General What do we know about TTWCM?

[BiblicalLiteralist]

This is what I was looking for, except for the covenant stuff. That’s far from something we know .

Malachi 2:14, Jeremiah 31:31-32, one can also make observations of the usage of adultery and how it is related to the breaking of covenant. Also the similarities of the cutting of a covenant and the blood of circumcision and the breaking of the hymen. Walking between the pieces, ect. These are just observations though not declarations.

 

[BiblicalLiteralist]

We also know marriage is for life. Roman's 7:2

 

[Mark C]

Rape of an unbetorthed [sic] virgin requires the man to marry her and he cannot divorce
her.

Close, but there's that misused word again, so - wrong.

He can not even 'put her away,' which if far more severe, telling, and important.

(Even, for just one example, if she becomes a whore. The proof for that requires precise use of language, and understanding of what Yahushua did NOT ever change, including Mathew 5:32.)

 

[BiblicalLiteralist]

Close, but there's that misused word again, so - wrong.

He can not even 'put her away,' which if far more severe, telling, and important.

(Even, for just one example, if she becomes a whore. The proof for that requires precise use of language, and understanding of what Yahushua did NOT ever change, including Mathew 5:32.)

Again not wrong, I was summarizing the English translation Cliff notes style assuming there would be a more polished quick reference list available later for those who stumble in post-discussion, as digging through posts is not fun.

 

[Mark C]

Again not wrong, I was summarizing the English translation Cliff notes style

If you summarize something that's WRONG, it's still wrong. And marriage is too important to settle for "Cliff notes" errors.

 

[steve]

He can not even 'put her away,' which if far more severe, telling, and important.

I was today years old when I learned that.

 

[NS4Liberty]

Marriage is the state of a man having exclusive sexual rights to a woman."

When I write that, I am thinking about marriage in all societies and cultures, and trying to ensure that the definition is broad enough to correctly apply to any non-Christian in any society I can think of who we would consider to be "married".

Lewis and Clark encountered Native American tribes that believed having their wives have sex with other men and then have sex with them would transfer "power" to them.

If "exclusive sexual rights" means she will only have sex with him, I would disagree with that definition for all societies and cultures. If it means he can decide who she has sex with, I suppose that might hold up. It returns to the age old question of what is a right?

 

[Mark C]

It returns to the age old question of what is a right?

Back when we were still "America" - a Right was something given (endowed) by our Creator.

That should still apply to marriage, too.

 

[FollowingHim]

Good exception @NS4Liberty. So what about:

"Marriage is the state of a man having sexual access to and exclusive control over sexual access to a woman"

 

[FollowingHim]

Actually that presupposes patriarchy so is insufficiently broad. Next try:

"Marriage is the assignment of a woman to a man for long-term sexual access"

 

[MemeFan]

Good exception @NS4Liberty. So what about:

"Marriage is the state of a man having sexual access to and exclusive control over sexual access to a woman"

Could be shorter.

"Marriage is state where only one man has sexual access to woman".

 

[FollowingHim]

Could be shorter.

"Marriage is state where only one man has sexual access to woman".

I am trying to accommodate an exception to that rule which we would still call "marriage", your definition does not do that.

 

[MemeFan]

I am trying to accommodate an exception to that rule which we would still call "marriage", your definition does not do that.

Which exception?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Malachi 2:14, Jeremiah 31:31-32, one can also make observations of the usage of adultery and how it is related to the breaking of covenant. Also the similarities of the cutting of a covenant and the blood of circumcision and the breaking of the hymen. Walking between the pieces, ect. These are just observations though not declarations.

And this thread was looking for unequivocal direct statements. And there are none linking covenants and marriage. Even the Malachi passage doesn’t do that, and that’s a complex passage to begin with.

 

[FollowingHim]

Which exception?

I have been responding to this post just further up on the page.

Lewis and Clark encountered Native American tribes that believed having their wives have sex with other men and then have sex with them would transfer "power" to them.

If "exclusive sexual rights" means she will only have sex with him, I would disagree with that definition for all societies and cultures. If it means he can decide who she has sex with, I suppose that might hold up. It returns to the age old question of what is a right?

 

[MemeFan]

I have been responding to this post just further up on the page.

Aha.

For me, sexual access is phrase for sleeping with.

This two sentences are equivalent:
1."Marriage is state where only one man has sexual access to woman".
2."Marriage is state where only one man is sleeping with woman".

 

[FollowingHim]

Aha.

For me, sexual access is phrase for sleeping with.

This two sentences are equivalent:
1."Marriage is state where only one man has sexual access to woman".
2."Marriage is state where only one man is sleeping with woman".

@NS4Liberty pointed out that we would also call it "marriage" when a man is pimping out his wife to other men. Like Abram did... Obviously that is wrong. But if we are wanting to define exactly what we call "marriage", then we clearly don't actually think "only one man has sexual access" is necessary for us to call a relationship "marriage" - because we won't say it's not marriage just because that is broken.

I'm seeking the broadest definition which would encompass anything a missionary might see and label "marriage", because I think there is value in taking what we are thinking anyway and trying to put it into words.

So, how about my latest definition:
"Marriage is the assignment of a woman to a man for long-term sexual access"

• Is it broad enough?
  Does it encompass everything a missionary might see in any culture, and label as "marriage"? Does it encompass every woman who would be considered off-limits because she's already married? Does it encompass every man that has obligations to a wife?
• Is it too broad?
  Would it include anything that we would not label "marriage"?

 

[BiblicalLiteralist]

And this thread was looking for unequivocal direct statements. And there are none linking covenants and marriage. Even the Malachi passage doesn’t do that, and that’s a complex passage to begin with.

Got it, easy enough.

If you summarize something that's WRONG, it's still wrong. And marriage is too important to settle for "Cliff notes" errors.

I love it, and I agree. This goes further than marriage and extends into the word as a whole, so your rebuke should not stop there. I will be more careful when handling it.

 

[Mark C]

I'm seeking the broadest definition which would encompass anything a missionary might see and label "marriage", because I think there is value in taking what we are thinking anyway and trying to put it into words.

A missionary (to SF, say...) might see two ze's with penises wearing Biden masks shacking up. It isn't marriage...

 

[MemeFan]

@NS4Liberty pointed out that we would also call it "marriage" when a man is pimping out his wife to other men. Like Abram did... Obviously that is wrong. But if we are wanting to define exactly what we call "marriage", then we clearly don't actually think "only one man has sexual access" is necessary for us to call a relationship "marriage" - because we won't say it's not marriage just because that is broken.

I'm seeking the broadest definition which would encompass anything a missionary might see and label "marriage", because I think there is value in taking what we are thinking anyway and trying to put it into words.

So, how about my latest definition:
"Marriage is the assignment of a woman to a man for long-term sexual access"

• Is it broad enough?
  Does it encompass everything a missionary might see in any culture, and label as "marriage"? Does it encompass every woman who would be considered off-limits because she's already married? Does it encompass every man that has obligations to a wife?
• Is it too broad?
  Would it include anything that we would not label "marriage"?

Your definition includes group marriage and polyandry. I don't see exclusivity in your definition.

Also, about which definition are we speaking? Christian or social? Because they may not be same and different societies can have different definitions.