Death and Marriage in Christianity and Society at Large

[jochanaan]

Bare_Truth, I have been thinking about your proposal, and I believe that, if it would ever get enacted, there would be unintended legal consequences.

Suppose a brother and sister decide not to marry but to live together in celibacy, as I did for several years after graduating from college. They may own property jointly. But because they are not married to each other, they might well be prohibited by law from certain privileges that married couples have. For example, if one of them were to adopt a child and then died, this child might well be taken from the surviving sibling, although the sibling may well be the best-suited person to raise him/her.

Similar issues might well come up if two unrelated people of the same gender decided to be roommates for a long term (but not lifemates).

Some may say "This never happens!" But it does, and there is often no reason to suspect any un-Biblical sexual activity. So, to curtail property inheritance for cohabiting couples may well result in many injustices and bureaucratic nightmares for well-deserving friends, roommates or siblings.

[Petros]

"In my experience, life-mates come when you are truly ready for them--even if at that time you don't expect them."

Amen to that. I had a paper marriage - the whole nine yards, tissue inside a box with elegant wrapping and ribbon - which was seriously wrong and for which neither party was ready, but to which I was committed and kept my word for many a long year.

In the fulness of time it dried up and fell off the tree, and after 6 months of soul cracking turmoil I swore a mighty oath - until at LEAST a year after the divorce becomes final I will have NOTHING to do with any kind or relationship.

So about a week later Herself and I are blown together like the core of a nuclear device, and it is seriously right and we WERE ready.

To pipermac, I would say, not without some understanding and sympathy - you need to stand firm, you need NOT to seek cionnections but to avoid them. When the RIGHT one comes at the RIGHT time you will know it because it will be IMPOSSIBLE to slow it down or hurry it up. UNTIL the right one comes, tie yourself top the mast and stuff your ears. Do not doubt - he HAS an answer.

[Petros]

In re jochanaan's 9:29 post:

In the olden day - actually not so long ago - much of this took care of itself pretty much automatically. Papa dies - Uncle Charlie marries Mama and raises both sets youngsters. If Uncle Charlie is not free to marry, or if Mama dies as well, the kids move in with Aunt Sarah and Uncle George. If Lucy happens to acquire a baby without an accompanying husband, Mum and Da or Lucy's married sister step in. Land transactions and businesses were a bit more complex, but a lot of the same went on - in my family history and herself's, there are plenty of examples till you get to our parent's generation, and even there - Herself's grandpa died, leaving grandma with six children. Her father, just 21 at the time, stepped up top bat [he was an enthusiastic member of the local baseball team] and did head of the family - didn't marry till the youngest was in his 20s.

On the other side, Herself's grandma died when her mother was 8, leaving five children, one a newborn. The oldest daughter, 18 at the time, tied on her apron and was "mother" for the next several years.

My parent's generation, and today, this is less likely. Less family, less community; more mobility, more state.

[Bare_Truth]

Was anyone aware that a Utah judge just struck down one of the laws making bigamy (and affecting polygamy) as unconstitutional?

I had not been until I read your post on this.

I did a bit of searching on the internet and found:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/12/15/world/utah-judge-rules-states-polygamy-laws-violate-the-u-s-constitution/

http://www.news.nom.co/utah-judge-rules-state-s-polygamy-laws-7508210-news/

http://www.srnnews.com/federal-judge-rules-key-part-of-utah-bigamy-law-unconstitutional/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-judge-rules-parts-of-utah-anti-polygamy-law-unconstitutional/

http://www.hngn.com/articles/19634/20131214/judge-rules-utah-law-banning-polygamy-unconstitutional.htm

It is interesting to note that when arguments were made about homosexual "marriage" those opposed said it was a slippery slope and we would soon after see polygamy (extra wives, extra husbands, extra both in group marriages) and after that we would see bestiality (zoosexuality as the shrinks now call it classifying it as a paraphilia just as the did in the delisting of homosexuality). Of course the proponents of homosexual marriage scoffed at that.

Well we now seem to have step two legislated by a judge.

We will now have to see how long before the 3rd shoe drops. (yeecccch)

[bn2bnude]

Well we now seem to have step two legislated by a judge.

Not quite sure a judge can legislate but point made

We will now have to see how long before the 3rd shoe drops. (yeecccch)

Even countries that have already addressed the same sex marriage issues haven't gone down the path to the third shoe. On the other hand, we do have a somewhat odd system of government when it comes to these sorts of things...

[Petros]

Surely not all that peculiar.

Those who seek authority - which class necessarily includes a good many who choose to goevern - logically seek absolute authority. Interests within the governed body may impose Magna Charta here, a triumvirate there, a bicameral legislature in this nation, a council of elders in that tribe - but the authority seeker does not SEEK to share. Did my mother call family meetings to set policy? She did not. Monarchy - and not constitutional monarchy - is the climax position, the ultimate name of the game.

If we have serious marriages - not state regulated matings - if we have families, not local cells - then the subject's loyalty is divided, and Glorious Leader really has no incentive to encourage that.

[natman]

I believe that there are at least two forms of marriage, "Christian marriage" and "civil marriage".

A Christian marriage occurs between one man, one woman and God, in which God is the witness, making it a covenant. It is by definition, life-long and exclusive, regardless of paper. A marriage ceremony is merely an outward sign of a private triune commitment. It may also be an outreach for accountability when and if the marriage gets into trouble.

A civil marriage is a contract between two people and the state in which the state not only regulates the initiation but also the dissolution.

I am EXTREMELY saddened by the changes that are going on in our societies which are attempting to change the definition of "civil marriage" from being between one man and one woman to allow for "civil marriages" between a man and another man, a woman and another woman (and probably in the near future, to a man an multiple women, a woman and multiple men, multiple men and multiple women, a man and a dog, donkey, pig etc.). However, from the beginning of Christianity, we "Christians" have had to live out our "Christian" lives surrounded by individuals and states that not only allowed for sinful living, but actually condoned it. That does not mean that we have to live those same lifestyles. We are called to live according to the precepts that God has given us. At the same time, we are called to stand for the truth and to call a spade a spade when pressed, as Phil Robertson has done recently.

IMHO, this whole "marriage" debate is about one thing... forcing insurance companies to provide EXPENSIVE health care for AIDS infected same-sex partners. It has little to do with wanting to be "accepted" as a "married" couple.

[ezduzit]

Well said Natman !
Ez

[bn2bnude]

My whole point is that as government sticks it big nose in to marriage ever farther, we can have no expectation that the government will not define and enforce terms of marriage in a very unchristian manner. At the moment we have the issue of homosexuality in the forefront of things. Should a spouse who by all indications married a Christian be put to disadvantage if the other spouse turns homosexual and the Christian finds a need to separate but in the process is disadvantaged by the default rules of the state? I for one do not think that with the intrusion of ungodly homosexuality into the realm of marriage that Christians may be put to disadvantage. Should a Christian have to enter into a marriage as defined by the state because there is no way to legally define a Christian Marriage? If Zoophilia is decriminalized (as has already happened in several states[1]), must a Christian spouse have no special preference in withdrawing from that marriage?

I've found it interesting over the last few weeks, it's now Christians that are proposing "children" marrying. Some of the ages I've heard are as young as 15 or 16.

On Child Marriage...

Kevin Swanson and Dave Bruehner have now publicly joined with Phil Robertson(in particular) and Matthew Chapman (in general) in defense of child marriage.

In their latest Generations with Vision broadcast, “Sexting and Christian Modesty,”Swanson and Bruehner propose that liberals want pre-teen and early teen girls “sexing” it up all over the place, whereas biblically-based Christians should want them… “sexing” it up at that age only in marriage?
Generations with Vision describes the program in the following way: “Public junior high schools are doing more sexting, and Kevin Swanson recommends a biblical view of womanhood and modesty for Christian families.”
Starting at the 13:45 mark, Swanson and Bruehner mount a defense of Phil Robertson’s advocacy for child marriage. Shortly thereafter, Swanson presents his own ideas about child marriage. The transcript of the section is as follows:

I didn't copy the whole article...

[Petros]

So far I have seen the scriptures are silent on age-based transition points [other than circumcision. The most serious argument against married by 15 is, with no community, almost no family, the young have no background, no training, no model, no counsel, no safety net.

[bn2bnude]

So far I have seen the scriptures are silent on age-based transition points [other than circumcision. The most serious argument against married by 15 is, with no community, almost no family, the young have no background, no training, no model, no counsel, no safety net.

Biblically you are correct but socially, it is a bit out of the norm, even though notables like Jerry Lee Lewis married a 13 year old cousin.

[Petros]

It is a fine line. As we know, at any time and place norms may flow with [or at least parallel to] scripture, or may be at a crazy angle or off in another dimension. Some of what is laid down by God is near instinctive and close enough to universal [few cultures encourage you to kill and eat your neighbour]. Other rules are rather counterintuitive - NOT COVET? That is like the old "do not think of a white horse"

On the one hand, everything not forbidden is legal. But on the other, as Paul points out for us, "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient". In fact, If I am deciding should I take my 15 year old sister as my seventh wife, I need to operate by "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Which means consulting all the pros and all the cons and checking for checks from the Spirit.

For which most people are too lazy, which is why we have cultural norms and the laws of the Medes and Persians and peer pressure up to and including lynch mobs.

Take what you want - and pay for it, says God

[Ramblinman]

Teen marriage was historically in the context of a LOT of parental mentoring and mentoring by a whole host of other adult relatives.
And parents DID have veto power over an unsuitable partner choice.

[Bare_Truth]

Another issue which is currently a problem in places in Africa is that the early teen female body is not yet fully developed in the pelvic area and small birth canal related problems lead to very difficult first births, which may cause fetal or maternal death or injury.

A common injury in such cases being a vaginal-rectal fistula or a urinary rectal fistula which leads to incontenance and infection problems. A serious tear in the perineum which does not heal properly can result in the vagina and/or rectum being connected to the abdominal cavity. Such tears are more common with first pregnancies especially if the girl is not fully grown in that area. For health reasons alone, first pregnancies under the age of 16 are prone to be problematic. However if pregnancy is delayed a few years beyond marriage this may not be such an issue. Good medical care may offset the consequences, but such a rugged first birth may not be avoidable. These problem exist even when female circumcision is not a cultural practice, but when that is the case the problem is exacerbated.

[Ramblinman]

I wasn't thinking of endorsing sexually active marriage for girls too young to safely give birth.
Rather I was thinking of late teens.
Chastity, birth control for younger girls may be viable alternatives, then again birth control is not foolproof, particularly with the young and foolish.

You've made an excellent case for some sort of state involvement in preventing underage conception on grounds of public heath.

Early first births for girls whose bodies are grown or nearly grown is healthier for them than waiting to age 30-something as we are wont to do here in the industrialized world.

I am not prepared to say that the State should be in the marriage business at all, just overseeing contracts involving dividing personal property upon death or divorce.