Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The Fellowship Hall > Marriage Matters
Facebook

Notices

Marriage Matters For discussion of Marital issues


View Poll Results: Do you support marriage privatization?
Yes. 10 83.33%
No. 2 16.67%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 09-23-2017, 04:06 PM
Aquila Aquila is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
Re: Marriage Privatization:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tascero View Post
I have one quick question, that I'd like to be answered. Can anyone answer this?: Did the old covenant allow polygamy, or polyandry? Do Jews believe in either of them, or both?
The Law of Moses permitted polygamy, and even having concubines (women who were live in "lovers" who had only some of the same rights as proper wives). After Sampson was displeased with his wife's betrayal, he gave her away to a companion of his (Judges 14:20). Women were taken to wife as war spoils, and if a woman was raped or seduced, the man who did this to her was forced to pay her father for damages, marry her, and was never allowed to divorce her.

Women were property. For this reason, polyandry wasn't practiced among the Hebrews.

No doubt though, prostitutes and loose women had multiple suitors . However, this wasn't culturally acceptable.

This article might help your understanding:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.got...oncubines.html

Last edited by Aquila; 09-23-2017 at 04:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-24-2017, 09:51 PM
Evang.Benincasa's Avatar
Evang.Benincasa Evang.Benincasa is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 30,365
Re: Marriage Privatization:

Wow, now Aquila will get two naked females to cook him breakfast?

__________________
ALL pastors are hindrances and one should never have a pastor they will only abuse you and you will get hurt. Instead get your instructions from forum gurus that have never built a church.~Steve Epley.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-19-2018, 11:50 AM
Aquila Aquila is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
Re: Marriage Privatization:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa View Post
Wow, now Aquila will get two naked females to cook him breakfast?

Absolutely not! The Bible says, "No man can serve two masters."
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-19-2018, 11:57 AM
Aquila Aquila is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
Re: Marriage Privatization:

For those who want to know more about this position on marriage, here are a few valuable links:
The Case for Getting Government out of the Marriage Business
http://westernfreepress.com/2015/06/...iage-business/

Opinion: True marriage equality is government free
http://thenewpolitical.com/2013/03/2...vernment-free/

When it comes to marriage, government should divorce itself
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/...ce-itself.html

The Marriage Pledge
https://www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-13-2018, 02:04 PM
Aquila Aquila is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
Re: Marriage Privatization:

I found this article by an Eastern Orthodox priest interesting. I'll highlight the points I find of interest:

No Wedding Vows

July 26, 2013 · Fr. Stephen Freeman

Few things differ more clearly between Eastern and Western Christianity than the service of Holy Matrimony. There are things found in Western Christian Marriage ceremonies that cannot be found in the East just as there are things in the East that cannot be found in the West. In many languages of the Eastern Churches, the service for a marriage is referred to as the “Crowning” – named for the central act within the ceremony – the crowning of the bride and groom. However nothing separates the marriage ceremonies of East and West like the place of marriage vows: there are no wedding vows in an Orthodox wedding.

Those unfamiliar with Orthodox weddings are often taken aback by this fact – how can there be a wedding without vows? How can a couple actually be married if they make no promises? I have heard it observed wryly that in Orthodoxy, we do not require the bride and groom to perjure themselves on their wedding day! But the absence of vows points to more than ceremonial differences – the theology of marriage differs greatly – and it is a difference worth pondering.

In the Orthodox wedding the couple is first “bethrothed” with the exchange of rings. Led into the center of the Church, the priest offers prayers. In the course of those prayers, in something of an “epiclesis” (the calling down of the Holy Spirit to accomplish a particular purpose – present in all the sacraments of the Church), the priest asks God to be present; to bless the marriage; to preserve their bed unassailed; to give them the dew of heaven; to fill their houses with every good thing; to send down heavenly grace to bless, preserve and remember the bride and groom; and just prior to the crowning:
Stretch out now also Thy hand from Thy holy dwelling‑place, and unite this Thy servant, N. and this Thy handmaiden, N.; for by Thee is the husband joined unto the wife. Unite them in one mind; wed them into one flesh, granting to them the fruit of the body and the procreation of fair children.
And then the priest crowns the couple (three times), saying each time: “Crown them with glory and honor!” (see Psalm 8:5)

In contrast, the marriage in the West finds its focus within the exchange of vows. “Do you…take this woman…to have and to hold, to love and to cherish…etc. as long as you both shall live?” I was taught, when I was an Anglican, that the “ministers” of the sacrament of marriage are the couple themselves. The priest witnesses, and prays for God’s blessing.

This centerpiece of marriage in the West has been a subject of great creativity in the last number of decades. “Writing your own vows,” has been an essential undertaking for many couples (and probably the source of more than a little angst). I have seen examples of beauty and examples of triteness beyond description.

The role of vows in Western marriage is also bearing some very strange fruit.

Our culture, following the logic of vows, views marriage as a contract between two people. Specific promises concerning performance (and non-performance) are offered. These details of the contract are “witnessed” (for that is the language of the license itself). A Church offers a blessing, but the essential nature of a civil ceremony and a religious ceremony are found only in music and the trappings, not in the ceremony itself. I have often wondered whether the state would declare Orthodox marriages to be null and void if it were to learn that there are no promises made or accepted.

This contract view of marriage has become problematic in the current civil discussions of same-sex marriages. If marriage is a contract, how can anything be an essential problem to any two people entering such a contract? If they are both willing to acknowledge the requests and requirements expected of them, how can anyone say they have no right to have such an arrangement? Marriage as contract is wide-open.

However, there is no contract in an Orthodox marriage. A couple present themselves to God within the Church and it is there that the sacrament occurs. The power of God comes upon the lives of a man and a woman and unites them in one mind and weds them in one flesh. The sacrament is a union, not a contract.

Not all people can be united. St. Paul warns of false or corrupted unions:
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s. (1Co 6:15-20 NKJ)
Paul moves seamlessly in this short exhortation between sexual union with a harlot and spiritual union with Christ. Clearly, for St. Paul, union is union. But in neither case is union a contract.

It would seem obvious that if marriage is a contract, then almost any contract is theoretically possible (perhaps much less than advisable, but not impossible). However, in the Orthodox understanding, the union of a marriage is fulfilled most commonly in procreation. It is fulfilled mystically in the “one flesh” (of which procreation is but one example). Not every marriage union is blessed with children, but such a fulfillment is considered normative. Couples beyond the age of conception have certainly conceived children within Orthodox tradition (Abraham and Sarah, Joachim and Anna, etc.). But attempts to create a union out of what cannot be a union, nor bears even the most remote possibility of union, are outside the bounds of matrimony. There is no denying that relationships, even contracts might be created, but a union is something entirely different. St. Paul does not use the argument of union to oppose same sex relationships – for union there is not possible. His objections (and those of the Church) rest on other grounds.

In some ways, it would make sense for Orthodoxy to object to all marriage in the Western model because of its contractual basis. However, such objections have never been made. As civil societies continue to experiment with new definitions, however, such objections might be worth considering. The objection would not be an effort to declare marriage as a contract to be null and void, but simply woefully misunderstood.

The obligations of marriage are not enjoined by the terms of a contract – they are rather the obligations enjoined by our own “flesh and bones.” I do not need a contract with the atmosphere in order to breathe – I need to breathe in order to live. The analogy is not perfect, but is not inapt.

Pondering all of this, I once wondered if we should stop using the word “sex” to describe what a man and woman have with one another. Instead, I wondered how it would be if we called that activity “marriage”? “Have you had marriage with that girl?” Perhaps such a shift in language would better help people understand the nature of sexual activity.

Words and ceremonies matter, particularly when their nature and the context changes. The language and concept of contract served the West for many centuries. I believe that it created an overly legal understanding of a relationship that would have been better described in organic terms. Today, contract has triumphed over organic objections and the language (and ceremony) seem to be coming up short.

The language of the understanding of marriage within the Eastern model might suggest possible ways for other Christians to think as well. It certainly behooves Orthodox Christians to ponder deeply the substance of the Tradition that is theirs. It would make good sense if Orthodox Christians were to rid themselves of the confusion of contractual imagery that might have been inadvertently absorbed.

Crown them, O Lord, with glory and honor!

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory...-wedding-vows/
A marriage, according to this concept, is a "union"... not a contract.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-15-2018, 06:32 PM
Aquila Aquila is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
Re: Marriage Privatization:

Interesting article:

There Are Two Marriages
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjon...wo-marriages/#

I got married on July 13. In a church, by a pastor, surrounded by family and friends. We wore wedding clothes. We had a reception. You can see the pictures. It really happened.

But we didn’t make it legal.

This week, in a series of posts, I’m going to try to unpack what I think is a very important point in the debate over marriage in our country right now. People say that marriage is broken, or that marriage is up-for-grabs. Neither is true. Actually, there are two marriages in America.

On the one hand, there’s legal marriage. It’s sanctioned by the state, and it’s available to any two adults who desire to enter into a legally binding contract with one another (some states limit this contractual opportunity to opposite-gendered persons). Legal marriage affords the married couple as many as 515 benefits that are not afforded to non-married persons, and it is officially incentivized by our government. And legal marriage has nothing to do with sexual intimacy.

On the other hand, there’s sacramental marriage, which is defined by communities of faith. This marriage accrues neither governmental benefits nor tax incentives. However, sexual intimacy is of great interest to this marriage, since the sacred texts of all religions have lots to say about sex. Sacramental marriage is about what God wants — and that is, of course, a matter of interpretation and debate among Christians. Nevertheless, it is sacred in a way that legal marriage is not and, as such, it is the more important version of marriage.


Courtney and I got married, as I wrote above, on July 13. We were married in the sacramental way, but we did not ask for the imprimatur of the State of Minnesota on our marriage by means of buying a license at the Hennepin County Service Center.
Why not? Well, that’s what I’ll be attempting to show at length in a series of blog posts this week. But, in short, here’s why:

The sacred ceremony of marriage is far more important to us than the legal contract of marriage.
We don’t really care if the government considers us married. We’re far more interested in our marriage being solemnized by our family, friends, and community of faith.
We don’t think that we should enjoy the 515 benefits of legal marriage when so many of our friends cannot.
I do not think that clergy should act as agents of the government (as I’ve written before), and I did not want to ask my friend, Doug, to do so.

I realize that I’m asserting a view that some call the difference between civil unions and marriage, and that may be so. But if that’s the way we’re going to go, then we should change all state-sanctioned arrangements (including existing heterosexual ones) of this type to civil unions.

In any case, a change in terminology would be helpful, because legal marriage and sacramental marriage, while they do have some overlap, are really completely different. And for us to move forward in this contentious time, we’ve got to get this difference straight.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-16-2018, 03:40 PM
1ofthechosen's Avatar
1ofthechosen 1ofthechosen is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 2,472
Re: Marriage Privatization:

I think they should change the name of it for the world anyway. Marriage is a covenant between man and woman and God, if you are atheist, agnostic, a witch, etc. Why in the world would you get married anyway. There is no covenant being cut with that person anyway!!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCml...GfzdAfhWLzbz1A
This is a One God, Holy Ghost Filled, Tongue Talkin', Jesus Name channel where it's all in Him!
Apostolic Truth! His Truth Is Marching On!
SUBSCRIBE to my channel!!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-26-2018, 08:09 AM
Aquila Aquila is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
Re: Marriage Privatization:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen View Post
I think they should change the name of it for the world anyway. Marriage is a covenant between man and woman and God, if you are atheist, agnostic, a witch, etc. Why in the world would you get married anyway. There is no covenant being cut with that person anyway!!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCml...GfzdAfhWLzbz1A
This is a One God, Holy Ghost Filled, Tongue Talkin', Jesus Name channel where it's all in Him!
Apostolic Truth! His Truth Is Marching On!
SUBSCRIBE to my channel!!
Personally, I think that they should offer "civil unions". This would allow individual people to define "marriage" in accordance to their faith and practices. It would also allow for people to be married in a religious manner without involving the state if that is what they desired.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-05-2018, 10:55 PM
jfrog's Avatar
jfrog jfrog is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,650
Re: Marriage Privatization:

Perhaps it is truly impossible to separate church and state.
__________________
You better watch out before I blitzkrieg your thread cause I'm the Thread Nazi now!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-06-2018, 10:11 PM
Aquila Aquila is offline
Banned


 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 31,124
Re: Marriage Privatization:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfrog View Post
Perhaps it is truly impossible to separate church and state.
It's possible. Quakers offer the option to be "married in care of the meeting", and the couple gets a Quaker wedding and certificate. Nothing is filed with the government.

Many mainline churches offer "commitment ceremonies" that are much the same.

Some churches wash their hands of it by only blessing couples, admonishing if they want government recognition, they should go down to the courts.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What comes after same sex marriage? Sam Political Talk 10 09-17-2012 02:29 AM
Marriage Privatization: Thoughts? Aquila Fellowship Hall 10 06-29-2012 07:29 AM
Gay Marriage: For or Against? Charnock Fellowship Hall 636 11-19-2010 03:44 PM
Same Sex Marriage Sam Fellowship Hall 0 02-06-2009 06:28 PM
Gay Marriage Dedicated Mind Fellowship Hall 43 11-18-2008 10:14 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by aegsm76
- by n david
- by derAlte

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.