'tis the Bearded One

When marriage begins

18 posts in this topic

When do you consider marriage to start?

 

Does it require the full state marriage license, a an informal ceremony/declaration amongst friends and family, or merely a private commitment between the two of you with no need to declare it to anyone?

 

Do you believe a marriage has to be consummated to be valid? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider marriage to have started when the commitment vows to each other have been made. Telling others about it, having marriage ceremonies or parties, would naturally follow after that. Registering with the violent group called the state is not a requirement.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal view is that sex is what "marries" the two individuals in God's eyes (Gen 2:24 - two becoming one flesh), the wedding itself is the public proclamation and celebration of that commitment. If you go through with a marriage ceremony but never consummate it, I wouldn't consider it 'valid'.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a Catholic perspective, you're married at the moment you exchange the vows. For Christians in particular, marriage is a sacrament, and since it's the vows that make you married, it's true to say the the ministers of the sacrament are the man and woman themselves, conferring the sacrament on each other. The priest or deacon is just there to witness on behalf of the Church.

 

It's a valid marriage from the moment you make the vows, but it's not consummated till...well, till it's consummated. In a sacramental marriage between two baptised Christians, once the husband and wife have had sex it's absolutely binding, and the marriage can't be dissolved for any reason.

 

xxx

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider marriage to have started when the commitment vows to each other have been made. Telling others about it, having marriage ceremonies or parties, would naturally follow after that. Registering with the violent group called the state is not a requirement.

I was just going to say this!!!

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If its a civil marriage it takes effect in the time the couple agree and sign their names on the marriage contract, if its a spiritual or religious marriage its start when you accept your partner as your spouse and takes effect when you get connected sexually, i don't think people matter as they are just witnesses that you both are taken and start to call you Mr and Mrs  :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the single most important factor is the couple's commitment to each other; from that angle, I basically start to think of couples as being "married" after they announce the engagement, because clearly they've already decided among themselves that they're in it forever. However, I also think the ceremony and moving in together serve important social functions as well, so it'd be kind of odd for me to start calling them husband/wife until after those steps had been taken. I'm going to differ with other people in this thread and say that I don't think consummation is the most important part. Afterall, there are couples who may be physically unable to engage in sex for whatever reason, but I wouldn't consider them any less married because of it. And we all know that tons of people engage in casual sex, but that definitely doesn't make them married.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a religious person, marriage begins after the church ceremony even if the newlyweds do not spend the night together.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna go along and side with my fellow Christian folk on this matter, however I wanna lean in just a bit further.

In the account of Jesus' mom and dad, Mary and Joseph, scripture reveals that they were betrothed (Engaged!).

And that following the news Gabriel delivers to Mary about her being chosen to conceive Jesus, Joseph considered breaking the the engagement.

Now scripture states again and this is of course a huge deal and Joseph wanted to do so without shaming her.

The text even goes so far as to at one point name Joseph as her husband.

(Scriptural reference, Luke 1:34, Matthew 1:19)

Now contrast this to how engagement is viewed in our society and much of the 'westernized' world today.

Folks often choose not to marry for a variety of reasons and just call it quits.

Disputes over who keeps the ring, social media exploits to garner attention, infedility, and of course the blame game.

So now this brings us back to the question at hand, 'when does marriage really begin?'

Is it when the vow or promise that I make stating that I do want to spend the rest of my life with her?

That nothing short of becoming pregnant with child should stop us.

That even if so, shouldn't it be done with respect and honor, not in the ways listed above with disputes and such.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from http://forums.waitingtillmarriage.org/topic/5857-wedding-afternoon/ 

23 hours ago, Jeremy said:

I like this thread. I always thought that it would be frickin' unbelievably appalling to say the I do's and then put on a show for several hours with one of the two being a virgin. I won't stand for that in my scenario.

I ain't gonna wait around until; a ceremony gets planned, everybody dances, people eat sandwiches, and get drunk - the whole time everybody knows I'm a virgin and have been waiting. When that, "Yes I'll marry you!" comes out, that is signed sealed and delivered as far as I am concerned. Just because I am a virgin doesn't me I'll be one at the time of a ceremony or at the courthouse.

Very serious. Adamant. I don't need some paid minister to finalize an agreement between me and my future wife to marry her. "Let your yeah be yeah." Sweep her off her feet right there. Yes I'll marry you and then off to the nearest hotel, motel, or private room. She says "yes," that = man and wife, period.

This thread got me going! Engagements that are set some distant time in the future boggle my mind. This isn't the 1600's and the marriage was prearranged when she was 12. Today those are for people already sleeping with each other.

One of my favorite stories in the Bible is how Rachael said "I will go," to Abraham's servant. Isaac went out to meet her, she got down to meet him, and HE took her to his mother's tent. Isaac was really old to be a virgin, btw. Signed, sealed, delivered. Yes means yes.

Were she to say yes to me, and then put me through hoops for 3 months, or even a day, I wouldn't put up with it (She'll hopefully be well aware of this for anybody who want's to give me guff.) Doubt I'll marry anyone after meeting them a day, but if you believe the story, Rachel sure did!

I guess this whole scenario applies to people "waitingtillmarriage." You just can't put people through those kind of hoops.

I certainly have the stones to show up in front of my future wife's parents whether or not they know we have sealed the deal. I, honestly, would expect them to think that we were nuts not to do it upon the agreement. No special church rule binding me. Great topic!

I had written out a reply before but for some reason it didn't post :( 

I wouldn't describe the ceremony/reception as putting on a show. Its *supposed* to be a celebration with friends and family. I for one, however quaint/small my wedding may be certainly would want it [and the subsequent consummation] associated with the entering into marriage life-point. Rather than a however-grand-or-not engagement inquiry followed by a rush to the nearest place for consummation [would you be exchanging vows at your engagement??]. Unless everyone had notice (which in effect would be kind of like an engagement) I think I'd have some struggles respecting someone who treated my daughter/entered my family in that way. I see the allure of having a wedding after one has been effectively married for some time but when couples live together and pragmatically are already married in everything but profession, I think it draws away from the specialness of the wedding/marriage ceremony. Sometimes its like there will literally be nothing different before and after their wedding except (perhaps) for a public profession since they can already be married de facto. One other thing is that now they're "officially married" and whatever psychological change that may induce - I know someone who took years to get married after their first child together because of some notion that things will get bad if she gets married for real. And another who is stuck in effectively married life waiting to be proposed to. Smh

So what if they know you're a virgin? You are *supposed* to be one at your wedding [or at least at some point of it depending on the tradition/culture]. You being a virgin at your wedding is itself a testimony. 

Are you equating getting engaged with being married? To me there is an important distinction between the two. "Let your yeah be yeah" refers to not swearing an oath honesty/commitment on God/temple/whatever. If we hold to the commandment requiring honesty it shouldn't make a squat of difference whether we've sworn an oath or not as to whether we will tell the truth etc. That doesn't draw away from the wisdom of putting agreements into writing and with signature. If you see getting engaged as being a promise to marry then you might argue that once the promise is given (and on the assumption that this promise is absolutely irrevocable) you are effectively married. Nonetheless, "I absolutely promise to marry you" is not "I am married to you". "I absolutely promise to pay you $50" is not the same as "I have paid you $50". I tend to see engagement as the mutual expression of an intention/willingness/desire to get married. 

While I don't agree with long engagements, I do consider the engagement period very important. It is there to discuss or further discuss issues you would only discuss with someone you have exchanged an intention/commitment to marry. If anything, it gives a space for pre-marital counselling and family/friends perhaps giving extra guidance towards the next stage in the relationship. I don't think may boy/girlfriends would want their relationship to be treated in a way that their engagement will be the same as their marriage. Imagine taking your boy/girlfriend to pre-marital counselling before even asking them if they wanted to marry you!

As far as a sexless engagement period being an unreasonable "hoop"... Depending on your view, marriage is one of the biggest commitments and liability that you can take, it is for life; they will become the single most influential person in your life for better or worse. The engagement period is not for her - it is for both of you and the good of the marriage. I expect to be mutually jumping though "hoops"! Jump! Jump! Jump! :lol: And some hoops may be on FIRE :o "This hoop is on fire" *cough* :superwaiter: I would have severe reservations with someone who had the impatience or simply did not value that period enough so as to skip it altogether. I don't want to be harsh but....If you couldn't "put up with" the hoop of a 3 month or even a day-long sexless engagement period then I think that either the lady in question is not worth waiting for (from your perspective) or you are not worth not waiting for (on the basis of the rationale given). *way to welcome the newbie, Bearded, jeez!*

Until we have exchanged vows entering into the marital covenant and (arguably) consummated, my partner-to-be is absolutely free to walk away at any point for whatever reason. People wait differently. I am waiting till marriage not waiting till engagement. I think the concept that engagement = marriage is rather hazardous especially considering that engagement is generally considered a less serious commitment than marriage. Similar to those ------ who preach having sex with someone means you are now married to them! Argh! 

As far as Isaac and Rebekah are concerned. Her agreeing to go may have signalled an engagement but I think there is enough evidence to state that it did not signal her marriage. When she first sees him she puts on her veil - if they were husband and wife I don't think it would have been appropriate or not worth mentioning. There is no indication of how much time passed between their first meeting and Isaac taking her into his mothers tent and marrying her. I'd say there would have at least been a celebration beforehand which would have taken at least a little while to prepare for. I also like to believe Isaac would have been the kind of young man not to get sexual with his bride to be straight after a month long journey on camel before getting to know her a little. The Bible also notes that he married her in his mother's tent. It did NOT occur at her agreeing to marry him (or to be technical, go with Abraham's servant) back in her home town.

Hope I didn't scare you from the forum. The topic got you excited. Your post got me excited. :D 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legally when all the marriage paperwork has been finished. Morally after the vows or whatever. None of this "you're not really married until after you have sex" BS. As long as we've done one or both of those things, we're married no matter what. I would never marry a man who thought we weren't truly married until after we've had sex. Not marrying a guy who thinks in such a perverted way. (Yay, another dealbreaker in my ever growing list of them!) If we weren't really married until after we had sex, then I guess we weren't really in a relationship while we were dating cause we weren't having sex. Marriage is based on love and commitment, not sex.

What about the couples who chose to have a sexless marriage, or ones where one or both of them can't have sex due to some health thing, or couples who don't get to have sex for awhile after getting married due to some reason that keeps them from being able to do it for awhile? What about them? Why can't they be truly married if they chose not to have sex, or are unable to for some reason? What about married couples who have gone past first base, but haven't gone all the way yet? Does that mean they are only partially married?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 0:05 AM, 'tis the Bearded One said:

Quote from http://forums.waitingtillmarriage.org/topic/5857-wedding-afternoon/ 

I had written out a reply before but for some reason it didn't post :( 

I wouldn't describe the ceremony/reception as putting on a show. Its *supposed* to be a celebration with friends and family. I for one, however quaint/small my wedding may be certainly would want it [and the subsequent consummation] associated with the entering into marriage life-point. Rather than a however-grand-or-not engagement inquiry followed by a rush to the nearest place for consummation [would you be exchanging vows at your engagement??]. Unless everyone had notice (which in effect would be kind of like an engagement) I think I'd have some struggles respecting someone who treated my daughter/entered my family in that way. I see the allure of having a wedding after one has been effectively married for some time but when couples live together and pragmatically are already married in everything but profession, I think it draws away from the specialness of the wedding/marriage ceremony. Sometimes its like there will literally be nothing different before and after their wedding except (perhaps) for a public profession since they can already be married de facto. One other thing is that now they're "officially married" and whatever psychological change that may induce - I know someone who took years to get married after their first child together because of some notion that things will get bad if she gets married for real. And another who is stuck in effectively married life waiting to be proposed to. Smh

So what if they know you're a virgin? You are *supposed* to be one at your wedding [or at least at some point of it depending on the tradition/culture]. You being a virgin at your wedding is itself a testimony. 

Are you equating getting engaged with being married? To me there is an important distinction between the two. "Let your yeah be yeah" refers to not swearing an oath honesty/commitment on God/temple/whatever. If we hold to the commandment requiring honesty it shouldn't make a squat of difference whether we've sworn an oath or not as to whether we will tell the truth etc. That doesn't draw away from the wisdom of putting agreements into writing and with signature. If you see getting engaged as being a promise to marry then you might argue that once the promise is given (and on the assumption that this promise is absolutely irrevocable) you are effectively married. Nonetheless, "I absolutely promise to marry you" is not "I am married to you". "I absolutely promise to pay you $50" is not the same as "I have paid you $50". I tend to see engagement as the mutual expression of an intention/willingness/desire to get married. 

While I don't agree with long engagements, I do consider the engagement period very important. It is there to discuss or further discuss issues you would only discuss with someone you have exchanged an intention/commitment to marry. If anything, it gives a space for pre-marital counselling and family/friends perhaps giving extra guidance towards the next stage in the relationship. I don't think may boy/girlfriends would want their relationship to be treated in a way that their engagement will be the same as their marriage. Imagine taking your boy/girlfriend to pre-marital counselling before even asking them if they wanted to marry you!

As far as a sexless engagement period being an unreasonable "hoop"... Depending on your view, marriage is one of the biggest commitments and liability that you can take, it is for life; they will become the single most influential person in your life for better or worse. The engagement period is not for her - it is for both of you and the good of the marriage. I expect to be mutually jumping though "hoops"! Jump! Jump! Jump! :lol: And some hoops may be on FIRE :o "This hoop is on fire" *cough* :superwaiter: I would have severe reservations with someone who had the impatience or simply did not value that period enough so as to skip it altogether. I don't want to be harsh but....If you couldn't "put up with" the hoop of a 3 month or even a day-long sexless engagement period then I think that either the lady in question is not worth waiting for (from your perspective) or you are not worth not waiting for (on the basis of the rationale given). *way to welcome the newbie, Bearded, jeez!*

Until we have exchanged vows entering into the marital covenant and (arguably) consummated, my partner-to-be is absolutely free to walk away at any point for whatever reason. People wait differently. I am waiting till marriage not waiting till engagement. I think the concept that engagement = marriage is rather hazardous especially considering that engagement is generally considered a less serious commitment than marriage. Similar to those ------ who preach having sex with someone means you are now married to them! Argh! 

As far as Isaac and Rebekah are concerned. Her agreeing to go may have signalled an engagement but I think there is enough evidence to state that it did not signal her marriage. When she first sees him she puts on her veil - if they were husband and wife I don't think it would have been appropriate or not worth mentioning. There is no indication of how much time passed between their first meeting and Isaac taking her into his mothers tent and marrying her. I'd say there would have at least been a celebration beforehand which would have taken at least a little while to prepare for. I also like to believe Isaac would have been the kind of young man not to get sexual with his bride to be straight after a month long journey on camel before getting to know her a little. The Bible also notes that he married her in his mother's tent. It did NOT occur at her agreeing to marry him (or to be technical, go with Abraham's servant) back in her home town.

Hope I didn't scare you from the forum. The topic got you excited. Your post got me excited. :D 

Whoah. Alright.

You seem to be focused on the second sentence from this part of my post: "Yes I'll marry you and then off to the nearest hotel, motel, or private room. She says "yes," that = man and wife, period." Because you said, "Are you equating getting engaged with being married?"

I am to used to writing in TWEETS, so I'll clarify what I meant when I typed  the "=." It just means that nothing more is needed to seal the deal.

I am equating her saying, "Yes" to us being pronounced man and wife, like a minister commonly does at a wedding ceremony, but the deal is STILL not sealed until they to have sex.

The short answer to your question is NO. I thought I'd put some more points out there, too.

1. First of all the Bible doesn't give place for any ceremony between Gen 24:66, “And the servant told Isaac all things that he had done.” and Gen 24:67, “And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.”      

You argument reminds me of a kind of certain creationist argument for gaps in the Genesis creation account. So here it is put together:

“And the servant told Isaac all things that he had done. And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.”

Now, YOU may put a waiting period in there, or argue she shaved her legs after the long trip first, or a year passed in that tent when Rebekah was not permitted to leave. But it is clear to me that it plainly says EXACTLY what is says.

2. The following: "...and [TOOK] Rebekah, and she [became] his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.”

----->Did the 'TOOKING' come before she became his wife in that BIBLE verse, OR does it say, "...she became his wife, and then he took her."

Plain right their that he "took" and "she became his wife." If she ain't 'took' she ain't his wife, so I will clarify my point.

I believe that unless she's "took," she is not his wife. That means that she is not his wife when some paid minister makes it legal in the eyes of man, she becomes his wife when the deal is sealed in the marriage bed, or whereever. That is my position. Being 'pronounced' husband and wife isn't the same as being "pronounced and the deal is sealed in bed." 

When did Isaac ask her to be his wife, at all, in the reading? It is simply not even there. Maybe he just started undressing her - we have no record that he spoke words asking her to be his wife. None at all.

I guess I see an affirmative answer to the question of "will you marry," as that they are "pronounced." Rebekah had agreed back at her home to go knowing what she was agreeing to be. He family WANTED to celebrate, but the servant she left with the servant the next morning. So I see Rebekah as "pronounced" Mrs. Isaac when she was back with her family. So if I or any of the other countless Christian guys who have done so over the centuries, wisk her straight way to the proverbial "mother's tent" and take her, I have good Biblical grounds for doing so.

I attended a church in New Mexico, but I left it about the time the pastor began requiring 6MONTHS of counseling before he would marry anybody. I don't see the point, why 6 months? Why wasn't it 22 months and 17 days. It's all nonsense.

I encounter dilemmas all the time, and I don't get to pause time and go have 6 months of counseling with some minister before I can un-pause time and make a decision.

Makes me remember how the antichrist is supposed to weary the saints. Daniel 7:25 "And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."

You are introducing "times and laws" where there needn't be any, and where no timed requirement is given in the bible. And 6 months WOULD SURE WEARY ME. If she pulled that on me, and say well you and the pastor can go have counselling for 6 months, I'll be out there looking for a different woman.

I sold cars for a living, and I have a phrase that I like to say, "It should only take as long a it needs to take." I.E.: a 30 minute surgery shouldn't take 12 hours, and a 12 hour surgery shouldn't take 30 minutes.

I am way grown. I have made many deals. The; deals, arrangements, expectations should all be settled in courting.

Before this gets too long, I see her saying that she will marry me kind of as how someone might see the minister pronouncing a man and woman wife. The pronouncement has been made! - Next comes the "tooking!" Where she BECOMES my wife. I am not going to hang around waiting for the "tooking" for 6 months talking with some preacher guy or gal who might make the whole thing Awkward. When I ask, my question, it won't necessarily include a six months time frame before the "tooking" takes place.

Yes, before the marriage is sealed in bed, she is totally free to go, and we would never be man or wife. There would be no reason for divorce.

When I did sell cars, and the shopper agreed to buy, I didn't say, "Well, buddy, now go talk to my manager for 6 months about; the responsibility of owning a car, safe driving methods, and preventative maintenance, etc. - I GOT HIM TO SEAL THE DEAL!

THANK GOD, that when God saved me when I believed the gospel, he instantly set the seal of the Holy Spirit on me, and didn't wait 6 months for me to learn what I might face - the whole while me not being saved.

God was a man of action when he saved me, Isaac was a man of action, and I am a man of action too. So I hope I've clarified what I was getting at. No, I don't believe when a woman says "yes" to marry me that we are instantly husband and wife, but we are definitely pronounced. And I won't be a ditherer in that situation. LOL!

Glad God didn't make me physically sign a sheet of paper in order to be saved, I just believed the gospel, and he came in. I might have died before I signed it, and wound up in hell.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2017 at 6:58 PM, Jeremy said:

 "Are you equating getting engaged with being married?"

I am to used to writing in TWEETS, so I'll clarify what I meant when I typed  the "=." It just means that nothing more is needed to seal the deal.

I am equating her saying, "Yes" to us being pronounced man and wife, like a minister commonly does at a wedding ceremony, but the deal is STILL not sealed until they to have sex.

The short answer to your question is NO.

That seems contradictory.....So on engagement you become husband and wife (but you aren't married) yet you aren't husband and wife (aka married) until you have sex? According to your theory you would leave your "wife" if she didn't have sex with you after engagement?

 

On 1/26/2017 at 6:58 PM, Jeremy said:

First of all the Bible doesn't give place for any ceremony between Gen 24:66, “And the servant told Isaac all things that he had done.” and Gen 24:67, “And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.”      

You argument reminds me of a kind of certain creationist argument for gaps in the Genesis creation account.

I'd say (as others) that "And" signifies sequence not necessarily immediate subsequence. Consider Genesis 38:2: And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.

I wouldn't say the seeing, taking, and tooking occurred immediately after each other with nothing significant in between.

I wouldn't compare it with the creation account; "and" is not a strong reason for there being no gaps of millions/billions of years or whatever. 

There is also no indication of a post-consummation celebration. Considering the culture and their wealth it is HIGHLY unlikely they did not have a celebration. It also does not state that the servant/Isaac presented Rebekah to Abraham before the tooking. Again considering the (patriarchal) culture, I imagine that would be unthinkably disrespectful. Biblical marriages also operated differently from nowadays; first was the marriage contract, then consummation, then celebration. The marriage contract with Rebekah would have accompanied the giving of the dowry which took place well before the tooking. 

On 1/26/2017 at 6:58 PM, Jeremy said:

When did Isaac ask her to be his wife, at all, in the reading? It is simply not even there. Maybe he just started undressing her - we have no record that he spoke words asking her to be his wife. None at all.

Different time, different culture. He might not have needed to because the marriage was generally not arranged by the people getting married (or at least not directly) or it may simply not have been mentioned. As far as I know, people with arranged marriages don't generally propose to each other...

 

On 1/26/2017 at 6:58 PM, Jeremy said:

So if I or any of the other countless Christian guys who have done so over the centuries, wisk her straight way to the proverbial "mother's tent" and take her, I have good Biblical grounds for doing so.

Even if we accept that sex/consummation is required to form a valid biblical marriage that does not mean that we can accept sex after a standard western engagement to be biblically permissible. Simply because the western engagement ceremony can hardly be compared to the beginnings of the Biblical marriage processes. Some of which would take YEARS between contract (the forming of the marriage) and consummation. Have a read of this: http://www.bible.ca/marriage/ancient-jewish-three-stage-weddings-and-marriage-customs-ceremony-in-the-bible.htm. Jacob effectively waited/worked 14 years to consummate his marriage with Rachel. Though he technically should only have had to wait/work 7 YEARS to CONSUMMATE the marriage that already existed.

In a western engagement you have merely declared an intention/promise/desire to be married. You are at that point not married even if you have sex because you haven't actually entered into the marriage covenant. You could (without a pastor etc) but you haven't. Our western engagement doesn't do that. Which means that if you have sex with your (merely) engaged fiancee you are having premarital sex. Unless you believe that sex, in itself, creates a marital covenant between two people. A proposition which is readily disproven from the Bible. But if you want to raise that issue, I'm happy to discuss it.

 

On 1/26/2017 at 6:58 PM, Jeremy said:

Makes me remember how the antichrist is supposed to weary the saints.

Oh no...you seriously aren't bringing the anti-Christ into waiting through a reasonable engagement period are you....Oh, what would the martyrs say

 

On 1/26/2017 at 6:58 PM, Jeremy said:

You are introducing "times and laws" where there needn't be any, and where no timed requirement is given in the bible.

I am not. That passage refers to changing moral commandments and moral commandments regarding time. Nowhere have I stated that it is a moral requirement to be engaged for X amount of time. If a pastor doesn't feel comfortable marrying off a couple who can't put in the effort of waiting 6 months and undergo premarital counseling then so be it. Its his freedom as it is yours to find someone else. Considering how long legally married people in biblical times waited to consummate their marriage, 6 months is a laugh. If you want to take one part of a culture/tradition/marital process you can't completely divorce it from necessary precursors and context. 

On 1/26/2017 at 6:58 PM, Jeremy said:

I am way grown. I have made many deals. The; deals, arrangements, expectations should all be settled in courting.

I'm sure there are many "way grown" couples, who rushed into marriage and had it end "way quick" or be miserable as long as it lasted. Again, let me ask you this: you're expecting someone who only has the commitment that you are dating them exclusively (if even that!) to disclose themselves and discuss issues with you as if you two have already committed to marrying each other?

 

On 1/26/2017 at 6:58 PM, Jeremy said:

I am not going to hang around waiting for the "tooking" for 6 months talking with some preacher guy or gal who might make the whole thing Awkward.

Somehow I feel like someone who can't face the potential awkwardness of (valuable) premarital counselling isn't quite ready for marriage. Especially considering the likelihood of marital counseling at some point in the future once married.

 

On 1/26/2017 at 6:58 PM, Jeremy said:

When I did sell cars, and the shopper agreed to buy, I didn't say, "Well, buddy, now go talk to my manager for 6 months about; the responsibility of owning a car, safe driving methods, and preventative maintenance, etc.

Okay....another "buying a car" metaphor.... Not any better in my opinion. You're comparing a living breathing person to a mechanical object. What about the part where you have to (depending on country) study, pass multiple tests, drive under supervision for X hours, have different levels of licenses, before finally you get your full driving license to drive your own car? I can learn everything there is to know about particular car's stats and specs and required repairs before I ever see or touch one in person. People are (thank God!) more complex. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. A lot of different opinions.

I think it comes when you talk about committing to each other, and agree that's what you want. In the sense that you want to work on a life TOGETHER. I think that's why my recent situation hurt so much, because we did talk about that. We both said we were committed to it working, and being together in marriage. To me, that was committment. I was willing to put him first. He was not willing to do the same for me. He lied, essentially.

Still, for me, there's a difference between being in a monogamous relationship, and being in a committed relationship. To me "monogamous" is just seeing each other, "committed" is promising the future to one another. Of course, I still want to wait for the wedding certificate for sex. This may not make sense to some, but it does to me.

i'll tell you what, though, I won't allow myself to fall so hard so fast, again...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PhotoGirl said:

Wow. A lot of different opinions.

I think it comes when you talk about committing to each other, and agree that's what you want. In the sense that you want to work on a life TOGETHER. I think that's why my recent situation hurt so much, because we did talk about that. We both said we were committed to it working, and being together in marriage. To me, that was committment. I was willing to put him first. He was not willing to do the same for me. He lied, essentially.

Still, for me, there's a difference between being in a monogamous relationship, and being in a committed relationship. To me "monogamous" is just seeing each other, "committed" is promising the future to one another. Of course, I still want to wait for the wedding certificate for sex. This may not make sense to some, but it does to me.

i'll tell you what, though, I won't allow myself to fall so hard so fast, again...

I understand how you feel...and I'm sorry he treated you that way ... :(

You will manage to overcome this... Stay strong and take your time to heal pretty girl :)

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now