Marriage Rates Continue to Plummet

Screen Shot 2018-06-08 at 17.24.14

As an amateur sociologist, with absolutely no formal training in that discipline, I enjoy articles like these. Apparently it’s “universally acknowledged” that “a single man with a good fortune needs a wife.” Are we surprised that the hack who wrote this, both for the content and the grammar mistakes, is a wimminz named “Aimee”?

One thing Mizz Picchi isn’t wrong about: The marriage rates in North America continue to decline. While we can (and should) laugh at articles like these, we should also wonder why marriage has such a bleak future. Dalrock is a pretty good place to begin researching social trends, but a huge lacuna in that blog is looking at factors other than divorce. I get the feeling Dalrock is in his 40s or 50s, when I read him, and as such, he probably doesn’t have much day-to-day interaction with kids of prime marriage age.

The most dysfunctional community in North America is the African-American working class. Their dysfunction is directly tied to the historical dishonor of being the first to abandon marriage en masse, and embrace the skank-ho single mom lifestyle. Why did they do this? Their behavior was driven purely by economics. Until the latter half of the twentieth century, Black families in the U.S. were more stable than the norm. Black women, in the late 1960s, realized that they could get more money via a life of harlotry, than they could by being decent wives and mothers, and it has been downhill ever since.

Never wanting to be outdone, the white Protestant working-class in the U.S. has embraced single-mom harlotry and welfare, and now races to the bottom with its nappy-headed rival, for most disgusting ethnic group on offer. They have a way to go yet, but whitey is doing his damnedest to catch up in this race, and countless stringy-haired white skanks on PoF are available (with white bastards in tow), which are perfectly comparable, in every bad aspect, to the stereotypical black welfare queen.

Marriage is not merely declining because of an increase in divorce, and marriage is not declining because of an absence of faith or values. Marriage is declining because it does not make financial sense for marriagable couples to get married. Let’s consider John and Jane, a monogamous couple who live in Seattle, and who attend community college, as an example.

As a single brother, John gets:

  • Washington State Need Grant (like the dole for students)
  • Apple Health (Free medical and dental insurance)
  • QWEST (Food stamps and a small amount of cash assistance, loaded into a debit card)
  • At risk youth scholarship

As a single woman, Jane gets all the same shit John does. They hold themselves out as “roommates who live separate lives” when they go down to the welfare and student aid offices, so they have completely separate accounts. For better and for worse, the minute these two lovebirds get married, everything but the Food stamps disappear (and the food stamps that they get will suddenly be cut by something like 50%).

Now, let’s suppose John and Jane want to have a kid. They are suddenly faced with a new choice. They can get married, and get private insurance, or they can get married, and somehow pay 20,000 USD in cash at the hospital, or they can remain as they are, holding Jane out as a skank-ho single mom, and let Uncle Sugar pay the tab.

Not only will John and Jane have a free kid, their combined welfare bonus will suddenly go way up, along with being enrolled in other programs, like WIC nutrition. They won’t even go after John for child support, if they play their cards right. Jane is a single-mom, and she puts “unknown” on the birth certificate. Never mind John, who is here kissing the baby, and holding Jane’s hand.

“He’s just my roommate. He’s just here for support, and sheeeit.”

If you think this doesn’t happen, you’re crazy. I used to teach at just such a community college, in Washington, and I saw it happen constantly. I couldn’t fault any of the kids who did it, either. There’s no downside to being shack-up parents in this society, and grievous financial penalties for being married.

Sites like Dalrock constantly review the drawbacks men face when getting married, but they also often ignore the very real incentives that appeal to both men and women, in staying single. Moreover, much of the manosphere is pointed at men age 35+, which has almost no relevance to the lives of 20-something kids. Should Jane get a divorce from John after a couple of years, what do you think her payout will be? The answer, of course, is nothing. By this we know that the incentives for staying single factor at least as much into the decision not to marry, as the fear of eventual divorce.

Author: Boxer

Sinister All-Male Dancer. Secret King of all Gamma Males. Member of Frankfurt School. Your Fave Contrarian!

33 thoughts on “Marriage Rates Continue to Plummet”

  1. applause.

    I live in a ‘hood that has many working class black men. Not “welfare class” but WORKING CLASS. These men are honrable in a work ethic (they get up, they show up, they work)

    The large black “welfare class” is the problem…..and where I grew up in the sticks of northern New York State……instead of the urban downtown ghetto, we have “the trailer park” (I got a licking once from my dad, told me to stay out of them….got caught in one when I was about nine or ten).

    The trailer park is full of welfare class whites, never their own fault………always someone else’s fault………all or most on the county / state……ac culture of systemic poverty, and an attitude NOT to even try to get out. Lots of meth in the trailer parks……it wrecked what was left that was working class in there like crack did to the ghetto.

    Boxer…….there is a difference between the working class and welfare class. I am working class, but I can assure you the “working class” (white or black) doesn’t identify with me

  2. When we talk about “marriage rates are declining” in favour of the shacking up together model, we need to be careful in defining our terms
    The problem arises because we’ve been brainwashed by Christianity and right wing conservatives that marriage only occurs when you stand before a justice of the peace, or exchange vows at a ceremony where a “marriage licence ” is signed…….any type of arrangement that doesn’t follow that traditional definition of marriage is considered fornication or “shacking up”

    The fact of the matter though is, THEY LIED TO YOU, as that is not how God defines marriage…. My offer of 10,000 dollars still stands if anyone can prove to me that marriage is defined by exchanging vows and signing a marriage certificate from the bible
    Marriage is defined in GOD’S eyes as sexual intercourse between a man and a woman whether any vows are exchanged or not…. They might not see themselves as “being married” but God says when your DICK enters into a woman she belongs to you and you have obligations to take care of her and live in a married state
    So if we define marriage as being a LEGAL union between 2 consenting adults, then yes the marriage rates are declining and they will continue to plummet as the more men become aware of how it’s mental and financial suicide to get legally married
    If we define marriage how God defines it, then unfortunately the marriage rate is actually increasing and couples are choosing to forgo traditional marriages and instead live together in the way God intends it

    I’m not advocating casual sexual hookups here, I’m merely showing the distinction between what the western man considers “marriage ” and what the bible considers marriage
    The reason this distinction is so important from a moral point of view is we need to get the STATE the hell away from marriage and start teaching people that casual sex is so destructive because you’re actually getting married to everyone you “fuck ” and creating soul ties with that person

    I’ve written about this topic much more extensively on other blogs and channels and it was the primary reason I got banned from the fuckwit Dalrock as he couldn’t handle the biblical truth of my suppositions and I ended up destroying his futile arguments and embarrassing him on his blog
    Dalrock is nothing more than a right wing conservative coward and a Roman Catholic in disguise, who pretends he’s a Christian
    When Artisanal Toad and I got wind of Dalrocks true agenda we were subsequently banned….
    But that’s a topic for another day

  3. The incentives to blow up marriages or to keep people out of it can’t be denied. However how long can a society last if its citizens are basically bastard children with no concept of family, linage, or nation? Not long I would imagine.

  4. ‘My offer of 10,000 dollars still stands if anyone can prove to me that marriage is defined by exchanging vows and signing a marriage certificate from the bible’

    You make that offer because you know it’s not in there. But tell me if marriage is only P in V in God’s eyes…why was Mary called Joseph’s wife if there was no relations between them until she gave birth to Jesus?

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1%3A18-25&version=NABRE

  5. Of course I know it’s not in there, that’s why I’m so confident…. But our theology and morality is meant to be based on the BIBLE, and not on our preconceived notions
    For thousands of years the Catholic Church and most of the Protestant ones as well have been condemning and judging everyone as being fornicators when they choose NOT to get legally married and live in a civil union, and they have had neither God’s approval nor the scriptures for their wicked condemnation of others

    As for Joseph and Mary, the simple answer is that being espoused to a man carries the same weight as if they were married, it was just delayed in the case of Joseph being a very special circumstance to find your “wife” already pregnant
    You can’t put away someone i.e divorce someone unless you’re already married……and how did Joseph and Mary get married? There were NO witnesses, no exchanging of vows, no marriage certificate and no wedding

    You see the problems you get into when you try to define marriage how the West defines it, and not how the bible defines it

    Isaac went into Rebekah’s tent and fucked her brains out, and that made them married….. No witnesses, no ceremony, no exchanging of vows, just good old fashioned hot sex

  6. The concept of family, lineage and nation is NOT bestowed on a couple by the State as it is erroneously taught today, those attributes are bestowed on a couple because they are married in GOD’S eyes and the man is the head of the woman, in other words it is conferred automatically because she belongs to him

    Of course the wicked Church, nor society teaches such misogynist views today in order to downplay the authority a man has over women

  7. ‘You can’t put away someone i.e divorce someone unless you’re already married……and how did Joseph and Mary get married? There were NO witnesses, no exchanging of vows, no marriage certificate and no wedding ‘

    How do you know there were no witnesses, or exchanging of vows, or certificate, or wedding? Do you think Joe just found Mary one day and said ‘you’re mine’ and therefore ripped her father’s authority from him?

    You might want to read the Issac and Rebekah story a little more…there’s more to them becoming husband and wife than him just Issac taking her into a tent and getting it on. Abraham’s servant after all got the Lord’s, her father’s and brother’s blessing too. I think getting the father’s or the lawful male authority of hers approval that you become her authority is more of an arguement of the basis of marriage than the only P in V arguement or a state paper document.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+24&version=NABRE

  8. When I said “Church” I was referring to ALL of them, both Catholic and Protestant, (the buildings and the Organisation) basically the entire Christian community and I was using the world’s definition of “church ” and NOT the bibles definition of church which is different

    You are quite correct though, that a proper marriage entails the transference of MALE AUTHORITY, from the father (primarily) to the husband to be
    Once the father agrees to the arrangement, the man can take the woman to a bed and make her his wife through the act of sex
    And NO there is nothing more to the story of Isaac and Rebekah…. He simply went with her into his mother’s tent and “took her” which is a Hebrew euphemism for sex and it was that act alone that made Rebekah his wife, there were NO witnesses, no ceremony and no exchanging of vows and that’s a fact

  9. Then you obviously didn’t read the passage of all the lead up to it. But I figured you wouldn’t because that shoots down this theory you keep claiming to have of only P in V. That’s the main reason nobody takes this seriously.

  10. Are you being deliberately obtuse or did you not readily comments?
    The “lead up” to P in V ( what’s the matter, does your religion forbid you to say the word penis and vagina ?) is irrelevant because up to the moment of sex Isaac is un married, and it is the act of sex that formalises the union
    It’s religious nut cases like you who if true to your beliefs would still insist that Isaac just fornicated with Rebekah by having sex with her WITHOUT no wedding ceremony or vows exchanged in front of a priest
    Who gives a shit or not whether Rebecca ‘s family knew that Isaac had chosen her up to the moment of sexual intercourse…… She was still a free woman until he penetrated her
    But of course it’s numbskulls like you who conveniently ignore these facts
    So far from it, that my theory has been shot down, it’s YOUR retarded theory that has been shot down as YOU still believe to this day that unless someone has exchanged vows and signed a marriage certificate whether it’s in front of a justice of the peace or a priest, then they are living in sin and NOT MARRIED
    An intention to marry someone, as is the case of Isaac and Rebekah, does NOT make you married, it’s the joining of your flesh to hers that makes you married ( see 1st Corinthians 6:18 for proof)

    I would like you religious hypocrites to say with a straight face, if caught having sex before an actual wedding ceremony, like what Isaac did “but, but I intend to marry her tomorrow!”
    Every single one of you self righteous hypocrites would condemn Isaac if he were alive today for having sex in his mother’s tent, without having a formal marriage ceremony FIRST….. and the reason is because you idiots define marriage as a formal ceremony requiring a marriage licence, and vows exchanged
    And if you think I’m too harsh on you, I dare you, I double dare you motherf*****ker (sorry, I couldn’t resist quoting Samuel L Jackson), I dare you to come in here and state publicly that when a committed couple has sex in a common law marriage I.e those who “shack up” together, without NO wedding and no vows, that they are truly married in the sight of God…. Go on I dare you to admit that

  11. So irrelevant it is put in Scripture.

    And I thought those who go off the Bible thought it is the Word of God. Nothing in there is irrelevant…unless it pokes a hole in your narrative.

  12. Alright here’s your big chance Earl, show me from the scriptures some proof texts that will categorically refute these next few propositions
    1: show me the verses where in order to be married in the eyes of God, you need a marriage licence /certificate
    2: Show me the verses where a priest/and or a justice of peace is needed in order to be truly married, without the accusations of the church that they are committing fornication
    3: Show me the verses where vows need to be exchanged in a formal ceremony in order for a couple to be declared “truly married”

    Go on I dare you to show me the verses,……. you can’t and you know it, therefore don’t accuse me of being unwilling to submit to God’s word on this issue
    The trouble is, you and the entire Church have been brainwashed into accepting the modern day definition of marriage, which is a formal and LEGAL union requiring a ceremony and a licence in order to be married
    That’s not what makes someone married in GOD’S eyes, that is MAN’S definition

  13. How about you show me which verse in the Bible shows that sex alone constitutes a marriage. Or that a man’s genitalia only is where his authority comes from.

  14. Since you seem big on what God’s Word doesnt say…show me where God explicitly says this.

  15. “why was Mary called Joseph’s wife if there was no relations between them until she gave birth to Jesus?”

    While they had a legally binding Jewish marriage, the word for wife (“woman”), γυναῖκά (gynaika), is not so strongly defined as to imply wife with such semantic force. A biblical ‘wife’ can be (1) a betrothed woman; (2) a legally married woman (with or without sex); and (3) a woman who had sex (with or without official legal sanction). The language is imprecise. Thus, the simple answer to your question is that it is irrelevant. It is without any prescriptive meaning whatsoever.

    What is marriage? It is contract and consummation. The contract can be as simple as both parties consenting to its ratification (as the RCC recognizes). However, it is not complete until it is consummated and can be reasonably terminated if it is not (as the RCC recognizes). Nothing else is required for marriage. A wedding feast following sexual consummation and bloody proof is traditional, but not required.

    Codified in the Law, sex between a man and virgin is a marital contract. The father of the woman could terminate the contract because he had legal authority to terminate his daughter’s contracts. Termination implies that it was a real contract of marriage, for it must exist to terminate it. Required payment of the bride price further proves this. Thus at minimum sex entails an implied betrothal (marriage) contract. The fact that it is also consummated makes it a full marriage (like Adam and Eve) because nothing more is required. If sex produces a marriage contract, then sex=marriage by proxy.

    Now what about the cases where there is no consent to marriage? In the case of rape of a virgin, a marriage contract was still implied: the woman had a right to her husband and no one could deprive her of that. He consented to marriage by having sex with her, even if he had no intention of marrying her. In the case where both parties were free to enter into a contract (e.g. a widower and a widow), consent was required. If consent was not given (e.g. prostitution; extra-marital sex), this did not create a legal marriage as there was no valid contract, but it still created a one-flesh joining. A non-marital, one-flesh joining is always illicit precisely because it isn’t a legal marriage.

    When Jesus talked about divorce, he gave the one-flesh joining as the reason why divorce was wrong. Indeed, the contract side of marriage has no moral weight at all and Jesus didn’t even mention it (!!). The moral weight is entirely on having sex, and this occurs whether or not contractual marriage is implied. The logical conclusion of both Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings on one-flesh joining is that if you have sex with a woman, you can never have sex with another woman for as long as she lives, whether or not you are married: it is adultery. Extra-marital sex creates an obligation for celibacy, so the question of whether or not sex creates marriage is completely unimportant as it misses the point.

  16. Bingo…it requires both. Not the only this or only that. Hence why neither can be proven from Scripture.

  17. “Bingo…it requires both. Not the only this or only that. Hence why neither can be proven from Scripture.”

    Not precisely. Marriage does require both contract and consummation, but the standard for consent is quite low. Which of the following are true?

    (1) Non-adulterous, voluntary sex implies contractual consent for marriage.
    (2) Rape waives the rapist’s right to consent to a marriage.
    (3) Non-adulterous voluntary sex requires both parties to explicitly, non-sexually consent to marriage.
    (4) Sex that is adultery is never consent for marriage.
    (5) Involuntary sex requires additional consent for marriage by the person raped.

    “How about you show me which verse in the Bible shows that sex alone constitutes a marriage.”

    Exodus 22:16-17

    As I previously pointed out, seduction of a virgin (consensual sex) is an affirmative contractual consent to marry (#1). You could argue that the marriage isn’t complete until the contract (payment of the bride price) is resolved, but this is merely a procedural technicality of law. It is of no moral significance with regards to the marriage itself. For example, Jacob married Rachel without resolving the 7-year bride price, yet they were still married.

    Deut 22:28-29

    A man who rapes a virgin is obligated to marry because of the sex. So either (a) sex implied consent by the male (#1) or; (b) rape implicitly waives the male’s contractual rights (#2). The RCC explicitly requires consent by both parties, so logically the RCC cannot hold to #2 (i.e. marriage without consent). It must hold to #1.

    Thus, sex implies consent for marriage and the RCC must generally hold that consensual sex=marriage because both consent and consummation have taken place. Perhaps sex≠marriage when both parties do not explicitly consent non-sexually (#3), but this is mutually exclusive with #1. Since the RCC must hold to #1, it cannot hold to #3. The RCC obviously holds to #4. Through logical inference, the RCC also holds to #5.

    This boils down to “Sex=marriage if sex≠adultery and sex≠rape”.
    Corollary 1: Consensual sex between virgins is always marriage.
    Corollary 2: No ceremony is required for marriage.
    Corollary 3: 88% of 25-year-old women are married and/or adulterers.

    See also: Gen 2:24; Mark 10:1-12; 1 Cor 6:12-20.

  18. The argument is made up-thread that two things are needed to create a marriage in God’s eyes: 1) the passing of control of the woman from father to “husband”, and 2) p in v between “husband” and the woman.

    Let us consider Solomon in the Old Testament – who had many women on his property. Let us assume that father’s passed control of their daughters to Solomon, and that Solomon had sex with all of them at least once.

    The Bible states that some of Solomon’s women were his wives, and others were his concubines (not wives).

    Given that fathers passed control of daughters to Solomon, and that Solomon had sex with all of them at least once – what creates the distinction between wives versus concubines?

  19. Additionally – let’s accept that:

    Believer = one who accepts God’s authority over their lives.

    Unbeliever = one who rejects God’s authority over their lives.
    Which implies: one who rejects God’s authority to join them
    together with anybody.

    Biblical Marriage = the union of which God says “what I have joined together,
    let not man put assunder”

    Major Point: We can have worldwide p in v without creating a Biblical marriage. We know this because God says, in the Bible “what I have joined together”. It is only what God has joined together that God says man should not put assunder. Man is free to do whatever he wants to to the unions which God did not join together.

    Minor Point (only because I am not going to take the time to find the scriptures that back this up): the union of which God says “what I have joined together” involves the creation of a vow or covenant among the three – between the two mortals and between each mortal and God. That also is part of the “what I have joined together” process- but I offer this only for consideration, not proof, since I am not going to back it up now with scripture.

    Q1: Will God join together two individuals who accept God’s authority over their lives?

    Q2: Will God join together an individual who accepts God’s authority over their life with one who rejects God’s authority over their life, including God’s authority to join them to anybody?

    Q3. Will God join together two individuals who each reject God’s authority over their lives, including God’s authority to join them together?

    If you look at the distinction made in Solomon’s women between wife and concubine, and if you understand that Biblical marriage is only that which God joins together, I think that a curious person would start to suspect that maybe something more is involved here than simply p in v.

    Disclaimer: I stand on the side of those who argue that a Biblical marriage can be created without the involvement of the church and state. I equally stand on the premise that there is more to creating such a Biblical marriage than just p in v, for the reasons discussed above.

  20. And for further consideration, other Main Men in the Bible had multiple wives. And we know that at least Abraham had p in v with his wife’s handmaiden – a woman not Abraham’s wife. The Bible does not label p in v with multiple wives as adultry nor does it lable p in v with concubines / handmaidens as adultry.

    Given this, I think some of the conclusions stated upthread need to be thought through a little more and maybe tightened up – re. what constitutes adultry, etc. according to the Bible.

    If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and if we are not to add to or take away from what the scripture says – then we need to do a more careful job of reconciling what we think the New Testament says about husband / wife / adulterers with what the Old Testament allowed without labeling it adultry or fornication.

    To say “social convention requires this” is one thing. To say that the Bible requires the exact same thing that social convention requires is quite another.

  21. You are mostly correct, but you have made a couple of fatal flaws
    1: you have made conditional that only those marriages that God has joined are valid, that’s fine, and we both agree on that, but you seem to have the belief that 1 or both members of the union have to be believers in God…. This is nonsense otherwise we end up with the situation that all non believers who entered into marriage are not “truly married ” because they reject God’s authority over their lives
    2: you make an incorrect assumption that a true biblical marriage involves the creation of a vow or covenant between the 2 parties. There was NO such agreement between Adam and Eve, and there was none in the case of Isaac.. The only agreement, if even if that is the correct term, was getting Rebekah’s father’s permission to marry his daughter.
    If as you rightly suggest that people can get married WITHOUT a church or marriage licence being involved, then you have to accept the validity of common law relationships i.e those who shack up together even though they didn’t exchange vows in a formal ceremony, which is what I’ve been saying all along
    The only problem with that is the guilt and condemnation labelled upon them, as if they’re committing some major sin by conservatives and religious nut jobs

  22. @kryptonian51 – My third post above was made as third in the series. I wrote and posted it without knowing you had posted after my second post. My third post was not a response to your post.

    I already stated I was not going to use the vow/covenent issue to argue proof of anything. I just gave it as something else for folks to think about. I do believe that issue is relevant, but I am not going to debate why here (other than Point 3(c) below).

    My thinking can be reduced to these three points:

    1. I believe we can make the case from the Bible that a Biblical marriage exists only where God has joined the two together – and that a Biblical marriage is separate and distinct from any other “marriage” that society constructs.

    2. I believe we can make the case from the Bible that only those unions which God has joined together are subject to the command “let not man put assunder”. That command does not apply to any other “marriage” that society constructs wherein God has not joined the folks together.

    3. What creates a union of which God says “what I (God) have joined together, let not man put assunder?

    a. we know that neither the state nor the church are necessary for this process to occur because that statement was made before either existed;

    b. does God join together one who accepts his authority with one who rejects his authority? Does God join together two who reject his authority? Given the advice to shake off the dust from those who won’t accept you and spewing out of the mouth, I’m inclined to believe that God doesn’t even bother with those who reject his authority (simple version).

    c. the Bible argues that (only Biblical?) marriage is a reflection of what exists between Christ and his bride (the church). Do we want to argue that those who reject God’s authority over their lives are actually part of Christ’s bride? If we say “yes”, doesn’t that turn the whole need to repent and be redeemed to become part of the church on its head? If we say “no”, then that suggest the unbeliever is also not the spouse of the believer – in terms of a Biblical marriage.

    d. In terms of the Calvanism vs. Arminianism debate: In simple terms, Calvinism believes that, when God brings the spiritually dead man to life in Christ, he is brought to life forever. One who “backslides” later in life is considered to be one whom God did not really bring to life in Christ, and the “backsliding” is proof of that. This has the unfortunate effect of making it impossible to know who truely has accepted God’s authority over their life until they are dead and we can see no evidence that they ever “backslid”. If the Calvinists are correct in this thinking, that complicates Point 3(b) above. The concept of Biblical marriage equals God joining together two who both accept his authority over their lives becomes a non-concept if we can never know until they die whether someone has truely accepted God’s authority over their lives. Yet we are still left with the points made in Point 3(c), that must apply to both Calvinism and Arminianism.

    @kryptonian51 – you said This is nonsense otherwise we end up with the situation that all non believers who entered into marriage are not “truly married ” because they reject God’s authority over their lives …

    That statement gets at the heart of the point I am making at Point 1 above in this post: namely that I think we can make the case that a Biblical marriage is separate and distinct from a marriage created by society. Everything I’ve said in this thread is intended to distinguish those unions that God has joined together from all other unions where he has not joined them together. The full argument takes more space and time than what we have here, but the argument can be fully seen in the question that I ask: what creates a union of which God says what I (God) have joined together … ? And I do understand that Point 3(d) above complicates the discussion.

    Based on what the Bible says, I think we can make a distinction between Biblical marriages (those which God joins together) and non-Biblical marriages (those that exist where one or both parties reject God’s authority over their lives). To argue otherwise is to create some serious theological problems – as hinted at in Point 3(c) above.

    And if there is no such thing as a Biblical marriage, distinct from an other marriage created by society, why did God say “what I (God) have joined together”? That implies that he was making a distinction between what he joined together and what he did not join together. If you want to argue that God joins everyone together, sinner and sain alike, then I redirect your attention back to Point 3(c) above.

  23. “The Bible states that some of Solomon’s women were his wives, and others were his concubines (not wives).”

    There is no moral distinction between a wife and concubine. All concubines are wives, but not all wives are concubines. Bilhah the handmaid was both concubine (Genesis 35:22) and wife (Genesis 30:4). Solomon (1 Kings 11:3) had 700 princess wives and 300 concubines and all these wives led him astray. In ancient Judaism, wives and concubines were under different social conventions. It is roughly analogous to a traditional marriage vs. a common law marriage, a difference of social and legal convention only.

    “I think some of the conclusions stated upthread need to be thought through a little more and maybe tightened up”

    Adultery is a man having sex with a married woman who is not his spouse. The moral acceptability of polygamy and concubinage doesn’t change what marriage and adultery are. Nothing says a man can’t (‘is unable to’) join to more than one woman, only that he shouldn’t.

    Q1..Q2..Q3..

    Yes. Yes. Yes. Having sex is a permanent, spiritual joining of two flesh together because God’s authority made it that way. (Gen 2:24) It can’t be changed by man, regardless of social conventions, personal beliefs, or allegiances. (Mark 10:1-12) A Christian man is able to join to a non-Christian prostitute, but he is implored not to do so. (1 Cor 6:12-20)

    Even if two people do not have a socially constructed, flavor-of-the-day “marriage”, they still become one flesh when they have sex. Because they have already joined, we are right to call it marriage unless there is some compelling reason not to do so (e.g. rape or adultery).

    “And if there is no such thing as a Biblical marriage, distinct from an other marriage created by society, why did God say “what I (God) have joined together”? That implies that he was making a distinction between what he joined together and what he did not join together.”

    God’s declaration of Biblical marriage is becoming one flesh. Various examples show that having marital or non-marital sex is to become one-flesh. It is non-negotiable and not a societal construct. Man engages in the act (agency), but God does the joining and it can’t be prevented (authority). God said that what he joined together, no man could separate. This does not mean that only God-stamped marriages are valid. It means that all marriages are God-stamped and irrevocable. The correct conclusion, therefore, is that there is no such thing as no-strings-attached sex.

  24. And my post directly above was made without knowing that Derek had posted – so it is not meant to address what he said.

    Derek has presented the conventional argument. I take issue with much of what he says – some of which is laid out below. But my writing above in all of my posts presents my general response to the conventional argument. Jump to the final paragraph below if you just want a summary of this post.

    1. Derek concluded: “The correct conclusion, therefore, is that there is no such thing as no-strings-attached sex. To be clear, I am not arguing that there is such a thing.

    2. In its most correct sense, the phrase “the two shall become (not are one) can only be fulfilled by creating a child. The two can become one spirit upon being married. But they literally can only become one flesh by creating a child – who contains both of their DNA.

    3. Derek states: “God’s declaration of Biblical marriage is becoming one flesh.” Again, if God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, God’s declaration of what he has joined together must be the same in Adam’s day as it is today.

    a. Marriage is a representative of what exists between Christ and his bride.
    b. Is Christ made up of “flesh” such that he and his bride (the church) become one flesh?
    c. Are you really arguing that Christ becomes one flesh with those who reject his authority over their lives?

    4. Derek states: “God said that what he joined together, no man could separate. This does not mean that only God-stamped marriages are valid. It means that all marriages are God-stamped and irrevocable. ”

    a. I was taught that, when defining a word, you cannot use the word you are defining in the definition of that word. That concept exists here: the whole issue I am discussing is what constitutes a union of which God says what I (God) have joined together, let not man put assunder. In my discussion, we are leaving that phrase undefined. You can’t then turn around and say ALL marriages are joined together by God. You need more proof to support that contention than simply restating the phrase we are discussing the meaning of.

    b. Derek states: It means that all marriages are God-stamped and irrevocable. No. The question is – what constitutes a union of which God says it is God-stamped and irrevocable? That is the question being discussed. And your response is not close to being sufficient – because it states that Gay Marriage is God-stamped and irrevocable? And I doubt you are claiming that to be true. So we are still left with my original question: what creates a union of which God says what I (God) have joined together, let not man put assunder. If you can accept that God does not make that statement about Gay Marriages, then you can begin to understand why I wrote what I did in my posts above.

    5. 1 Kings 11:3-4 says: And he had seven hundred wives, that were princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned away his heart. For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart after other gods … That is the 1599 Geneva Bible. The King James also says his wives. Could have said his women or his wives and concubines if it meant that all his women turned away his heart. It doesn’t. Of those the narrative lists, it says his wives turned away his heart. That would be the plain meaning of those verses. Concubines are not included in the phrase his wives in the narrative.

    6. Finally, Derek state: There is no moral distinction between a wife and concubine. … In ancient Judaism, wives and concubines were under different social conventions. It is roughly analogous to a traditional marriage vs. a common law marriage, a difference of social and legal convention only.

    Derek – with this statement, you make the point that I am actually discussing. The social and legal conventions create one thing, as stated above. The social and legal conventions make a moral distinction, if you will, that God does not make. If that can be true, then so can the reverse be true: God makes a moral distinction that the social and legal conventions do not make. Particularly with respect to determining which are the unions of which God says what I (God) have joined together …

    Derek – you make the case that God does not make a moral distinction between a group of women that society does make a distinction between. I am claiming that the reverse is also true – that God can and does make a moral distinction between groups of spouses that society does not make a distinction between. For all of the reasons I have stated in this post and in my posts above. But you don’t have to go any further than Gay Marriage to realize that God does distinguish where society does not. What is the standard that God uses to make that distintion? That is the question I am examing in this thread.

  25. “thanks Derek”

    Ironically, you should thank Artisanal Toad for linking these passages together into a coherent proof and subsequently debating me. His theological innovations are fascinating, but also contradictory. His readings of Exodus 22:16-17, Gen 2:24, and Mark 10:1-12 are the prime example. AT makes a mistake in assuming that God puts restrictions on entering marriage rather than leaving marriage. Resolve the contradiction and you get a solid argument that, incidentally, agrees with the traditional, straightforward, Christian conclusion that all non-marital sex is illicit. No tortured logic or innovative deviations are required.

    I have great respect for Brother Earl and the RCC. Their stance on sexuality is among the best. But it is God’s authority and man’s agency that primarily governs entering marriage. Governments and religious bodies are of secondary importance. The difference between a full-wife and bond-wife (concubine) illustrates this. Exodus 22:16 requires a bride price to prevent the girl from having concubine status (shacking-up; common-law marriage). It was a shotgun wedding analog and made an honest woman of her (a full wife). From this you can argue that the marriage occurred when sex happened, but legitimization is still required, albeit of secondary importance.

    Boxer has noted the plummeting of marriage rates. The irony of feminism is that it has led to a dramatic increase in modern-day concubinage, where women have fewer marital rights. Boxer calls this “being single”, but it’s just state-financed concubinage with implicit divorce. Merely semantics. Modern society, rather than treating concubinage as inferior to marriage, has inverted this. It has constructed a version of concubinage that is worse than the historical version. For what? Money. With friends like that (feminists), who needs enemies (biblical patriarchy with slave concubines)?

  26. If it’s universally acknowledged that a single man with a good fortune needs a wife, the American economy may be now illustrating the inverse of that corollary: Poor men with dwindling job prospects are going to lack marriage prospects.

    To be fair, Aimee does not actually claim “it’s universally acknowledged” because she begins the statement with “If”. However, unless I misunderstand formal logic, she does not understand the definition of corollary (“a proposition that follows from (and is often appended to) one already proved”). She contends that the first statement is a corollary (to what?), and then refers to its corollary, the second statement, as “the inverse of that corollary”. It’s not impressive for a journalist to start an article so poorly.

    I get the feeling Dalrock is in his 40s or 50s, when I read him, and as such, he probably doesn’t have much day-to-day interaction with kids of prime marriage age.

    I think he said in a recent post he is in his late 40s. He never mentions children of his own, but, based on his age, it would be reasonably likely any such children would be in their teens or twenties. Even if he doesn’t, he might have frequent contact with marriageable children of friends.

  27. Dear Rickety:

    To be fair, Aimee does not actually claim “it’s universally acknowledged” because she begins the statement with “If”. However, unless I misunderstand formal logic, she does not understand the definition of corollary (“a proposition that follows from (and is often appended to) one already proved”). She contends that the first statement is a corollary (to what?), and then refers to its corollary, the second statement, as “the inverse of that corollary”. It’s not impressive for a journalist to start an article so poorly.

    Good catch. It should also be immediately noted that what she’s calling an inverse, isn’t, since negating “needs a wife” would be “doesn’t need a wife,” rather than “lack(s) marriage prospects.” Enough of my pedantry, though.

Comments are closed.