Some facts about "shacking up."

[doug yowell]

You assuming that current traditional marriage is the match of the originally created one. In reality, we don't see the ceremony, neither it was the emphasis.

If there was any marriage ceremony during creation, it was not recorded and implied. The idea was the idea of unity. These people were created as man and wife. It's nice to think that there was a ceremony with wows exchanged, as it is every teenage girl's dream, but I highly doubt that was the case. The presentation and commitment was enough.

Do you really think God married every single couple prior to arrival of some sort of distinguished clergy? The immediate context of these marriages would have been between the immediate families of these people. Or did God himself marry these people in ceremony? There was no clergy class as we have it described to us today.

Marriage ceremony is largely circumstantial, as it depends on a context of various cultural and societal expectations. I certainly would not say that these expectations are "wrong" or "evil", but neither is missing these expectations.

I'm not disagreeing with these circumstances above. Of course the ceremony details themselves depend on various cultural traditions.But even your own examples do not allow for each individual couple to decide apart from their families or their cultures,or God what constituted a true marriage. No recorded culture has ever deviated from the community aspects of approval and definition of what they considered "married". Calling a pancake a waffle because it's made from the same ingredients doesn't make it so.But doesn't Jesus declaration that "what God has joined together let no man..." indicate the existence of an objective and societal standard? One which God Himself uses as the plumb line of whether a relationship falls into the category of adultery, fornication, or marriage?

[doug yowell]

Upsetting someone is not the reason to be forced into one's convictions about certain traditional ideals.

On the other hand rejecting those traditions because one doesn't see the particular need of not offending their society says a whole lot about their commitment to their neighbors,their priority of importances, their arrogance of the correctness of their own private social constructs, and the effect of their rebellious spirit on that society (and marriage itself)as a whole. While this has become an expected attitude for much of post-WWII western Europe and the love generation of the 60's it is hardly grounds for supportive Christian apologetics. "Offenses must come, but woe to Him by whom it comes..." If my (shacking up!!) causes my brother to stumble, I will not (thank you, Richard)..."

[doug yowell]

I understand why you would be upset, but the reality is that current view of marriage is a cultural construct, and there are very few directions on "proper wedding ceremony" outside of the prevailing principles outlined by both sides of the NT and OT doctrine. You won't find the mandated marriage ceremony conducted by the pastors, you won't find the distinct "model" by which these ceremonies are to be conducted. In essence it was largely left up to people given certain societal standards, and guiding principles of man-woman unity in commitment.

The question is not whether or not all marriage ceremonial details are Divinely proscribed but rather whether or not any public standard of legitimacey is required. Ceremony details aside, any ceremony or legal/public/societal regognition of marriage legitimacey has always been required before anyone says "those two are married".Even your above post recognizes that "guiding principles" were mandatory expectations by those other than the persons annointed in the resulting declaration itself.

[doug yowell]

The marriage laws and traditions went through numerous iterations in the OT, even as commanded by God himself.

First it was ok to take your relative as a wife. Then it became not ok. Then polygamy was allowed, and forced idea of marriage was ok, in terms of whether the woman agreed to the marriage or not.

Marriage, even in Biblical law was subject to cultural and traditional view of it. Thus in some instances it was responsibility of the brother's widow to marry the widow. Many of these ancient traditions would be somewhat bizarre today in terms of ideals. nds up in divorce.

Yes, but each example cited was expected to be validated by the society itself, not subjected to the agreement or not of the individual(s) acceptance of the principle. Notice also that each of your examples was considered by God to be a legitimate marriage when done in accordance with the stated cultural mandate.Remember how the story of Ruth went down?

[fccool]

Quote:

On the other hand rejecting those traditions because one doesn't see the particular need of not offending their society says a whole lot about their commitment to their neighbors,their priority of importances, their arrogance of the correctness of their own private social constructs, and the effect of their rebellious spirit on that society (and marriage itself)as a whole. While this has become an expected attitude for much of post-WWII western Europe and the love generation of the 60's it is hardly grounds for supportive Christian apologetics. "Offenses must come, but woe to Him by whom it comes..." If my (shacking up!!) causes my brother to stumble, I will not (thank you, Richard)..."

That's the problem, because you are offended with me arguing against the futility of ceremonial aspects of marriage today, while you ignore the fact that it has no meaning without some sort of binding consequences that make such ceremony legitimate.

What are the divorce consequences in our churches? What are the consequences for fornication in our churches?

So, why are you so upset about the things that I say, when some of your churches are being led by ministers who are on their third marriage, or your flagship TV stations led by people who take marriage lightly that they will find any reasons to go through it with support of the church (because it's their private matter).

So, in one instance you are offended when I downplay the importance of the ceremonial made-up tradition. And on other hand you are perfectly fine with the other reality as "mistakes of human beings"? Which one is it? If you are going to hammer on people who are shacking up together, why not equally hammer on people who go through multiple divorces?

That's what bothers me. The "selective understanding", and "selective forgiveness". If two people who are living together and have children in such relationship are told that they are sinning because they did make their commitment in front of you, then perhaps they should have every right to wave that proverbial finger. It's their business before God. None of yours, and none of mine either. My business is to understand and love them, just like God understands and loves them without posting "You are doing wrong" on their doorstep. A great example does wonders. A hypocritical rebuke does little.

[doug yowell]

The girls who failed to uphold their virginity prior to their first marriage, they would be stoned to death by the entire community as per request of both groom and the father.

Just as a clarification, this stoning only took place if the woman lied about her virginity and tricked everyone into marrying her. Other girls and guys who were caught having sex before they were legitimately married went to the fine/shotgun wedding option. And divorce was not ever premitted when this type of marriage occurred. Notice that there was no "let's live together until we can determine whether this thing is gonna work" option.Notice the very low corresponding divorce rate.

[doug yowell]

There's really no difference between people shacking up and then splitting, or those who marry for the reasons of "benefits" and end up down the same ditch. And that's my entire point.

I think that was the gist of Olger's study, to show that there WAS a difference. Besides if one makes no official, public, and legal commitment than why is anyone justified in expecting more. "If you aim at nothing, you're bound to hit it". Nothing attempted, nothing gained. A public commitment is more than a private commitment.Now you've got witnesses to your promises, your actual commitment,your integrity, and your character.More later but I beat now so I'm out.

[fccool]

Quote:

I think that was the gist of Olger's study, to show that there WAS a difference. Besides if one makes no official, public, and legal commitment than why is anyone justified in expecting more. "If you aim at nothing, you're bound to hit it".

You assume that people who live together don't have any commitments, and that they are merely trying to see where their relationship will lead.

Olger's study does not take into consideration the people who do have genuine commitment to each other, and yet decide that ceremonial and legal aspect is not necessary. There are plenty of people who declare common law marriage status, and don't go through the ceremony. I think it's quite different than "Let's move in together to save on rent, since we are already sleeping together", or "We are roommates already, so why not be roommates with benefits"

Sure, by mere nature of it, there will be more such cases, but it does not mean that all of such arrangements are of the nature that you describe.

Quote:

Nothing attempted, nothing gained. A public commitment is more than a private commitment.Now you've got witnesses to your promises, your actual commitment,your integrity, and your character.More later but I beat now so I'm out.

Once again, and nice straw-man with red herring in the middle that you try to set up. Why are you saying that these couples don't attempt legitimately committed relationships? Have you met every one of them to say that? You seem to imply that they live together to avoid commitment. Likewise, you seem to imply that it would be better for "Let's get married for the benefits and see how it works out" is much better, because it "attempts something".

At the same time, does marriage ceremony make commitment more valid? Is it magical in a way that would prevent people from sleeping around, or make their relationship any stronger than it was before?

Not a very rational argument. Sorry.

[doug yowell]

That's the problem, because you are offended with me arguing against the futility of ceremonial aspects of marriage today, while you ignore the fact that it has no meaning without some sort of binding consequences that make such ceremony legitimate.

.

Don't acuse me for being offended at you arguing your point of view. Nice try but my argument is not based upon my being offended but upon your open attack on the institution that has stood the test of time as the foundation of human society. You're trying to use the abuses of marriage as a valid reason why it is useless as an institution. You are arguing that because ceremonial commitment in harmony with society's expectations often fail to meet those expectations that therefore the institution itself is a failure.Your attempting to institute something that is equally valid. something that God Himself not only has never recognized but also something He demanded be viewed as unacceptable from His followers. You are the one attacking the value of traditional marriage by simply asserting that any form of commitment is equally as beneficial to society.From a secular point of view there are many social benefits from being married that cannot be duplicated by merely shacking up and demanding that that relationship be looked upon as the equal of marriage. Society's failure to demand respect for the institution by rewarding those who live by it's expected principles and following it's designed purpose does not indicate the failure of the institution itself. It demonstrates the failure of the society, and trying to blame the institution for society's failure to live up to it's standards is the same response as blaming the 4th commandment for the failings of the Jews to rightly keep it holy.You keep skirting the answer to my questions about why God didn't allow for other options to parallel the traditional marriage? If all roads lead home then why did not God eliminate punishment for having sex outside of the traditional marriage contract?

[Kountzer]

My half sister shacked with this guy for a long time, 20 years or so. He always kept a nice clean GMC pickup truck. Anyway, he got sick and passed away. His ex-wife got all of his pension, etc., and all my sister got was the used pick up truck. There's a moral in there somewhere.

[doug yowell]

My half sister shacked with this guy for a long time, 20 years or so. He always kept a nice clean GMC pickup truck. Anyway, he got sick and passed away. His ex-wife got all of his pension, etc., and all my sister got was the used pick up truck. There's a moral in there somewhere.

Yeah,that's what I'm thinkin.

[doug yowell]

.

Welcome to the real world;

1. far greater chance for divorce. 49% of all couples that marry end up getting divorced. 75% of couples that shack up end up getting divorced. (Alan Booth and David Johnson, Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Success, pp.261-270).

If, as you claim cool, there is virtually no difference between the commitment of the shackers and the married, this statistic should not reflect otherwise. If the commitments were of the same nature then the divorce rate for the ex-shacker should mirror the same % as the traditionally married. What exactly did that previous experience change in the commitment level after marriage? Apparently that meaningless "piece of paper" changed something,don't you think?

[doug yowell]

og, did you find any statistics that measured what % of cohabitating couples stayed together for life, having never been with anyone else?

[phkrause]

There's a moral in there somewhere.

That's for sure. Great point.

[fccool]

Quote:

You are arguing that because ceremonial commitment in harmony with society's expectations often fail to meet those expectations that therefore the institution itself is a failure.

Where do I argue that?

Quote:

Your attempting to institute something that is equally valid. something that God Himself not only has never recognized but also something He demanded be viewed as unacceptable from His followers.

Not true. I would be very happy if you can demonstrate a ceremonial mandate Biblically. There is none, and there's no set ceremony. It was an issue of legality... and it was not a paper one had to sign. It was a verbal agreement, and at times a small monetary token.

Quote:

You are the one attacking the value of traditional marriage by simply asserting that any form of commitment is equally as beneficial to society.

Never said that. I've said that strong commitment apart from marital ceremony is more valuable than a marriage with lack of commitment.

I'm not saying that traditional marriage is invalid or "evil" and "unnecessary". I'm saying that there is no black and white in this issue.

That's why I take your argument as "being offended" because I somehow "trespass" on the "God's view of marriage". It's your view of marriage that's being tarnished, and you don't like it. I can understand that.

Quote:

From a secular point of view there are many social benefits from being married that cannot be duplicated by merely shacking up and demanding that that relationship be looked upon as the equal of marriage.

Sure, I'm not saying that there are none. But, if there's a lack of commitment, these benefits are not very much different than the benefits of the alternative.

Quote:

Society's failure to demand respect for the institution by rewarding those who live by it's expected principles and following it's designed purpose does not indicate the failure of the institution itself.

Never said that it does. I merely state that the ceremonial aspect of it becomes a mere formality.

So, I could likewise give you an example of a couple who are shacking up and merely pay a legal fee to be considered to be married on paper, and they have no commitment. That's hardly a marriage.

Taking it further. Two people who go through a ceremony, and make empty promises... not much better than people who don't go through it and have no promises. The married couple in such relationship only learns to hate marriage... not respect its ideals.

Quote:

It demonstrates the failure of the society, and trying to blame the institution for society's failure to live up to it's standards is the same response as blaming the 4th commandment for the failings of the Jews to rightly keep it holy.

I'm not talking about the society, as I don't expect much from the society. I'm talking about the church, which should have higher standards.

Quote:

You keep skirting the answer to my questions about why God didn't allow for other options to parallel the traditional marriage? If all roads lead home then why did not God eliminate punishment for having sex outside of the traditional marriage contract?

Of course he allowed other options. Does Polygyny constitute traditional marriage? Was it legally allowed? Was it better than shacking up, just because there's a ceremonial formalities that people went through by taking extra wives?

Neither is an ideal situation, but the fact that God allowed it should tell us something about our relationship and patience that we should have for other people.

[fccool]

Originally Posted By: olger

.

Welcome to the real world;

1. far greater chance for divorce. 49% of all couples that marry end up getting divorced. 75% of couples that shack up end up getting divorced. (Alan Booth and David Johnson, Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Success, pp.261-270).

If, as you claim cool, there is virtually no difference between the commitment of the shackers and the married, this statistic should not reflect otherwise. If the commitments were of the same nature then the divorce rate for the ex-shacker should mirror the same % as the traditionally married. What exactly did that previous experience change in the commitment level after marriage? Apparently that meaningless "piece of paper" changed something,don't you think?

Once again, you misunderstand what I'm saying. There is a difference in the non-commited sector, but if we take 25% of those who shaked up and lived a happy married life and %50 of non-divorced couples... there's no difference. Both levels of commitments are the same. We should compare apples to apples here. Not apples to some fruits we've never heard about

What I'm saying is that if you take a committed couple who lived their life together since they got together in a committed FAMILY, yet without any ceremonial aspect, and then compare them to a couple who have been living together in a married relationship... the only difference is the legal and ceremonial aspect. That's it.

Was the original marriage about legal aspect. Was it about a ceremony? Was there a law binding two people who got together to be together? Was there a class of clergy to marry them. No! It was verbal understanding of principles. Saying that there is some benefit in a ceremonial commitment is like saying that reciting pledge of allegiance makes one a patriot. It's silly.

If people want to go through ceremony. Great! But, we should not blackball those who make a choice not to, if they are not asking for our advice or help. We can still respect people's choices, while demonstrating the proper way of doing things.

The problem with today's Christianity is the fact that it's fairly quick to point out what people are doing wrong without any involvement or care for these people directly.

[ClubV12]

"...we should not blackball those who make a choice not to..."

Actually, to some degree we HAVE to, as Christians I believe it is our duty. Do we have at least SOME standards or not? Where do you draw the line at acceptable behaviour? Is it OK to allow membership, in the Adventist church or any church, for anybody, regardless of their lifestyle choices?

Every church has at last minimum standards. I believe the Adventist minimum standard (certainly supported by the Lords messenger) is that you cannot accept into membership those who are living together unmarried. While some Adventist churhes may allow for that, it is not allowed according to the church manual, which I support.

"The problem with today's Christianity is the fact that it's fairly quick to point out what people are doing wrong without any involvement or care for these people directly."

The first part is NOT a problem, it's what we are supposed to do, make plain the way of the Lord. The second part is a problem on occasion, HOW we do it.

[Kountzer]

I know quite a few folks that shack up. They have babies, some of them, buy houses, and cars together, but they don't marry. That doesn't make sense to me.

[olger]

og, did you find any statistics that measured what % of cohabitating couples stayed together for life, having never been with anyone else?

I don't have those statistics at hand but I believe the number to be minuscule, if it exists at all.

[phkrause]

We do all know of at least one couple. And if I'm not mistaken they've never been with anyone else. But am not sure.