Marriage Rejuvenation?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Sean, you don't see the difference between a man marrying a woman and a man marrying a man?

Wow!

Would you break the law to be obedient to God?

[n david]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Then why did you say you're going to be remarried under those marriage laws so you can collect Social Security?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Where did I say that? Please quote me, or you're just like a gnat at a BBQ.

No dog in this fight, just posting that it isn't hard to see what TK posted. From your posts, especially the most recent ones, it did appear your reason for civil marriage was to collect Social Security benefits. TK isn't libeling you.

Originally Posted by Aquila

A couple weeks after she mentioned considering a civil marriage, she brought up that she felt it would be disingenuous to seek a civil marriage just for money.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I explained that she had lost her father and her mother had a complication with claiming her entitlement to a portion of his Social Security. In the wake of her FATHER'S DEATH she was reflecting upon this and wondered about what would happen to us if we didn't have a civil marriage. She wasn't feeling down over our arrangement. She had a legitimate concern in the wake of losing her father.

Originally Posted by Aquila

- Her dad died.
- She helped mom work out details so her mom could get her dad's Social Security.
- This caused her to wonder about the Social Security entitlement and the benefit of a civil marriage.
- I committed to a civil marriage, if that was truly what she wanted.
- I even proposed to her again and made her laugh and smile.
- I even began calling her my fiancé, as a term of endearment, to respect her consideration of civil marriage.
- She later explains to me that she felt that seeking a civil marriage felt disingenuous, and that it presented more liabilities than security.
- I agreed.
- She hasn't mentioned it again.
- But if that is what she truly desires, I'll gladly marry her in the eyes of the government too.

[Sean]

TK would never break the law. He does not even accelerate his car above the limit, or do tap and go at stop signs.

He would do whatever the civil law expects him to do.

He even studies the newest laws so he never breaks any.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Would you break the law to be obedient to God?

Same sex marriage violates God's law.

Civil heterosexual marriage does not violate God's law.

[votivesoul]

Okay. Thanks, Aquila.

A favor, if you don't mind: try for a moment to step outside of yourself, and be as objective as possible and ask yourself, if you were in anyone else's shoes, how it would look: that here at AFF, you mention a fiance, and seemingly only ever call her your "lady love", never wife, in and around that timeframe, and then a few months later, share of an intimate sexual experience, still only calling her "lady love", not wife, then, when asked about it, you don't post for several days, then come back with the story you shared...

In all honesty, would you believe it? If you're feeling overly challenged, please understand the credibility of the story you've given everyone is being stretched pretty thin. I cannot speak for anyone else, but for me, my inquiries of are an administrative nature. I am trying to get to the bottom of this, to make sure everything is right and square as it pertains to the rules of AFF and what measures, if any, need to be taken, in light of that fact.

I almost never care one way or the other about anyone's private life here at AFF, and don't routinely make it my business. But this needs answering. You've given answers, and thank you for that; I'm just making sure I understand them properly and in context.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

No dog in this fight, just posting that it isn't hard to see what TK posted. From your posts, especially the most recent ones, it did appear your reason for civil marriage was to collect Social Security benefits. TK isn't libeling you.

Ah, but the twist being made is that it was "my" idea. It was a concern of "her's". Therefore, why would someone argue that I would want a civil marriage to collect money? This is what I mean by libeling me. The subtle distortion of the facts is ever so subtle. But it is a distortion of the facts designed and used against "me".

Now, I'm not offended by someone honestly asking me what I'd do such a thing and allowing me to clarify. But to repeatedly use this twist to call me a hypocrite, or whatever, well... that's a deliberate distortion of the facts. In some places, they'd call it a lie. lol

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Same sex marriage violates God's law.

Civil heterosexual marriage does not violate God's law.

Do the civil statutes governing civil marriage reflect God's Word concerning parental authority over one being married, property, grounds for divorce, paternal rights to children, and remarriage? (Deuteronomy 22:16; Exodus 22:17; I Corinthians 7:38; Deuteronomy 24:1-4; Matthew 5:32; Luke 16:18; I Corinthians 7:15)

Do the statutes of civil marriage require believers to go before the unbelieving civil courts of this world? (I Corinthians 6:1-8)

It is the conviction of many Christians of all denominations that the civil marriage laws have indeed become unbiblical and exploitive. If you don't believe me, just ask any man who has married a woman, believing she loved him, only to watch her divorce him two years later claiming "no-fault" and the courts entitle her to well over half of everything he has and spousal support. And others have chosen to operate separately from civil marriage on the grounds that civil marriage law now solemnizes gay marriages. For example, these guys:

First Things, The Marriage Pledge
https://www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge

It is a "conservative" position and it is indeed Christian in that it pays deeper thought to the spiritual implications of such laws.

Personally, I'd like to see marriage return to being a private contract wherein the couple stipulates the terms of their marital relationship. And if the courts do have to get involved, the courts should rule in accordance to the contract agreed to, not just a one size fits all model.

Is it any wonder that since 1929 marriage has suffered in America? Some things, the government might be good at. But I don't think government involvement has helped the institution of marriage.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Okay. Thanks, Aquila.

A favor, if you don't mind: try for a moment to step outside of yourself, and be as objective as possible and ask yourself, if you were in anyone else's shoes, how it would look: that here at AFF, you mention a fiance, and seemingly only ever call her your "lady love", never wife, in and around that timeframe, and then a few months later, share of an intimate sexual experience, still only calling her "lady love", not wife, then, when asked about it, you don't post for several days, then come back with the story you shared...

In all honesty, would you believe it? If you're feeling overly challenged, please understand the credibility of the story you've given everyone is being stretched pretty thin. I cannot speak for anyone else, but for me, my inquiries of are an administrative nature. I am trying to get to the bottom of this, to make sure everything is right and square as it pertains to the rules of AFF and what measures, if any, need to be taken, in light of that fact.

I almost never care one way or the other about anyone's private life here at AFF, and don't routinely make it my business. But this needs answering. You've given answers, and thank you for that; I'm just making sure I understand them properly and in context.

I guess I can understand. And I don't mind honest questions. I think what wears on me are the barbed accusations that are cloaked as questions.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Do the civil statutes governing civil marriage reflect God's Word concerning parental authority over one being married, property, grounds for divorce, paternal rights to children, and remarriage? (Deuteronomy 22:16; Exodus 22:17; I Corinthians 7:38; Deuteronomy 24:1-4; Matthew 5:32; Luke 16:18; I Corinthians 7:15)

Do the statutes of civil marriage require believers to go before the unbelieving civil courts of this world? (I Corinthians 6:1-8)

It is the conviction of many Christians of all denominations that the civil marriage laws have indeed become unbiblical and exploitive. If you don't believe me, just ask any man who has married a woman, believing she loved him, only to watch her divorce him two years later claiming "no-fault" and the courts entitle her to well over half of everything he has and spousal support. And others have chosen to operate separately from civil marriage on the grounds that civil marriage law now solemnizes gay marriages. For example, these guys:

First Things, The Marriage Pledge
https://www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge

It is a "conservative" position and it is indeed Christian in that it pays deeper thought to the spiritual implications of such laws.

Personally, I'd like to see marriage return to being a private contract wherein the couple stipulates the terms of their marital relationship. And if the courts do have to get involved, the courts should rule in accordance to the contract agreed to, not just a one size fits all model.

Is it any wonder that since 1929 marriage has suffered in America? Some things, the government might be good at. But I don't think government involvement has helped the institution of marriage.

I don't wish to twist your post, but if you claim civil marriage is against the Bible, you're saying it's sin. And to follow that through to the end, sin leads to what? Death and hell.

Do you really believe people will go to hell for a civil marriage?

We've discussed this, but you continue to make the claim that 1 Corinthians 6 is about divorce. It is not about divorce. And while you twist 1 Corinthians 6 to try and prove your point, you ignore the other scriptures which state we should follow the ordinances and laws of men.

Marriage isn't suffering because of the government requiring a piece of paper. Marriage is suffering because the hearts of men [and women] are evil. Period. Sin has caused marriages to suffer, not civil marriage.

Again, I don't wish to twist your posts, but from a couple posts now it appears at least part of your position against civil marriages is because of the issues with divorce. Civil marriages cause divorce to be costly. A covenant marriage would make divorce cheap and easy for you and others.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

I don't wish to twist your post, but if you claim civil marriage is against the Bible, you're saying it's sin. And to follow that through to the end, sin leads to what? Death and hell.

Do you really believe people will go to hell for a civil marriage?

I see your concern. I'll try to clarify...

I'm not saying that civil marriage is "sin". What I am saying is that the laws governing it are "unbiblical" and do not express God's intentions regarding the institution. For example, "no-fault" divorce statutes. For centuries divorce required "grounds". And if one had "grounds" for divorce, it was granted. If differences were indeed deemed to be irreconcilable (after court mandated counseling), the court might grant the divorce, but it would lean towards favoring the individual who was faithful to the marriage contract and not the one who was breaking it "without grounds". In addition, if one had "grounds" to file for divorce, it was usually due to some illegal activity, abuse, betrayal, or unfaithfulness on the part of the other party. And so the court would consider the innocent party's well being and this would prove as a liability to the guilty party. For example, a promiscuous wife would face an uphill battle to get spousal support. This provided what courts are intended to provide... "justice". This is how marriage and divorce were handled in our grandparents and our parents generations. This is why they would tell us that a civil marriage offers security and legal protection if you were wronged by a spouse. However, the statutes were changed. Now the court doesn't care if one has grounds for divorce or not. Nor is the court concerned with establishing "fault" or providing "justice". Instead, the court views the couple as a state created corporation to be liquidated. Regardless of which party was wronged vs. which wasn't (unless the wrong was criminal) the state liquidates property and assets (unless another arrangement is agreed upon) and will divide everything evenly. In addition, the individual bringing in the least income is automatically entitled to spousal support. In other words, a spouse can go out and cheat with a dozen men (or women) and file for a divorce against their faithful spouse. In spite of their unfaithfulness, the court often entitles them to half of all assets and even spousal support...leaving the faithful spouse's life in ruins and legally ordering them to help pay for their unfaithful spouse's new lifestyle. Many women (and men) have made their living by seducing loving and faithful well to do spouses with the sole intent of divorcing them after a period of time so that they will be entitled to great wealth. This is legalized extortion. And this is exactly the opposite of the security God designed marriage to provide and the process by which divorce was to be granted and handled. Not only does this contribute to making divorce far more lucrative for the lower income making party, but it also discourages civil marriage for the untold number of men and women who know that a civil marriage will prove to be a serious gamble with all that they've worked their entire life to attain.

So, what I (and others of this opinion) are saying is that it is "unbiblical" and "unjust". Now, those in a civil marriage haven't "sinned". However, if they do end up "sinning" and it leads to divorce, and they allow legal counsel to use the system to extort from their innocent spouse, they indeed have "sinned" by participating in the injustice of said system. For example, my attorney wanted me to lie and accuse my wife of physical violence against our child to get an immediate custody order, just to make her battle an uphill battle. I refused to lie about anything, and that put me in a serious disadvantage as she lied her little head off (probably at the behest of her legal counsel) and used the system to virtually destroy me.

I remember the conversation with my attorney. He said, "Has she ever been violent towards your son?" I said, "No, she hasn't." He said, "Look, if she has or hasn't, only you would know. But it's up to you to give me something to work with if you want your son." I said, "Are you asking me to lie to get custody of my son???" He said, "Absolutely not. I'd never ask you to 'lie'. But nothing is stopping her from lying to take your son from you."

And had I lied, the extended litigation would have made both attorneys a couple thousand extra dollars. He baited me to lie to get something I wanted, which would have resulted in open war in the courts. Which would have led to additional legal actions on both our parts to combat and protect each other from the other... making both attorneys a lot more money. And sadly, unless one has hard evidence to the contrary of a false accusation of something criminal, the courts favor the accuser over the accused.

For this reason (and please stop speaking as though I'm the only one with this position) an increasing number of Christians and Christian pastors are questioning the benefit and justice of this civil contract and the civil courts that manage it.

We've discussed this, but you continue to make the claim that 1 Corinthians 6 is about divorce. It is not about divorce. And while you twist 1 Corinthians 6 to try and prove your point, you ignore the other scriptures which state we should follow the ordinances and laws of men.

I never said it was "about divorce". Again, this is a misrepresentation, a straw man. I was actually trying to explain was that this passage is about any form of litigation, or lawsuit, performed before an unbelieving court (that would include divorce). To clarify why I say that, I'll present the text for the sake of our readers. Paul wrote:

I Corinthians 6:1-8 (ESV)
1 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!

In other words, Christians shouldn't be settling any matters before unbelievers in unbelieving courts. This is a position that was taken by Quakers, the Amish, German Baptists, and a number of old world Christians prior to our litigious modern society. Christians handled marriage in house, Christians handled differences before the congregation or trusted elders, Christians avoided testifying and taking an oath in courts, these Christians also refused military service seeing that it was a civil contract binding them to serve, and to kill for the civil government. Even today, Quakers will refuse to take off their hats in civil courts and they will refuse to swear in for the court. And they traditionally do not offer testimony, they will only affirm or deny with "yay" or "nay" when forced to the stand. This is why they also traditionally don't press charges against thieves or even physical assault.

The point is, my understanding of I Corinthians 6:1-8 isn't something I've made up. It is the historic understanding of many old world Christians.

Marriage isn't suffering because of the government requiring a piece of paper. Marriage is suffering because the hearts of men [and women] are evil. Period. Sin has caused marriages to suffer, not civil marriage.

I agree. I never said a piece of paper has caused marriage to suffer. Men and women have always been sinful. So, that hasn't changed. What has changed are the laws and statutes that govern marriage. The unjust laws and civil statutes that make marriage an instant ticket to wealth with no-fault divorce laws only create financial incentive to divorce (or to never marry). And as a result, we see far more people filing for divorce or choosing not to marry. And do your research. Who files for divorce more often? Men or women? Women. And who tend to make out like bandits after a divorce? Women. In fact, there are many women (and even a small number of men) who have made quite a small fortune through the civil divorce courts who entered their marriages with the express intention of using the court to extort from their faithful and wealthy spouses. It's the laws and statutes that have made divorce far more prevalent and caused more people to seriously reconsider a civil marriage. Just imagine if they did away with these modern "no-fault" divorce statutes. Imagine if we went back to the days when actual "legal grounds" for divorce were put back into place. We'd see far fewer divorces, because divorce wouldn't be so lucrative for the spouse making less.

Again, I don't wish to twist your posts, but from a couple posts now it appears at least part of your position against civil marriages is because of the issues with divorce. Civil marriages cause divorce to be costly. A covenant marriage would make divorce cheap and easy for you and others.

Sadly, the two are connected. If you enter into a civil marriage, you consent to the laws and statutes governing it and it's dissolution. And yes, civil marriage has made divorce more costly than ever before, but that hasn't stopped divorce from growing because it is still lucrative, typically for the spouse who files for divorce. In fact, the costliness of divorce has only served to allow the guilty to perform legalized extortion against innocent spouses.

And yes, covenant marriage makes divorce far more simple. In biblical times the writ of divorcement was written by the husband, witnessed, and delivered to the wife... and she had to leave. God didn't create a divorce system that was long and drawn out or even expensive. Right now the cost of divorce often breaks the innocent party and helps make attorneys wealthy. Covenant marriage protects the assets of each person. You can't take her car. She can't take your house. Neither of you (especially the guilty party) can demand continued financial support. Oh, she might leave and take the television, stereo system, Xbox, the laptop, and the toaster. But as Paul said,

I Corinthians 6:7 (ESV)
"Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?"

Just let her go. In fact, when dealing with an apostate or unbelieving spouse who abandons a believer, Paul writes:

I Corinthians 7:15
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

Paul doesn't require any litigation or court battles. In fact, if your apostate or unbelieving spouse departs, let them go. From that moment forward you're not under bondage to the union. It's done. Over. Why? God has called us to peace, not extended legal battles, arguing, fighting, or strife. By just letting them go peacefully you increase the chances that they might one day see the peaceful nature and compassion of our faith and be saved.

The "no-fault" divorce statutes that govern marriage today has robbed marriage of the security it was designed to have, and has actually made it a serious gamble. A liability of liabilities. An institution of extortion.