to marry your uncle according to Jewish laws at the time -- but what was a problem (and her sin) was that she was married to her living ex-husband's (Philip's) brother .

Why would God even care? Because God views pagan marriages as true marriages. God expects even those who are not married "in the Catholic church" or elsewhere to be faithful to their spouse. Who was Herodias' spouse? God said it was Philip, another pagan. It doesn't matter if they were "Jewish" pagans or not -- they did not love God or believe His Word -- like the wicked kings of Israel long past.

God instituted marriage, and so He owns marriage. He knows exactly who are married and who are not -- for He invented marriage. Therefore, God knows who are "one flesh" -- and yet are living in sin, too -- like Herodias and Herod Antipas. They were "legally" married (I'm sure they had a ceremony and everything), but not in God's eyes -- because God is the One who makes the rules about marriage, not human beings.

So... can someone be married in God's eyes (one flesh) but not in the eyes of the Church and/or State? They sure can. The church doesn't own marriage any more than the State owns marriage. Catholics who want to argue this have to realize that people got married in God's eyes long before the Catholic church ever existed. Pagans and atheists get married every day, and become "one flesh" in God's eyes. God instituted "one flesh" only between a man and a woman. This is clear in the Scriptures. Becoming "one flesh" in any other way (same sex, father, mother, animals, etc.) was forbidden by God. God does not recognize those relations as marriage. Your country might, your State might, your church even might. That doesn't change how God sees "one flesh" relations. Long before church or State, there was marriage in God's eyes -- in every country and society on earth for centuries.

So is this good news for the boyfriend and girlfriend who are sexually active and say things like "Well, we are married in God's eyes..."? God isn't only concerned about only one aspect of our lives. I believe if two single virgins "leave and cleave" they are "one flesh" in God's eyes, and they are legitimately married in God's eyes. However, that doesn't mean that God doesn't care about society/culture government and the church -- and how you relate to people in all of those contexts. Our lives are not lived in a vacuum. Paul said to try to live at peace, as much as possible, with God AND men. Your relationships beyond your "one flesh" relationship are very important to God. That is why, even though a man can sleep with a prostitute and become "one flesh" with her, that it is evil. Why is it evil? Could be for a variety of reasons... but even if the "prostitute" was a virgin, and this was her first customer; and even if the guy was a virgin and this was his first experience, they would be abusing the "one flesh" relationship by not remaining together until death parts them, being faithful to each other. God would see the man in that situation as abandoning his wife (for he is "one flesh" with her) if he does not meet his marital and social obligations to her as a husband.

God cares about how the man relates to the woman's father, mother, family, etc. God cares about how the woman relates to his side. God cares how a couple relates to the community, the government, other believers (and non-believers) and the church. God does not compartmentalize relationships. If two virgins decide to "shack up", they are "one flesh" in God's eyes (legitimately married), but it doesn't end there -- they are responsible to fulfill their obligations to the rest of society in that relationship, as well as their obligations -- according to God -- to remain faithful to each other until death, etc. So a virgin couple who decides to "shack up" is very likely sinning against their family and possibly others, too. Are they sinning against God then? Yes (but not sexually). If you sin against another human being relationally, you sin against God, too.

It doesn't matter who the church pronounces as married -- for the church might one day allow you to marry your cat. It doesn't matter who the State says is "legally" married -- for the State might someday allow you to do the same. Sometimes the church is on the same page as God, sometimes the State is on the same page as God. I was legally married (by the State) and legitimately married (by a Pastor with a license to do so, and in a Christian church), but I wasn't "one flesh" in God's eyes after those two events (the "I dos" and the signing of the marriage license). That happened on our honeymoon. ;)

Rock

[bvc]

It doesn't matter who the church pronounces as married -- for the church might one day allow you to marry your cat.:cool:

Anyone have scripture that justifies divorce (not separation) in cases of abuse or drugs?

[sandyandporter]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,321991,00.html

Please read this and answer me this.... IMHO our God has common sense. I don't think some things are totally black and white. And while I don't have scripture to back that up...... I think some things are just a given.

So..... how does God view their divorce?

[Andi]

.........but I wasn't "one flesh" in God's eyes after those two events (the "I dos" and the signing of the marriage license). That happened on our honeymoon. ;)

Rock


TMI dude, TMI :o :eek: :cool:

[Pouye]

TMI dude, TMI :o :eek: :cool:

Sorry about that... but there was a reason I said it, and I hope you can forgive me for the "uncomfortableness" of what I said.

You see, it could happen that a virgin couple has signed the wedding license and done everything right culturally and spiritually (for the church side of things) -- only to find out that they are closely related (like long lost twins or something). Or it could also happen that the guy finds out that the love of his life is not a female afterall; or the girl finds out that "he" is actually a "she". This proves that the legal documents, all of the cultural mumbo-jumbo, and the pastor/priest/church "blessing" isn't what makes a marriage official in God's eyes.

Now you have me feeling all :o :o :o :o :o :o .

Ok, I'll try to stop blushing now. :eek:

Rock

[mat1583]

so...this is a confusing situation about Eddie Murphy. I usually don't post crap about stars and such, but I thought this was pretty good for a thread like this.

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The wedding ceremony between Eddie Murphy and film producer Tracey Edmonds two weeks ago was only symbolic -- and that's as far as they plan to go, they announced Wednesday.

Eddie Murphy and Tracey Edmonds exchanged vows on New Year's Day.

Murphy, 46, and Edmonds, 40, traded vows on New Year's Day on a private island off Bora Bora in French Polynesia in a ceremony that was not legally binding.

"After much consideration and discussion, we have jointly decided that we will forgo having a legal ceremony as it is not necessary to define our relationship further," said a statement on behalf of Murphy and Edmonds issued by publicist Arnold Robinson.

"While the recent symbolic union in Bora Bora was representative of our deep love, friendship and respect that we have for one another on a spiritual level, we have decided to remain friends," the statement said.

The statement did not clarify whether the two remained a couple. In an e-mail exchange, Robinson said he could not comment beyond the statement.

Murphy has six children from previous relationships. He and Edmonds, whose credits include "Dreamgirls" and "Beverly Hills Cop," began dating last year. They became engaged in July.


-----------------------
...they are married (not legally, mind you), but only symbolically...but they are just friends? What the heck does that mean anyway?

-washboard

[middletree]

Murphy is not a professing believer, so it really doesn't matter. I think when we try to impress Biblical ideas of morality on people who are not Christians, we're wasting our time and losing our focus.

[mat1583]

Murphy is not a professing believer, so it really doesn't matter. I think when we try to impress Biblical ideas of morality on people who are not Christians, we're wasting our time and losing our focus.

I think it does matter, because many couples who are not professing believers still choose to have religious ceremonies. If we want to discuss if there is actually a separation of church and state, a good litmus test is to examine what non-believers are doing. The reason I posted this is to raise the question - are more and more non-believers choosing to have non-religious ceremonies? What does this mean, if anything, to our society?

Eddie Murphy and his...woman...chose to answer the question "Who owns marriage - church or state?" by saying "Neither."

-washboard

[teresaUK]

Marriage is a covenant given by God. God's covenants are always eternal. We are human and have free will and so often mess it up.......... thank God for His forgiveness.

[Yoshi]

I have a friend (don't collapse in shock...)... She's been living with her fiance for probably 2 years now as de facto couple (they don't go to Church)..

She tells me today that they're planning on meeting a priest as her fiance is catholic and his family would disown him if they didn't have a catholic wedding.

The question for me is... hasn't the horse bolted already?

At what point can the Church deny the right to wed in a Church (I've heard of this happening many times for many different reasons)?

At what point does the Church need to extend the hand of forgiveness and understanding towards those who have not lived promiscuous lives, just found themselves in a situation where marraige was not an affordable option?

[middletree]

If a couple is living together, but wants to do the right thing by getting married, I'd definitely encourage that.

[Andi]

<snip>At what point does the Church need to extend the hand of forgiveness and understanding towards those who have not lived promiscuous lives, just found themselves in a situation where marraige was not an affordable option?<snip>

(Emphasis mine.)


At what point? I believe that is part of the problem. It should never be "at what point". The Church should always extend the hand of forgiveness and understanding toward all people. Grace should be extended to everyone, married - divorced - unmarried - etc etc.

Just my humble opinion.

If they are living together and they want to get married, I would encourage them to do so. Maybe God will work through people in the church (if they were to marry in one) to bring this couple to Him. Who knows God's plan for them? This may be where He is leading them.

[Yoshi]

Personally... I have found myself in a situation where someone very close to me was told that they "got themselves into this mess, and needed to get themselves out"...

This whole question is putting me in a position where I don't want to attend the Church.. Nothing against God, but there's people who have put themselves on the throne of judgement...

I wait for God to take his rightful place.. ;)