To declare marriage obsolete is to violate Scripture

And we look to the ancients for guidance??

Posted by: Rongoklunk
*********************************************

We are both in complete agreement on this. To think the ancient ignoramuses had anything meaningful for 21st people is on the face of it is ridiculous.

"...divorce has had serious negative affects on society"

Well, I suppose this grammatical error isn't shocking in a column this ignorant.

Is one still "married" if one isn't a Christian?

It's good to make a commitment to marriage, but sometimes impossible to follow through on. An old book written by ancient nomads is no help at all.

Modern manuals on relationships and sexuality are much more enlightening than anything in ancient books of mythology. It is ridiculous to believe otherwise. These myths were written when the wheelbarrow was the height of technology.

And we look to the ancients for guidance??

Let's not hyper ventilate about this marriage thing. There may be a few changes in how marriages will function. As long as the human beings yearn companion ship and intimacy the, meme of marriage will continue. May be there will be a significant many who may not get tethered, but then this is a new phenomenon. The repercussions of being single may be felt in full import in the late stages of life. Which means in another 30 or so years the youth of that time (most of whom aren't born yet) may realize the folly of trying to go it alone and marriage may come back in vogue. I don't like to be an alarmist in these matters. What I certainly hope and long is our fellow humans who are of non-heterosexual persuasion not be stigmatized and countries all over the world legalize their marriages too, very soon.

The idiots will declare independence obsolete next.

Start shooting down the satellite systems. They are obsolete and you ain't paying God rent for space.

44 years later and all we have is a bankrupt government and a bill from China for recalled and defective chain store junk. The peace prize goes to the man being held by the convicts running the government. Stop the world, I want off.

Scripture certainly isn't needed for a successful marriage. My parents have been married for over 33 years and still going. My dad was raised Catholic but stopped going to church after high school. (My grandmother was a devout Catholic and my grandfather was more or less a nominal Methodist, to the best of my knowledge.) My mom is from a secular Jewish family. (My grandparents are emphatically not religious.) Neither converted for the other. They were married by a Justice of the Peace and the only other people present were some friends of my mom's from work and my dad's younger sister. They'd been dating for at least five years. Nothing even remotely religious about it. And all of my grandparents were completely accepting of their respective child-in-law.

"I've heard from parents that spent way too much time focusing on their kids, only to find themselves in a very strange place when the kids are gone and their spousal relationship has been stalled for the last 18+ years."

This is why you don't get married too young. You wait, date, and have long dating/engagement periods so that one, you know you are making a mature decision, and two, you know that the person you are marrying is more than just the person you are marrying, but also your friend who you enjoy doing regular friend stuff with.

Also, if you are spending 18+ years totally focused on your child and your child does not have special needs there is something unfortunate going on. By the time kids are in elementary school and junior high, they should have friends to play with and extra-curricular activities to be getting on with. They don't need parents to be doting on them 24 hours a day. That's not healthy. Given a normal household, parents should certainly be able to make time for each other long before the kids go off to college.

Globalone:
“Not sure how you made the leap that I was suggesting my perspective should be made into law”
Because the group I cited, covenantmarriage.com, the one that was the source of your vows/quote IS actively working to legislate their perspective. Also, a ‘covenant marriage’ really only works to protect against divorce (a legal concept/term) if it IS the law.

“I'm not sure what part of a Covenant marriage would cause such an objection”
My understanding of covenant marriage has many, many aspects I cannot agree with. The first of which is, as I’ve pointed out ‘unconditional love’. It is an idealistic, unrealistic notion.
The second notion I can’t agree with is making the only grounds to get out of a marriage being physical violence, or felonious behavior. There’s a ton of real estate of emotions, abuse and strife between ‘unconditional love’ and actual bloodletting.

“I can only assume that you view everything from the Bible as incompatible with secular society.”
Not at all. I’m all for ‘thou shalt not kill.’ and ‘do unto others’. Many things in the bible also have secular, non-biblical compatibility. I am only against things for which there is no other foundational basis other than: ‘because the bible/Jesus says so’.

“The point was to illustrate that a healthy marriage is predicated on self-sacrifice and unconditional love as opposed to a barter and point system”
As I pointed out, I do not agree with the concept of ‘unconditional love’ especially when stated as a promise. Self sacrifice, I agree with to a point. I am against / try to avoid most absolutist statements (notice I didn’t say ‘all’, because that itself would be an absolutist statement.)
There are levels of self-sacrifice. If by this you mean sacrifice-all, I am totally against it. If you instead mean compromise, I’d probably go along. I do not expect, or even want my wife to sacrifice for me any more than she absolutely has to. To expect her to submit to my will, or v/v, means somebody’s a slave. For both to completely self sacrifice for each other sounds pretty dismal as well, nobody getting anywhere.
As far as the barter/point system, I’ve already pointed out that I don’t know anybody that actually does that except for rare occasions and on more minor points of contention. My wife and I are friends, partners, family. We genuinely (but not unconditionally) love each other. We do for ourselves and each other as best we can, like friends, partners, family. There’s no scoreboard, no scales to balance our contributions. We work things out, we compromise, we shuffle things around, we communicate, we share.
I agree with David6’s excellent post, that it sounds like you’re looking for, in a covenant marriage, certain absolutes. Unreasonable and unrealistic promises and guaranties.
I don’t know anyone that gets married that plans on divorcing later. And I certainly can tell you that divorce, especially with kids involved is ANYTHING but easy.

"That leads to the problem with covenant marriage. If someone is so immature or narcissistic or jealous or otherwise emotionally impaired that they need their prospective spouse to covenant never to divorce . . "
__________________________________________

Actually, this is why covenant marriages work. Every relationship deals with conflict or disconnect. Covenant marriages allow couples to enter into and resolve these conflicts.

Couples divorcing today are doing so for a lot of reasons, but a number of them could be remedied if both parties were committed to resolving them - no matter the pain or effort.

Why do you think more and more young people are drifting away from marriage? Because they can live with each other and assume all the "benefits" of marriage without having to provide for the commitment. Things get tough? I'm outta here!

"Don't try to oppress her with foolish, religiously-inspired covenants."
__________________________________________

If you feel that "covenant" marriages work to oppress women (or spouses in general), then I would suggest you go buy a book on the subject matter and read it. If you still feel the same way - read it again.

"The old, no-divorce laws were evil"
___________________________________________

Agreed. It shouldn't be a law. I feel the same way about abortion. The fight should not be from a legal perspective, but instead, from a hearts/mind perspective. Inform and teach.

Globalone,

When there are two parents in a healthy relationship, it is obvious that they will both be more concerned with their growing children than with each others' needs if there is temporary conflict. When it comes to step-parents, the step-parents are rarely as reliable at putting the needs of the growing child first. The folk tales about evil step-parents did not come out of the blue.

That leads to the problem with covenant marriage. If someone is so immature or narcissistic or jealous or otherwise emotionally impaired that they need their prospective spouse to covenant never to divorce, no matter what happens, the prospective spouse should run away as fast as possible. No good will come of it and the victim will stay in the victimizing relationship longer than they should.

If you want to make certain that you never get a divorce, then act in a way that encourages your spouse to continue to love you and want to stay married to you. Don't try to oppress her with foolish, religiously-inspired covenants. The old, no-divorce laws were evil. They were part of a legal system that infantilized and oppressed women. No one who loves their spouse who ever demand that they give up such rights.

Lepid,

I understand what you are saying in regards to your daughter's needs, but I would respectfully disagree.

There are many instances when one or both of my daughters' needs come before my wife. But in no way is that ever the rule.

I've heard from parents that spent way too much time focusing on their kids, only to find themselves in a very strange place when the kids are gone and their spousal relationship has been stalled for the last 18+ years.

Global, my daughter was born because I made the decision to have her. She had no say in the matter. That means that, until she became an adult, her needs came before those of anyone else in my life, including a spouse.
When my husband and I met, she was a teenager. She was still a teenager when he proposed. One of the differences of opinion that my ex and I had was over my refusal to be his wife first and my daughter's mother second. Before I accepted this proposal, I told him, "You need to understand that my daughter's needs will always take priority over yours. Can you live with that?" His jaw dropped and he asked me, "How selfish and shallow would I have to be to expect you to put me before your child?"

Lepid,

Your comment about choosing your daughter in a life/death situation is I'm sure what most everyone would answer if asked the same question.

However, I would add that in marriage/family relationships, husbands and wives need to make sure that the kids do not become our first attention. Maybe too often, husbands and wives put an uneven amount of energy into their kids instead of their marriage. (Which, of course, is not to say that we should leave our kids alone and unloved and to fend for themselves).

Glade,

Not sure how you made the leap that I was suggesting my perspective should be made into law. I never even hinted that. I was merely stating that a true Covenant marriage would result in fewer divorces.

Second, just because you follow a Biblical perspective doesn't make you a Christian. Even as a non-Christian, which I'm guessing you are, I'm not sure what part of a Covenant marriage would cause such an objection. I can only assume that you view everything from the Bible as incompatible with secular society.

Finally, my comments on bargaining was not intended for examples such as the one you used. In fact, the one I used was probably incorrect as well (even stating how "silly" it was). The point was to illustrate that a healthy marriage is predicated on self-sacrifice and unconditional love as opposed to a barter and point system.

In their usual pious disregard for facts, Mr. Thomas and his christian sock puppets have managed to overlook the fact that marriage has nothing to do with religion. It is a legal condition licensed by the state in which they are married. A religious ceremony is not required, however even if a priest/rabbi/shaman officiates, he or she must state that the power to officiate is derived from the state. Similarly, a church cannot declare a marriage invalid - that also requires a legal process, not a religious one.

Now you've done it, Glade. I was planning to ask my husband for a diamind-studded piano for Yule, he saw your post, and now I'm pretty sure I'm getting a vaccuum cleaner instead.

In all seriousness, though, what you're describing is how a healthy partnership works.
He knows that he is one of the two most important people in my life, the other one being my daughter. He knows that if I have to choose between his life and hers, I would choose to save her. Not only would he be okay with my choice, he would give himself up for her, even though she isn't his child.
He puts the toilet seat down, not to keep me away from his shaver, as Global suggests, but because I always sit to use it, and he sometimes sits to use it, he is the only one who stands, so it makes sense for the seat to stay down.
We both bring home income, and we tend to divide up the bills with him paying the mortgage, phone bills, and gas/maintenance for his car, me paying car and health insurance, utilities, and vet expenses (with 8 pets in the house, there are vet expenses pretty much monthly), and gas/maintenance on my car, and both of us picking up groceries as needed. But if he comes up short on the phone bill because he hit a pothole and had to buy a new tire, I'm not going to make him sign a promissory note before I write the check for the phone bill. If I come up short on the cable bill because one of the dogs swallowed a battery and had to spend the night at the vet's, he's not going to require me to put up collateral for the check.
I hate to dust, he hates to do floors. So most of the time, he dusts, I do floors. But if one of the cats pukes on the floor, he's not going to leave it there until I get home because it isn't his job. He's going to mop it up.

We do what we can to make life as pleasant as possible for our partners with the resources at our disposal. We cover each other's backs when necesary. And every now and then, we look at each other, remember what first fired that spark, and chase each other around the boudoir.

Globalone:
For everyone else’s benefit I looked up your quote, here’s the source
http://www.covenantmarriage.com/couplesupport.php

That you, your church or belief system holds these things to be valid for your life, fine. As for it becoming the law of the land, I object.
What ANY church or religious organization wants to hold up as the rules for marriage among its voluntary flock, I generally don’t object, or even care.

“(you) hear it in marriages all the time. There's a constant bargaining to ultimately end up with what the individual desires.”
Is that the way you think it actually works? I’m afraid I haven’t been around the same marriages as you. My wife and I cooperate. We share, we sometimes compromise, but the petty barter system as you describe it? No, not at all.
What I find really puzzling is your statement about ‘unconditional love’.
Unconditional love means to love someone regardless of what they do, without limits or restrictions. It’s a nice, romantic concept, but a bit unrealistic. As a promise at a wedding ceremony, I’m sure it’s meant well and is well received, but really?
Even your covenant marriage group, as well as their proposed legislation, recognize adultery, violence and felonious behavior as deal-breakers… There are recognized ‘conditions’ that render a relationship/love broken.
My marriage is much more than a mere partnership as you define it. You are defining a business partnership. My wife and I are above all other things, friends. We have joined together to share the good, the bad, the finances, the debt, the chores, the recreation. If it lasts for the duration of our lifetimes as we both want it to, great. And I assure you, there are precious few ‘profits’ to squabble over.
BTW there are no ‘depths’ of unconditional love. ‘Unconditional’ is an absolute in and of itself.

“In a covenant marriage, there is no bargaining”
Once again, idealistic, unrealistic. There certainly is bargaining in a relationship, but not just for ‘selfish’ motives. If My wife asks for a diamond studded piano, I can assure you, regardless of how much I love her, it simply ain’t gonna happen. I can’t stand pianos, she knew that from the start.
So should she ask for one, really, really wants one, I may indeed, to your apparent shock and horror, try to talk her down to earth with a reasonable compromise (vacuum cleaner?). I would expect her to do the very same thing if I expressed desire for a 500hp, shiny red fishing boat. I see nothing wrong with some ‘bargaining’ or compromise in a relationship. I also find no reason to unzip and set free everything that makes me an individual or for her to do likewise. Part of why I love her is that she has hopes, dreams, desires and individual goals. I don’t want to be married to a robot (having one as a mistress intrigues me a little though.)

Marriage is a covenant, not a partnership (contract).

With a partnership, we contribute our time, money, or assets and in return, we receive a determined share of the profits (or losses). Quid pro quo.

The marriage becomes a "contract" based on rights and responsibilities and motivated by self-centeredness rather than unconditional love.

I (you) hear it in marriages all the time. There's a constant bargaining to ultimately end up with what the individual desires. "I'll make sure to leave the toilet seat down if you promise not to use my razor". Silly example but it proves the point.

In a covenant marriage, there is no bargaining. If a wife has a need, want, or desire, the husband tries to satisfy that need without an expectation of receiving something in return. And vice versa.

"Though our intentions are good when we marry, we have no perception of the depth of the unconditional love necessary to uphold these commitments to which we are agreeing. Our promises have not been tried and tested by time and turmoil."

Lepid,

Apologies, as I should have stated that a healthy marriage cannot stay as such when physical abuse enters the picture. I don't know the particulars about your situation but I'm sorry that you had to go through that, especially if a child was involved. Tragic.

Gotta join in here.

GlobAlone, if marriage isn't a partnership, what the heck is it?

Yes, I am curious too; if marriage isn't a partnership, then what is it?

(I can't even guess what that the answer will be).

If marriage isn't a partnership, what is it?

GlobAlone,

Had divorce not been an option when my first husband threw a television at me in a drunken rage, I still would have moved out, and I would not have resigned myself to a solitary life of celibacy until one of us died.

Had divorce not been an option when my second husband decided AFTER we were married that the whole paradigm or our relationship should mirror that of his parents (spouse with dangly bits had the final say on all decisions, including child-rearing, even if the child was not his), I still would have taken my daughter and moved out, and, again, would not have resigned myself to solitude and celibacy.

Globalone

Yes, feelings are terrible, aren't they?

God hates feelings. Let's stamp out feelings.

What would end the tidal wave of individuals rushing off to a divorce attorney? Simple.

Include the words, "Divorce is not an option" in your wedding vows. And mean it.

Also, stop thinking of marriage as a partnership. It's not. Not only is it a ridiculous comparison, but believing only serves to sabotage your marriage.

"There is a failure among conservative Christian culture here; they need to take a break from judging"
________________________________________

Biblically speaking, God demands that we judge one another.

Isn't the problem more with secular society, that has become so brainwashed by "feelings" that they refuse to hold anyone accountable for anything?

RCofield

The divorce rate is the highest in he Bible-belt of the South, and it is the lowest in the liberal Northeast.

Make of that whatever you will. Those are the simple facts.

I have heard a conservative Christian say that these statistics don't count, because people in the Bible-belt get married younger.

But, my reply is, "it counts."

All your remarks about men keeping their pencil in their pants and women keeping their legs closed is cute; but how do such snarky remarks contribute to anything or help anything? Are such remarks suitable only for an anonymous blog? or do you say such things to real people in the real world?

If something comes easily to you, do you think that you are therefore a better person than someone who has had a harder time?

That is the definite impression that you are giving.

Well. That is really helpful.

Most I can get is it is a sin to say marriage is in decline. So, just don't say it.

There. Problem solved.

So, Are to presume that non-christian marriages are a sham?

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN,

I think the reason that conservative Christians have a higher divorce rate than the general population is because they tend to get married at a much younger age, which of course, is one of the indicators of a future failed marriage.

There are no divorce statistics for "conservative Christians" because the pollsters and those they poll do not know how to define "Christian."

Forbidding sex before marriage encourages early marriages, which fail. What is wrong with this picture?

Ummm...young men who lack the self-discipline and vision to keep their "pencil" in their pocket and young women who lack the self-discipline and vision to keep their "legs crossed?" And fathers and mothers who fail to instill the principles of self-discipline and vision in their children?

There is a failure among conservative Christian culture here;

No, there is a "failure" in the current culture-at-large when it comes to the basic tenets of morality. One has only to go back two generations to recognize this.

....they need to take a break from judging,...

Actually, genuine Christianity judges no one. The Word of God has already done that. Your problem lies with God and your angst is misdirected.

So scriture says that marriage should mirror a triune God? Hmmm, Cal, do you suppose that means that God looks favorably on threesomes?

I think the reason that conservative Christians have a higher divorce rate than the general population is because they tend to get married at a much younger age, which of course, is one of the indicators of a future failed marriage.

Forbidding sex before marriage encourages early marriages, which fail. What is wrong with this picture?

There is a failure among conservative Christian culture here; they need to take a break from judging, blaming, and scapegoating others, and take a look at what they may be doing wrong.

Thomas says: "Faith plays a major role in strong marriages and while too many who are Christians divorce, a lot more do not because Christ is at the center of their marriages and both spouses realize they re accountable to Him who defines love."

How can this claim be taken seriously when the divorce rate among atheists is lower than the divorce rate among Christians?

Please explain.

This sanctimonious wind-bag has done everything he can to deny marriage to same-sex couples. Meanwhile, he has done NOTHING to ban divorce among straight couples. Hypocrite.

I hate to break it to Cal, but it's not just marriage that's obsolete, it's his religion. Even his holy Republicans are divorcing and 'living in sin' at record rates, seemingly unconcerned about his "scriptures". Oh, they're still spouting the same pious nonsense while they break every one of their sacred '10 Commandments', but how they behave is much more revealing than what they say.

"Since Jesus' first miracle was at a wedding and both Testaments instruct us that God hates divorce; to declare marriage obsolete is to violate one of Scripture's most fundamental teachings that best serve humanity if practiced well."

These two clauses have an extremely weak logical tie. I could just as well say that because Jesus' only violent outburst was at a temple and he routinely violated the Sabbath, it's clear God is fundamtentally opposed to the rules of organized religion. Or the fact that he brought Lazurus out of the tomb and left his own after death means that God is opposed to entombing the dead.

What a smoldering pile. If your point was based in anything even close to reality, divorce and adultery would be addressed and punishable by law.

Ha! that's all we need, a bible thumper telling us that we should or not be doing. We better not find you, sir, being unfaithful to your wife with a male prostitute or something like that.

Now, as an atheist (which I'm legally entitled to be), how do you justify your argument with scripture?

Marriage in the Bible is pretty messed up. The whole Old Testament is filled with polygamy, excusing rape through marriage, men who keep prostitutes and concubines, and men taking the wives of their relatives.

In the New Testament, Jesus never married and said marriage had no place in heaven. Nor did any of his disciples or apostles. If anything, I expect Jesus didn't approve of marriage because he thought the end of the world and the coming of the Son of Man was just about to happen.

If you want to be really shocked, you should read some of the writings of Caesar Augustus, since he talks about marriage with exactly the same religious moralizing that the author does. Everyone is so up in arms about other people not getting married. Look to your own house first, and recognize that if someone else having a fruitful relationship without marriage is spoiling your marriage, there is definitely something seriously wrong with you.

Mark,

I have read the entire Bible. Given the number of blatant errors in it, I have no reason to believe that God had anything at all to do with it. I see no reason to accept your claim that God has something to do with marriage.

"Rather than raise the white flag over marriage, we should consider working harder to preserve it."
I agree absolutely. So YOU now go and work to help me and my partner of 13 1/2 years gain full civil and legal rights.

The divorce rate is higher among Christians for obvious. Christians are encouraged to get married to avoid fornication which is a sin. And having a child out of wedlock is punished more severely in the Christian community. So Christians get married for sex and children and because it's the right thing to do and then they find out they don't even get along.

Marriage is a civil pact and agreement. You can get married without any iota of religion involved. You cannot however get legally married in a purely religious ceremony. The officiant can say all the magic words he or she wishes, but it still require approval from the state. Religious officials are licensed by the state to perform ammriages as part of their religious ceremony and just because a preist can do it in one state does not mean he can legally do it in all of them. The state is the final and only arbitor of marriage.

david6

Sorry, but you are wrong.

Marriage is central to gods plan. It is not an invention of religious folks for their own purposes.

If you had read scriptures you would know that. Obviously, you have not.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

Cal, you god had/has nothing to do with my marriage.
My husband and I had a religious ritual where we wed ourselve to each other in the presence of our friends, our family, and our gods - sans clergy, sans JP, sans ship's captain, sans governmental paperwork.
Some time later, we went to the courthouse, bought a license, and had a judge sign it so that we could be recognized as a unit entity by the state and federal governments.

Your church is free to refuse to perform a religious ritual, but your religion is not free to decide that everyone who wants to bind themselves legally must do so according to the tenets of your faith.

As long as there are legal rights and privileges associated with marriage, it will not become obsolete.

Cal;
That’s all well and good if you happen to be Christian…. But what if you’re not?
Your answer “Marriage as defined in Scripture” only applies to Christians.
An answer to ‘What is marriage’ in this country must include an other-than Christian perspective as well. Would you agree that among and between other faiths that some differences exist? Does the states’ definitions cover only Christian definitions?

When you speak of making one form of marriage ‘legal’ or not, which religions are subject to those legal definitions? Why are there two parts to marriage, religious and state if marriage is only one thing?

You didn’t answer the questions.

God did not invent marriage. That's a silly fantasy that religious folks have invented for their own personal reasons. The most popular reason used today is to justify bigotry against gays, to blame God for their own intolerance.

Why do the states that are most filled with people who bring outspoken religiosity to the public square have the highest divorce rate?

Long-term coupling is a very good thing for society, for families and for children, but as we learned when it was almost impossible to get a divorce if you were not rich, this has to be voluntary as long as the marriage exists. The alternative is to put one member (historically the wife) in a subservient position from which she cannot escape, no matter how much abuse she suffers.

If religions want to have ceremonies to show that they, too, care about the value of marriage, fine, but their ceremony is only a ceremony. It does not define marriage.