Saturday, 03 September 2011
-
Sex: Does it Legitimize Marriage?
Annulments, as I have understood them (without much research at all) are an interesting thing. Correct me if I am wrong on what I say here about annulments please. Two people can make an oath, have their oath witnessed, and the local authorities sign off on the oath but it is not counted as truly full or legitimate until the two have sex. Annulments are considered different from divorces because they declare that a covenant is not full and thus can be voided without the need for the dirty term 'divorce' so long as the couple has not "done the deed." Divorce only applies to full covenants. It is clear why Christians believe a marriage is not truly a marriage in full until intercourse has entered the relationship. For Christians, sex is not to be entered into until the man and woman have entered into a legal and verbal covenant which is witnessed by members of the Church and Authorities. The oath is the foundation for the marriage covenant. The opening narrative in scripture speaks to the union between man and woman and tells of the importance of sex and of a big part of the role of sex in a relationship. Later on in scripture Jesus is asked about divorce and he references this first mentioning of sex and marriage to speak of this important role sex plays. He states, "But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate" (Mark 10:6-9). Several times in scripture we read the phrase "no longer two, but one flesh." Sex unites people in a deep way (Christians and nonChristians alike attest to this pretty heavily). This is the reason Christians consider a marriage full once sex has entered the relationship after the covenant has been professed and why they consider it wrong for sex to become part of a relationship before such vital commitments are made. Deep union without deep commitment is foolish, selfish, and irresponsible but when that creating of union follows commitment it reinforces the commitment. These last few sentences could be an entirely other discussion at a different time.
While this is probably a fair understanding of most Christians, many would still look down on annulments because they would typically imply a lack of sober judgment, discernment, community witness, etc. An annulment proves that someone's "yes" was not truly a "yes." Is this an absolute? I'm not willing to say so. But it is easy to see why Christians may not be in favor of annulments and more importantly why Christians at the same time, in a sense, agree with the reason for annulments. Again, this could be a longer discussion if so desired at another time.
This bring me to my question. What is it that makes nonChristians believe that sex is the last nail in the coffin (not the best metaphor) when it comes to the marriage covenant? I can hear the arguments already that the state still practices this for various other reasons than the belief that sex finalizes a marriage or that the state is an abuser of Christianity and thus as a rogue offshoot of Christianity keeps to such practices/beliefs. Fair enough. But individuals who do not follow the teachings of scripture believe this idea. Why?
Do you believe sex is a solidifying practice for the covenant of marriage? Is a couple truly married if they do not have sex and are completely capable of sexual intercourse? What do we base that on if not the scriptures?
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: TheGreatBout@xanga
- Name: Travis
- Location: United States
- About Me: Seek and you will find... or something.
-
True
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 230 Views: 0 347827 Comments: 0 3317 View all posts by TheGreatBout@xanga
Comments (45)
Marriage is a contractual agreement between two people who love each other. Period. Sex, the gender of the parties involved, etc. has no bearing on that. Marriage is nothing more than that. Period.
I'll have sex when I feel like it. My boyfriend and I love each other whether it's written on a piece of paper or not.
You can be committed to each other without being married though. I know now everyone believe that, but just because I don't have a ring on my finger doesn't mean my boyfriend and I aren't any less committed than a married couple. Just saying.
Yawn! (I'm leaving comments now just to be considered a "true" xangan. Does my leaving a comment here legitimize my visit?) In King David's day, one "took" a wife by having sex with her and the marriage was viewed as a done deal, no priestly solemnization, no government paperwork, and usually no damned nosey witnesses! Ah, the good ol' days!
Wow...so much juicy stuff to work with here!
Are we talking about civil marriage here, or what is considered "marriage" by a particular religion, or the cultural mindset of "all that matters is love, I don't need a piece of paper...until after seven years of love and shared property he/she runs off with all my stuff including my dog"
Civilly marriage is a legal contract. Originally made to protect property rights. A man chose a wife. the woman and her offspring get taken care of, provided for and someday the sons get the dad's stuff. In exchange the woman doesn't have sex with anyone else, because the man doesn't want to give his stuff to some other guys kid,. The legal contract of marriage protected the woman, the kids and the mans interest. Go ahead and fight about every type of way that marriage has failed at this, etc, but that IS why it was legally established and when people work it, it works to meet THOSE ends,
Oh wait...did I mention love? No, because in legal/civil marriage it doesn't matter if there are warm fuzzy feelings flying around. Commitment to the agreed upon terms are all that matters. The two people don't have to know each other, like each other, love each other, they just have to follow the terms of the contract.
Even religious marriages don't have to involve warm fuzzy feelings to be valid. Love, as in protect, honor, respect are expected, but those don't have to include warm fuzzies, chemistry and mad passion. Again, what matters is that both parties agree to the terms of the contract. In some religious traditions fertility is a neccessary requirement because kids and property and all that good stuff was the reason people got married. They wanted to have kids, and pass their genetics and land and belongings to their offspring, If the partner wouldn't or couldn't have sex, the marriage was pointless because the whole purpose of it was rendered futile. If the couple never had sex, there was no marriage, because the point of marriage is sex and all that comes after it.
Warm fuzzies! I don't need to get married, My fuzzies are just as warm without a piece of paper to prove it (even though that is not what the piece of paper proves) I don't need to get married, I can have sex an or children without a marriage certificate. Yes, yes you can!
We are just as committed without a piece of paper as people with a piece of paper...maybe even more, because we are together because we WANT to be together, not because we have to. Ah, the high ground, of people too much in love to sully it with a legal contract. Rock on, rock on, and if, by some tragedy your love fades, I hope that you are committed enough to still do the right thing by one another and any children that might have happened along, without a piece of paper, or a judge to remind you of what "the right thing" is.
Marriage, both civil and religious are there to protect people against the follies of human nature. They are there to remind us of what "the right thing" is, and to persuade and sometimes force us to do "The right thing" no matter if the fuzzies are toasty warm or freezing cold. Marriage is and always has been about sex, though not necessarily "love", it has always been about property.
These days with reliable birth control, easily accessible abortions the sex part of it is less important, but the property issues remain. Civil unions lay out the legal terms of a relationship and who gets what if or when said relationship is legally dissolved. It doesn't matter if the couple is knocking boots or has warm fuzzies, in a civil union it's about certain legal rights.
Generally Christians believe God created humans man and woman, to join together, be fruitful and multiply and care for one another in a mutually respectful way. So, it makes sense that sex is considered a critical part of that relationship, but also that if at some point later sex becomes impossible that the couple out of mutual respect remain together and care for one another. And it's cool that the law kicks in to back up that "respect' part because sometimes even believers forget.
I was married for over 25 yrs. I stayed home, by mutual agreement, to raise our kids while he developed his career. Then he decided he didn't feel so warm and fuzzy about me. I am glad the law is there to encourage him to do the right thing, that is, to give me a fair chunk of the property and security we acquired through our legal union. I've been on both sides of that piece of paper. I loved him before we were married, while we were married and now when we are no longer married. The paper didn't make any difference in the level of warm fuzzies on either side. But it did have something to do with commitment. He is legally committed, even though his heart did a 180. He was willing to walk away after 25 yrs invested without a backward glance, but that piece of paper says "not so fast buddy"
I have a close friend. She and her SO didn't need any old piece of paper. They loved one another, they bought a business together, a boat, a home, sure, they put it in his name, what did it matter? They were committed in every way except on paper. Well, all of a sudden he's not feeling warm and fuzzy, and off he goes..with the business, the boat, the home...and there is nothing she can do, because she hasn't got the piece of paper. She went to a lawyer who shook his head sadly and said "sorry".
I am glad I got the piece of paper. I loved him either way. But sometimes we need the law, or our faith family, or even a god, to remind us what the "right thing" is.
I suppose to answer the questions I would first need to know what the word "marriage" means. To me "marriage" primarily is a contract, legal and binding. The partnership can be disolved but the contract is still binding. Sex does not a marriage make. To me the marriage happens when two people commit to one another, the wedding is just the announcement to friends, family and the world. Two years ago my husband had a radical prostectomy. Sex was out of the question, was I no longer married to him? Of course I was married to him, I was married to him a year before we had the wedding. Marriage is the committal, a wedding certificate is the legal contract.
Love is something you do, not something you feel. That sort of puts warm fuzzys in their proper perspective.
And to our dear Travis, TheGreatBout@xanga because you asked...a marriage can be annulled if one of the parties lie, such as you can be married six months and have sex every night, but if one of the parties lied about their age, or their background (whether they had been married before and never divorced) it can still be annulled and that is a lot less expensive than a divorce or was, laws change and so do prices.
It breaks my heart to see that so many view marriage not as a vocation or a sacrament, but as a contract, a business arrangement or a piece of paper.
@ccccourage@xanga - Excellent answer! I have nothing to add, you've pretty much covered everything.
@Ancient_Scribe@xanga - In the beginning, that's really what it was all about. A man and a woman protecting their property by creating a union which allowed them to pass down their assets to their families. Historically, the notion of marrying only for reasons of romantic love did not enter into the view of marriage in general until the last few hundred years. Not that no one ever married for love until then, but concern for property and homestead were the primary motivators.
For example, the Borgias and monarchs of Europe, who married their children off (it was more like auctioning them off to the highest bidder), to forge alliances and increase wealth.
It isn't like that any more, and I hope you take some comfort in that.
@ZombieMom_Speaks@xanga - Which beginning are you referring to? The "In the beginning..." of Genesis or "in the beginning" as far as a general understanding of human history goes? I am referring to marriage's origin "In the beginning..." when God created man and woman for each other, that the two might become one in more than merely the flesh, but rather would, together, become an entirely new person and better reflect the reality of God and reveal to the world, through their relationship with one another, the way in which God loves all mankind.
I know that since then marriage has in many ways been abused and its true meaning forgotten (whether by true forgetting or choosing to "forget!") and I am grateful that, for the most part, marrying off one's children for political or financial gain has ceased to be a practice.
@Ancient_Scribe@xanga - I'm sorry, I should have said, 'when marriage first became recognized'. In pre-christian societies (and even post-christian, some popes kept concubines and arranged marriages for their children to create alliances) it was more of a business agreement. The wife agreed to work to take care of her husband and his offspring with her (or before her, if this was his second marriage), and in return was left a portion of his estate as an inheritance. If the marriage was dissolved, the contract was considered broken and she was left with nothing.
These days (thank goodness!) most people would never even consider such an arrangement. I say most, because the popularity of prenuptial agreements, to be honest, makes me wonder about a person's motivation.
If s/he insists upon one, does it mean he expects to do something that will hurt his relationship with his/her spouse and make him/her want to leave, providing a loophole 'just in case'. Is there an issue with self-control that one of them is aware will cause marital problems?
Why even bother in that case? Not marrying is a lot easier than getting a divorce. Trust me, it's a miserable experience.
Does that mean that an anullment is legal only if authoritative members of the church have witnessed the couple have sex??!! LOL
The things that people who believe in Zombies and Magic can argue about is astonishing. No wonder our country is rapidly loosing it's place of leadership in the world.What about two people in wheelchairs with no function of their sexual organs, but fully committed to love and cherish one another the rest of their lives? Would their union not be considered fully christian after they married? As to annullment, we're just talking semantics here. Catholics like that term, but it's the same thing as divorce. You cease to be married to that individual for what ever reasons.
You stirred up a lot of thought with your topic. Regardless of what type of responses you get to what you write, keep writing. The way people think need to be challenged.
what's funny is that by making sex something two people can only do until they're married, it seems to make sex even more arbitrary in terms of gauging where a relationship is at . no relationship should be judged by whether there is a ring on someone's finger, or whether they're having sex. my SO and i aren't married, and we aren't very sexually active, either. our relationship is as wonderful as ever, but according to anyone who believes in annulment through lack of sex, our relationship is dead in the water. it's just a little twisted.
@ccccourage@xanga my, my, my... that was an excellent response!
@Ancient_Scribe@xanga - I actually think that mindset has significantly decrease in modern times because women in most countries aren't seen as property of their father to be passed to another man. I think how marriage was used in the past was pretty messed up, especially among upper class/nobility./royalty. Nowadays, at least the attitude is a reaction to divorce rates meaning people are no longer marrying someone as a business arrangement but NOT marry someone despite loving them. It has gone from "this marriage is simply a business arrangement" to "we don't need a piece of paper to show our commitment to each other". I think the former is a lot worse than the latter.
@abionaalli@xanga - haha, are you sure? Celebrities make me question that.
Sidenote- Annullment is not the same as divorce, and it doesn't matter if the couple has had sex or not (though the hope is that the married couple will partake in sex). Annullment does not invalidate a marriage, but seeks to determine if the marriage was invalid from the beginning. If so, the marriage can be annulled. If not, the couple can divorce civilly but are still married in the eyes of God.
All of this hinges on the idea that marriage is a social contract, invented by man. If it was instituted by God, then all of this is really moot. No one debates God.
Not married. It doesn't hold up in a court of law either. I saw a judge show where the judge said a couple had never been married because of the never-had-sex thing.
Personally, sex will not legitimize marriage. You don't need sex or a piece of paper to make a marriage real.
@StatelessPilot - lie
@anchoredreams@xanga - are you going to spend the rest of your life with your boyfriend? are you ready to have children with your boyfriend? do you use contraception when you have sex with him? if you answered yes, yes, and no so those questions, then you should go get married right now. if you can't answer yes, yes, and no, then you need to break up with him, because you're not really loving him nor are you loving yourself. you're giving yourself away to someone who might not be your future husband. chances are that your future husband is out there with SOMEONE ELSE. how does that make you feel? how does it feel to know that you might be having sex with someone else's future husband? would you not want your future husband to save himself for you? think about it... when you give yourself away like that, you can't get it back. and sure you say you love each other... but i'm willing to assume there are plenty of things that would prevent you two from actually getting married if you sat down and think about it. if i'm wrong, i apologize and you can go get married right now and live happily ever after...
so, here's some good advice for any young lady who might be reading this. each night, before you go to bed, write a letter to your future husband. WAIT for him. if you've been sexually active in the past, you can seek the Lord's mercy through his Church. Moreover, for the sake of your future husband, marriage, and children, stop having sex. save your body so that you can give it to the one you'll spend the rest of your life with, the one who will protect your beauty as a woman.
advice for the young guys out there: STOP TREATING WOMEN LIKE OBJECTS. true masculinity requires sacrifice. you have the choice to say no to the pressures of the world. you have been given the strength to protect the dignity of women. you too can save your bodies so that you can give it to the woman you will protect and defend and share the rest of your life with.
@ZombieMom_Speaks@xanga, @Endersig@xanga @Ancient_Scribe@xanga - that's the influence john locke had on us... i bet he couldn't even dream of the consequences his philosophy had 200 years later. he just didn't want to have a king anymore...
@Proud2B2003@xanga - what does make a marriage real?
let's make this simple. marriage = love = sex = new life (babies). if you're having sex before our outside of marriage, then what makes marriage so special or 'real'? and if you can't have babies for whatever reason (infertility, contraception, vasectomy, tubes tied, homosexuality), then you're not really married... and why would you WANT to get married? social status? that's fading. governmental benefits? that ultimately comes down to money, which also doesn't last. vanity of vanity, everything is vanity...
again i come back to my usual complaint about revelife. for a 'christian' online community, it's not very 'christian' at all. seriously, if Christians are coming here to find christian answers, are they really discovering TRUTH or just other people's opinions?
btw, to get back to matter at hand. here's what the Catholic Church has to say about it from the Cathechism (TheGreatBout@xanga, check out how much Scripture is cited there, too!) so much more has been written about marriage in the history of Christianity that it's not even funny. i suggest you all investigate what's called Theology of the Body. start with an intro book by either Christopher West or Jason Evert, and then work your way up to more advanced theology! just to add my own thoughts specifically, the couple isn't married until they consummate, meaning they have sexual intercourse, which is only biologically possible between one man and one woman. that's why marriage can only ever be between one man and one woman, and not ever between 2 men or 2 women, no matter how much they might love each other. of course, the man and woman getting married do need to love each other because loving one another is giving one's entire self to the other, heart, mind, body, and soul. again, since one man can't give his entire body to another man, nor can one woman give her entire body to another woman, it's physically and biologically IMPOSSIBLE and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for 2 men or 2 women to be married!!
and that's the TRUTH which sets you free, brothers and sisters!!!
@rusty0505@xanga - The commitment to each other and the relationship. But that's my opinion. Some people want the sex to make it real while others require other things. And that's okay.
For me, I'm not married (yet). But that's because I haven't found the right guy for me.
I know some couples (one of which is my uncle who's been in the same relationship for 20 years to the same woman) who are together and are making their marriage work. They don't have the physical piece paper for it. Does that mean that they have no marriage? Because they never went before God and said vows?
And I can respect your opinion about your views of marriage. I hope you can respect mine.
@rusty0505@xanga - For me it is more about government benefits than anything. Even here in Mexico where I live there are benefits attached to marriage. That gives me plenty of reason to get married while remaining childfree. Sorry, I just find children disgusting and I can think of a lot better things to do with a quarter of a million dollars than raise a kid for 18 years. If that's what you want to do though, more power to you. It's not my money you're wasting.
@StatelessPilot - it's not wasting money because money won't be with you after you die. another person that you help create, on the other hand, just might...
@Proud2B2003@xanga - so relativistic... can't there be one universal TRUTH that applies to everyone? do you not want happiness and true freedom?