Marriage and the Miracle of Life

I havent said anything original in a while – so here are 2 things:

(1) Sperm Headed View of the World: I had a chance to watch a program called the ‘the great sperm race’ last night. I have to admit it truly fascinates me the miracle of life. Think about how you got here – your 1 of 250,000,000 million sperm vying for the egg to become life…on the way some 249,999,999 of those sperm will die in the race for that prize. You were the sperm that won that race and were deemed perfectly fine to inhabit the egg.

I am fascinated by the odds a lot – but I also got a real respect for the process of becoming life. The process to becoming life is trial after trial – weeding out the weak sperm – until one brilliant one takes on the challenges and overcomes them at each obstacle. If you think about it – your a miracle in some sense of the word and deserve to be here!

(2) Marriage (a working definition)

For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24)

So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matt 19:6)

I got to thinking about this passage again – I swear I re-visit this idea a lot over the last 15 years – and I decided to define my view of marriage (a little more than prior).

Marriage is simply the committment of life of 2 people to one another – most significantly adjoined by the culmination of a child (which is the committment – not the ring or the contract). True committment is in the creation of the child – the committment from that point on is non negotiable – it’s 2 becoming 1 in many ways (family, child, committment, love/union) – but the child ensures their is a lasting ‘bond’.

Now marriage can be annulled for many reasons and this is the path many people will and have pursued – usually for their own well being. This is not ‘sin’ and never has been. Pieces of papers will wither away and rings can be traded in – this is not a problem…but children – they cannot be replaced nor reduced of their value. This is where the dissolution of a marriage meets the crux of the ‘sin’ debate concerning divorce.

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matt 19:9)

Note – divorce is ‘allowed’ (even by the very framing of this sentence). The key clause is because of the reason of ‘immorality’ (likely adultery)…but divorce can and does happen.

Now the ‘marries another’ part has been the point of contention in certain circles of Christianity. I am going to give my answer on this – divorce is not the ‘sinful’ part. The problem with marrying and then remarrying is found in the definition of ‘marriage’ or ‘2 become 1’ idea…the child (the committment).

Those that choose to re-marry have as their duty their committment to their children from their previous marriages and to not adhere to this responsibility is the ‘sin’. It basically shows us that the person that re-married is not actually fit material for another marriage – and they treat their own ‘flesh and blood’ like orphans. In this sense, they are committing a type of ‘sin’ – adultery? Yes, they are not supposed to re-marry without keeping their first committment in tact – their children.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Marriage and the Miracle of Life

  1. I don’t really agree with any of this but I will pose some questions. Is everything in marriage always about children? What if it is not possible for two people to have children, even if they are heterosexual adults? What if your children are full-grown adults and there is no longer any reason to maintain an emotionless commitment between the parents? What if partners amicably agree to separate and the two parents agree to equally share parental responsibilities and duties until the children become adults? There are countless questions and scenarios.

    Here is a more important question to ask, is marriage necessary for anything that pertains to procreation or is marriage just a cultural relic that really has no importance to “life” at all? Procreation is a necessity for life but marriage is not a necessity, or a prerequisite, in order to sustain or procreate new life.

    There are no two marriages alike and all things aside only the two adult individuals involved (or ten adults in the case of Mormonism) understand why a marriage collapses. The notion of “sin” in my perspective is totally irrelevant.

  2. Yeah, divorcing for reason other that adultery certainly may be sinning.

    We can just add that one to the pile.

    Thanks be to God, we have a Savior that forgives our sins.

  3. “Yeah, divorcing for reason other that adultery certainly may be sinning” (Steve)

    Here’s the thing Steve – I don’t think it is ‘sinning’ per se. In my explanation I point out the problems in the definition of what marriage is and what the real problems are when a couple splits. To me it the problem is when one leaves for another – just to not take care of his own ‘flesh n blood’.

  4. “Is everything in marriage always about children? What if it is not possible for two people to have children, even if they are heterosexual adults?…There are countless questions and scenarios.” (Johnny)

    Regardless of the many scenarios – children are the bond that requires commitment for life from 2 people…children are just that – children from 2 responsible/committed adults. Now whether the adults in that marriage split and leave for other things – they still have a responsibility to those children (which is my only point about where divorce can lead into sin).

    However, you’re right – many scenarios involved with marriage – which may include not having children. Then the commitment to stay together is still there (children don’t mean 2 people love one another or want to stay with each other – it just means they have responsibility to one another in the form of a kid)…because as I mention ‘2 become 1’ is not just about children – it encompasses the whole union of ‘sharing one’s life with another’ (this commitment is still in tact).

    So of the numerous scenario’s possible (remember I have no kids in my marriage) children, in my ruling, are integral to the definition of ‘marriage’ (no matter what someone wants to think of that – people are bonded from there on in). However, children do not serve as the loving relationship that needs to exist to keep a marriage strong (they may be the result of it). So even without children a marriage can exist – since the idea for the encompassment of caring for children and one another exists.

    In my definition, adultery or cheating or one night stands are not given excuse for their behavior if it should result in the culmination of a child. This ‘child’ is literally a ‘bond’ that 2 will share for the rest of their life – so when you think about it – those 2 have become 1 in that ‘child’ – which is really the intention of the Adam/Eve passages.

    “Here is a more important question to ask, is marriage necessary for anything that pertains to procreation or is marriage just a cultural relic that really has no importance to “life” at all?” (Johnny)

    Depends on one’s definition of ‘marriage’. I have laid mine out fairly well – to me marriage is the idea of ‘2 becoming 1’ (which is many things) and not some piece of paper (contract) or symbolism (like a ring)…marriage is simply the action of 2 people creating a union that forms 1. So in this sense, marriage will never die – it is procreation and it is companionship.

    “The notion of “sin” in my perspective is totally irrelevant” (Johnny)

    But this also depends on what we define ‘sin’ as – as a term it is kind of useless in some ways and over-used – but the idea behind it is always true (breaking of relationship in some intentional way which needs repair). Sin is a term I like to avoid because it’s quite vague and undefined…but if we define it and name it (like Adam in Genesis) – then we can work from that point. So I choose to name it (breaking of relationship) and use the term from time to time.

  5. Divorce stinks and that is why I believe God is against it, unless certain conditions are manifest.

    But, we will do what we will do.

    My children are still paying the price for their Mother and my divorce.

    It’s the gift that just keeps giving (pain).

    But the Lord works His will, even through the wrong that we do.

  6. Sorry to be gone for awhile. Busy racing and traveling and working. I agree with Johnny Bird, kids don’t have to be part of the equation. Becoming one does not have to be about kids. In fact, when kids are the reason people get married or are had in order to try and save the marriage, those marriages often do not last. Becoming one is not about kids.

  7. “It’s the gift that just keeps giving (pain).” (Steve)

    I agree Steve – divorce is messy and hurts people – and for kids it can cause a lifetime of questions and doubts. Sorry to hear about that my man.

    “Becoming one does not have to be about kids” (Doug)

    I agree – kids are not neccesary for a marriage to occur nor happen – in fact – most marriages begin without having kids at all – and some never have kids. However, in my definition of marriage having a ‘child’ is part of the definition for a very simple reason – because this society is horrendously unaccountable on this measure (since nothing keeps them in check anyways).

    One cannot rule out the idea ‘2 become 1’ includes the idea of kids – the wording itself is ripe with 3 ideas for sure – companionship, sex, and birth. I am merely breaking each piece down for my definition. I think children can be part of the equation (see below for the equation).

    Marriage can be…

    ‘2 become 1’ = companionship
    or
    ‘2 become 1’ = the act of intercourse (part and partial with companionship)
    or
    ‘2 become 1’ = the child (part and partial with intercourse)

    But all 3 do not need exist for one to be considered married/committed to one another. Marriage is simply about committment – and to disregard children in that equation is also to let many a ‘man’ off the hook in this society for his actions as one of the 2 people in that bed that made that kid.

    Honestly though, is not a child a bonding between 2 people or the rest of their lives? If not, then what is a child to the man and the woman – some object?

  8. The child is not an object, the child is in itself a separate entity from marriage, the child is a new life and the institution of marriage has nothing to do with this new life. Yes, indeed 2 have to become 1 in the process of procreation (sperm and egg become singular fetus) but this has nothing to do with matrimonial bonds. Marriage bonds are only sacred if the two people involved believe them to be sacred, kids or no kids.

    I will restate, that two people can have a child and never be married and that two people can be married and never have a child. For instance what if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, then is she married to her rapist? (but this scenario happens all the time across the globe). Marriage is not child-based. Marriage is based on the personal relationship that two adults have between each other and what they believe their “marriage” to be.

    You personally believe that ‘true’ marriage exists between male and female when they procreate and then wife gives birth to a child, but this a narrow view (at least in my perspective) because it excludes the gay population and those that could never procreate (heterosexual adults included). By your estimation, if two adults cannot have children then they are not truly married, is this analysis right?

    Marriage is between consenting adults (in this country) and the bonds of marriage are only binding on those individuals involved, so only those two individuals can decide what their “marriage” is based upon. For you, it appears to be procreation but for others it is not. I would say that any pair of fools with the appropriate tools can procreate but can any fool be a good husband or wife?

  9. “Marriage bonds are only sacred if the two people involved believe them to be sacred, kids or no kids” (Johnny)

    I am not disagreeing here – marriage can be ‘sacred’ for many people with or without children – that’s not really not my point altogether.

    “For instance what if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, then is she married to her rapist? (but this scenario happens all the time across the globe).” (Johnny)

    No – but an action of lifetime committment has occured – an action of ‘marriage’ (or lifetime committment). Now just because the rapist is irresponsible and quite ‘evil’ doesn’t mean the woman isn’t left without a lifetime committment – she is – she has a child to tend to. So basically the rapist gets off ‘scott free’ in all honesty -serves some time and that’s it…but in actuality he has a child out there with his ‘dna’ that he is responsible for – and I am not sure keeping this person irresponsible is smart for society.

    Even in that harsh and ugly case (rape) – a bond called a ‘child’ was created which requires a lifetime committment.

    “By your estimation, if two adults cannot have children then they are not truly married, is this analysis right?” (johnny)

    No – that’s altogether wrong. My definition of marriage includes many aspects of the idea ‘2 become 1’ – from companionship, to sex, to having children…and all 3 are pieces of the definition of the idea of what ‘2 become 1’ means – which is an old 3000 year definition I am trying to piece together (of marriage way prior to Canada or America)…yet still biblical. Yet marriage can exist with just companionship – with no children.

    In my definition – gay people can be included in marriage – companionship is companionship. Gay people may not have children – but they can adopt (which to me is taking on someone’s lifetime committment as their own – by choice). But children are not neccesary for a ‘fulfilled marriage’ – that’s not my point.

    Committment is a few things when you think about it – 2 people making that committment to 1 another (as in love)…and that’s the normal definition of marriage. However, to forget the role of the child as a further committment is to forgo some reality IMO. Now sex is a small level committment and that’s about it (except its more part of the connection between companionship and birth). Or is sex a bigger committment and this society just doesn’t get it? That’s why my view of marriage is what it is.

    Fact is – women are the one’s that screwed in marriage (thats kinda funny also) – they bear the whole responsibility for children usually and in many cases (some few 100,000’s) are the sole care-givers for the child. Is this ok? Is this ok if it happens to a teenager? Is this ok if someone divorces? Is this ok when it’s a one night stand? When is it ok for a woman to bare sole responsibility for a child they had help in creating?

    This is why I have to stick to my guns on this one – as much as their is exceptions to the rule/standard (which I think we can deal with indiviidually) – the norm is for the man and the woman to care for the child irregardless if they stay together or not – and not leave the woman shouldering the whole burden – this is ‘unjust’. So my definition is an inclusion more for women’s rights than anything.

    All this talk about how bad abortion is – well if men would get off their lazy asses and take care of their kids more women might consider keeping the children they bare – in some senses – abortions are happening because men cannot live up to their committments. So why should we blame women when they want one – hell – some 100,000+ or more ditch those responsibilities and leave women in a lonely spot (which is very tough).

    My definiton is not a legal country one – just asking churches to consider what they are teaching young people and married couples on this concept. The secular law can keep their marriage definition ‘as is’ – but for someone that believe in God to not go ‘one step further’ is to basically admit God has nothing more to offer on this subject. If that is the case – churches you can quit marrying people starting….now.

  10. “Marriage is simply the committment of life of 2 people to one another – most significantly adjoined by the culmination of a child”

    so the purpose is to establish stable grounds for rasing chidren, period?

    “marriage is simply the action of 2 people creating a union that forms 1”

    ahh… so does this allow for same-sex marriage?

    “churches you can quit marrying people starting….now.”

    AMEN! i don’t want to be an agent of the state.. and how does this freak’n work? what’s up with the whole sep. of church and state?! now i’m suddenly an agent for y’all?! i’m not even blessing the couple.. God has brought them together, i’m just showing the community the commitment.. like all church things, it is a corporate acknowledgement of making something divine and invisible humanly understood and visible.

  11. “so the purpose is to establish stable grounds for rasing chidren, period?” (Luke)

    I would say ‘yes’ to that

    “ahh… so does this allow for same-sex marriage?” (Luke)

    I would also say ‘yes’ this does – because companionship is not about just male and female

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s