Posted on 03/16/2012 11:30:32 AM PDT by Monorprise
Maybe that man had already been messing around with someone else.
One doesn’t. That would be one of the deviancies mentioned.
Forget science and personal opinion. This is the Truth of the matter.....take it or leave it:
"Exacly what is the sacrament of marriage? It "is an inseparable bond between a man and a woman, created by human contract and ratified by divine grace. The nature of the covenant requires that the two participants be one man and one woman" and "that they be free to marry." ... "it is consent that creates marriage. Consent consists in a human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other. Consent must be a free act of the will of the consenting parties, free of coercion or grave external error. If freedom is lacking, the consent is invalid." Interestingly, "it is the spouses who are understood to confer marriage on each other. The spouses, as ministers of grace, naturally confer upon each other the sacrament of matrimony."
<>
Obviously, marriage is an organic synthesis -- especially as it transforms through time -- not a mechanical union. ... Marriage between man and woman is not an end in itself but a divinely ordained arrangement for the purposes of receiving the grace that will transform both parties. A dysfunctional marriage is one in which no spiritual transformation takes place -- it is spiritually "stillborn," so to speak, or "infertile" no matter how many children it produces -- like a Kennedy marriage.
This is why, strictly speaking, there can be no "secular" marriage. Or put it this way: to the extent that your marriage is only a secular affair, I do not see how or why it could transcend the state of essentially being -- as Glen Campbell sang -- "shackled by forgotten words and bonds and the ink stains that have dried upon some line." Anything short of spiritual union involves using the other person in one way or another. It merely creates the conditions for narcissism rather than its transcendence, which is surely one reason why there are so many divorces. Marriage can never do for you what it was never intended to do, which is to make you "happy" or "fulfilled" in the material sense, at least not for long. No mere earthling can do that.
<>
"..As Upton explains, "the Sodomite is violent against nature because he denies relatedness to the Other; his erotic energy is turned inward." This is indeed the key point. Man cannot engage in mere animal sexuality without sinking beneath even the animals, who are innocent in their animality. ..."
Fair questions:
I mention the Catholicism reference only because of the commonly-held cultural belief that consummation is required to ‘complete’ a marriage. Roman Catholics are also the only mainstream faith (I think that’s true) that permits the annulment of an un-consummated marriage. [I’m not sure of the Anglican/Episcopalian church... particularly since it was formed from a disagreement between Rome and the King of England over this point... and I’ll ignore the historical details on that story!].
As a Protestant (conservative/reformed Presbyterian, specifically) I do not personally hold to the Catholic view, as I don’t believe it is scriptural (discussed earlier). Frankly, though, it hardly ever comes up: we’re all pretty much married when the ‘you may kiss your bride’ line is uttered!
But if you want to know the distinctions, it’s pretty much this:
Catholicism: oaths and consummation (Marriage is also elevated as one of their 7 sacraments)
Protestants: oaths alone (Protestants believe there are only 2 sacraments: baptism and holy communion (the eucharist))
" Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.” But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
"In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He *said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.” - Mark 10:2-12
The essence of a marriage/wedding is the lifetime commitment of a man and woman to each other, for life, for the purpose of begetting and raising children. The lifetime commitment is, logically, primary, since some couples are unable to have children.
Unwillingness to have children, or the inability to perform the marital act, render a wedding/marriage null.
In Christian marriage, grace is conferred. But the priest or minister simply acts as the witness for the Church and the State.
Marriage has a public aspect, as well as a private aspect. Marriage should not be kept secret, for obvious reasons.
Additionally, society has a secondary role to play in the raising of children. It is therefore not unreasonable for the State to register marriages.
Finally, the State must adjudicate custody issues, so it must determine the civil validity of marriages.
I didn't say that there should be no divorces or separation. Only that there should be no remarriage.
She already had a husband, thus the man she was living with couldn’t be her husband.
I’ve heard the idea that originally God meant “marriage” to being the act of intercourse.
I just wonder where that leaves the young girl who might have been raped. Is she bound to her rapist (husband) in the Lord’s eyes?
I say maybe back in the biblical days but doesn’t God deal with us differently now wherein he looks at the heart of the matter as opposed to focusing on law and ritual
None of these things.
I’m not God, so I don’t know, but if we have to pick just one, I’d say #6 must come firt
It sure as Hell doesn’t being with one faggot sodomizing another.
You wrote: “Finally, the State must adjudicate custody issues, so it must determine the civil validity of marriages.”
For that reason:
The tradition of common-law marriage was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Meister v. Moore (96 U.S. 76 (1877))
Because common-law marriages are just as valid as statutory marriages, the Internal Revenue Service does recognize them for federal income tax purposes. Practitioners should be alert to the specific state requirements necessary for their clients contemplating filing joint returns under common-law marriage statutes, as well as those who might be submitting returns as “married, filing separately.”
<>
Common-Law Marriage
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/common-law-marriage.aspx
To be defined as a common-law marriage within the states that allow it, the two people must: agree that they are married, live together, and present themselves as husband and wife. Common-law marriage is generally a non-ceremonial relationship that requires “a positive mutual agreement, permanent and exclusive of all others, to enter into a marriage relationship, cohabitation sufficient to warrant a fulfillment of necessary relationship of man and wife, and an assumption of marital duties and obligations.” Black’s Law Dictionary 277 (6th ed. 1990).
Before modern domestic relations statutes, couples became married by a variety of means that developed from custom.
These became the elements of a “common-law marriage,” or a marriage that arose through the couple’s conduct, instead of through a ceremony.
In many ways, the theory of common-law marriage is one of estoppel - meaning that couples who have told the world they are married should not be allowed to claim they aren’t when in a dispute between themselves.
Technically, I believe God recognizes a marriage between two people when they pledge to God to become “one flesh, ‘til death.”
In society, however, most people would not consider it a marriage until there was some official recognition of that. I think God wants us to honor the laws of the land (until they contradict Him), and so I believe He would like one to be married in the eyes of man, also.
We have enough rebels in our society; we should love God and honor Him by showing people we are law-honoring citizens (until it is a direct contradiction of God’s laws).
That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it!
And, of course, I am referring to man and woman. It’s ridiculous to even have to make that clarification, but in today’s society, I suppose I must!
In Matthew 1:18 "...When his (Jesus') mother was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Some translations read "betrothed" rather than "espoused", but betrothal in that culture meant considerably more than betrothal/engagement today.
I do not know how long Mary and Joseph were in this espousal/pre-consumation state, but divorce was required to disolve the "marriage". See verse 19. Joseph had grounds, since he could have charged her with uncleanness BEFORE they had come together and consumated the marriage, after which he could not divorce her (Biblically).
Perhaps it shows my ignorance of the issue but there have been a number of very good post here.
Never happen in the real world with 99.998% of people. 99.989% of people would never go with what you believe. God would not agree with what you are saying.
So a woman or man who was cheated upon or beat up can never marry again or find love in your mind?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.