Posted on 02/22/2022 7:38:04 AM PST by Kaslin
Regardless of what man does to G-ds intentions for us it does not change what we should do nor how we should try to live.
One does not need “the state” to live with a commitment. I was talking about a spiritual contract, not an earthly one.
Appreciate your entry Jim. But that is not in the vows that I’ve seen or heard. And a comparison of how much I should love my spouse is very hard to estimate. Remember, marriage vows didn’t come around until the mid 1500’s and the contract of marriage didn’t exist prior to the first recorded evidence of marriage contracts and ceremonies which dates to 4,000 years ago, in Mesopotamia, roughly 2000 before the birth of Christ.
Marriage is only as holy as the people that are implementing it. And for many years, agreements were based on a handshake and not a written contract. And although marriage ceremonies have romantic, and often religious, aspects, a marriage itself is a state-sanctioned agreement that carries legal rights and responsibilities for the spouses. And that handshake in today’s society is no longer as good as its word...unfortunately.
Case in point, the still used term “common law” used between God and the couple, maybe. Their verbal contract in some states that allow it is just their saying they are married. And that was used prior to and after the written contracts were invented. Legality, not morality.
wy69
Marriage isn’t a great deal if you’re older and or have assets. Divorce is very expensive and prenups can be overturned. Marriage is good if you’re going to have kids but that’s about it.
“Both spouses can choose to remain married, but either can opt out at a moment’s notice. Because it’s often financially ruinous for a man to leave, he may be in the “cheaper to keep her mindset” if things are not to his liking. That is the only “glue” holding a marriage together I can see. “
It used to be the other way around when women had less opportunity to get a job and being divorced carried a huge stigma. For the woman back then, the choice was putting up with a bad marriage or being unable to make a living on her own or finding someone else who would marry her.
Obviously today the tables have turned in favor of the woman.
What needs to happen to make it “fairer” is to remove/change the alimony law so that it doesn’t disproportionately punish men.
In turn that would probably result in more divorces since men would be less incentiviced to stay in a bad marriage.
It also would reduce the number of marriages, since it would further blur the line between cohabitating and marriage.
And further still, without any meaningful financial incentives or punishments to either side, the only “glue” left to hold a marriage together would be a strong personal commitment by both partners to each other and to the kids, if there are any. Which in effect is the same glue that holds a cohabitating couple together.
So that gets us back to “common law” marriage, where the state is removed from the marriage business.
But not completely, since there will still need to determine who gets what after the split and custody of the kids.
And to minimize that, there is the prenup, even for cohabitating situations.
Problem solved.
I wonder though what the long term societal repercussions of these changes would be. Would it make for a better society or a worse one?
Really? I have to explain this?
No, your bias shows enough when you declare the uselessness of talking to “religious people” No real discussion can be had with such a declaration.
Never mind the silliness of applauding someone’s anecdotal experience as an apodictic fact.
Yadda yadda yada.
State marriages are simply government benefit distribution vectors and should automatically expire after four years, if not voluntarily renewed by both dependents.
Yes, marriage in its current state can’t be legally defined as a “contract” anymore. Anyone still using that language is just showing how out of touch they are with the situation.
It’s from the often criticized Ephesians 5:23-25.
The first half is slammed as “outdated”: “Wives, be subject to your husbands in all things”. This is often mocked as the “make me a sandwich” passage. I don’t know how old you are, but that’s probably why you’ve never heard it.
But the second half explains and justifies the first: “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the Church”, i.e., Submit to torture for her, be scourged for her, BE NAILED TO A CROSS for her, die for her”. It’s not about superficialities.
No. That’s social engineering and reduction to absurdity.
To me it’s very sad to see how people try and make marriage into a recipe.
Marriage is a covenant first between two people and in some cases there is an association with religion. For people to stay married there needs to be a full commitment and a submerging of the ego into a duality called us.
Each marriage or cohabitation is unique. Those with good role models have a distinct advantage. Society’s emphasis on material goods and on romantic love muddies the waters and masks the essentials. Too many people think that they should be getting specific things from their marriage rather than thinking they should be supplying energy, understanding, companionship etc.
There is a promise to walk on together and make a common life. People who do not keep promises, people who cannot sacrifice to sustain the union will falter & fail.
This would indicate that they married when the "sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll" culture of the 60s onward was well entrenched, including Roe v. Wade having been foisted from on high seven years previously.
Good for them that they chose the road less traveled.
“The first half is slammed as “outdated”
Nothing is outdated. It is changed to fit an agenda. But not always by everyone.
And like I said, the first of the marital contracts have been researched to thousands of years before Christ so the use of them as a religious document would have to have fallen in their basic religion. At that time, Mesopotamian religion was polytheistic, with followers worshipping several main gods and thousands of minor gods. So you may be right about the pertaining to Gods considering the amount they had.
A good article on Marriage where the first contracts were found, so far, states:
An agreement once reached indicated that the actual wedding ceremony could now take place. This ceremony took the form of the delivery of the wife to her husband. If both belonged to the class of free citizens, the husband veiled his bride in the presence of witnesses and solemnly declared ‘she is my wife’. During the ceremony of betrothal, the girl’s future husband poured perfume on her head and brought her presents and provisions.
https://ehistory.osu.edu/articles/marriage-ancient-mesopotamia-and-babylonia
These actions seem far from religious. Closer to common law.
I appreciate your humor on the make me a sandwich phrase, but that was first heard in 1995 on SNL and I was retired active military working for the Department of the Army. And in less than five years, I’d be with DOD until totally medically retired in 2012. The last round number I saw was 70 and that’s while back, (I quit looking) I was around when, and a little before June Cleaver, was displayed.
wy69
The oldest Christian marriage ceremony is a prayer service spiritually binding the husband and wife. There are no vows. These prayers are still read in Orthodox wedding services.
“Orthodox wedding services...”
I learned a lot about Greek Orthodox wedding histories from following your post. Thanks.
But one thing stuck out that might date and identify their use for more modern times. When a marriage service developed in the Church, it was patterned after the service for baptism and chrismation. That makes it post the birth of Christ. As you said, the service contains no vows or oaths. It is, in essence, the “baptizing and confirming” of human love in God by Christ in the Holy Spirit by all attending. There is no “legalism” in the Orthodox sacrament of marriage. Only an event that celebrates God in worship.
wy69
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.