Category: Marriage

Introduction and background

According to Foucault there was no specific date as to when homosexuality was discovered, instead modernity gave a name to something that had not yet been categorised and it was this discourse that invited discrimination and prejudice. Homophobia publicly emerged, and this diversity of sexual preference was not accommodated for within society. In the 1950s as part of the council of Europe, the European convention of human rights (ECHR) was established, its official order was both the protection and guarantee of all human rights.

This court has advanced rights in Europe relating to sexual orientation with legislation such Article 8, the right to respect for private life and family life and Article 14 which states freedom from discrimination. Legislation like this has allowed Marriage over the years to evolve e.g. Catholics can marry outside the Anglian church and married women are recognised as equal to their husbands but there is still disharmonious opinion when it comes to the subject of same-sex marriage even though same sex partners do not change the fundamental principles that underpin the institution of marriage. The same sex couples Act that enabled couples to marry in civil ceremonies was passed in 2013 in England and Wales. Although this act was a huge step forward for same-sex couples, regarding Article 9 of the European Convention on human rights which guarantees religious protection and freedom, religious organisations who do not want to marry same sex couples cannot be legally challenged. It is therefore not unlawful discrimination to refuse. The religious belief that marriage should only be between a man and a woman is not unlawful and is protected by freedom of expression (government equalities office April 2011).

Traditionally international human rights laws pertaining to marriage have been interpreted to cover heterosexual couples, provisions including the right to marry, to privacy and to family have not been inclusive of same sex partnerships but As of March 2013, 47 countries opened marriage or a form of registered partnership to same sex couples however, there is a significant difference between the legal content of the two and not all these couples receive the same rights as heterosexual couples. Civil unions cannot legally adopt and benefits such as tax and social security cannot be enjoyed in the same way as heterosexual marriage. Limited recognition of same-sex unions makes rights such as inheritance or survivor benefits offered by pension schemes from a partner a legally complicated endeavour (government equalities office April 2011) and more conservative states will deny recognition of a same-sex partner e.g. the Coman case in April 2017 where a Romanian married his American partner in Belgium, Romania refused to recognise this and the American husband was refused residency (lonardo 2018).

This essay will discuss the arguments that are expressed on the topic of recognition on same-sex marriage rights and why there seems to be no clear, harmonisation of laws across the EU and the rest of the world.

In 28 countries mostly in north and west Europe, same sex partnerships are fully recognised when moving eastern or southern, however, the legal right is not recognised. It is legal throughout Canada and the United States and parts of Mexico. Brazil and Argentina recognise same sex marriage, as do Australia and New Zealand, a large part of the western world recognises to some degree same sex partnerships. However, in Asia and Africa (excluding South Africa and Taiwan) the institution of same sex union has made no progress. There remain 72 countries, most in middle east Africa and Asia, where same sex activity is illegal. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia and Nigeria all impose the death penalty under sharia law and in Iraq and Syria under the Islamic state. Sharia regulates public and private behaviour as well as private beliefs which contrasts with international human rights law especially article 8 and 14 and these countries evoke homophobic attack and permit torture as punishments for breaking sharia law (Dearden 2017).

Johnson (2013) claims that the wording in the legislation of the ECHR implies a heteronormative interpretation and excludes same sex partnerships. He particularly discusses Article 12 of the convention ‘men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to find a family according to the national laws governing the exercise to this right’ (Johnson 2013 pp 146) it is the existence and wording of ‘men and women’ rather than ‘everyone’ or ‘no-one’ that opens this up to argument. The court claims that as all other substantial articles which give rights and freedoms in the convention state ‘everyone’ or ‘no-one’ article 12’s wording must be intentional and interpreted in the ‘traditional’ sense of the unity of marriage between opposite sex partnerships, article 12 reflects the legal struggle of the equality in marriage for same sex partnership. Applications to the court have begun to appeal against article 12 and confront heteronormative marriage laws as only seven of the 47 contracting states allow same sex marriage. He claims the committee of ministers suggests that member states that recognise same sex partnerships should ensure the same legal rights and obligations to these couples as to heterosexual partnerships. They also invited states that do not offer same sex partnership legal registration or the same help legally that is offered to heterosexual couples. Although this is a step in the right direction towards marriage equality regardless of gender it does not address legal exclusion of same sex marriage. Article 9 of the charter of fundamental rights of the European union has not included reference to gender which suggests marriage as an inclusive human right, it maintains however that because of national law nation states are not required to allow same sex marriage. Article 12 heteronormative conception upholds traditional marriage between people of biological opposite sex and same-sex marriage opponents perceive the legal constructions not as discriminating non-heterosexuals legal and human rights but as a consideration of marriage as a ‘traditional’ institution. Johnson claims that the courts legal stance on marriage is entrenched in heteronormative social constructions. Other courts e.g. united states district courts compared not allowing same sex partners to marry as being akin to the prohibition of partners, historically, in respect of race.

Moscati (2013) examined same sex unions over three decades and of discusses their existence in many societies before Denmark legalised same sex unions in 1989. He refutes the traditional perspective by detailing empirical evidence that looks at marriage between women in several societies in Africa historically and outlines several examples of same sex marriage and describes an example of a contract signed in November 1482 between two men who had formed a relationship. He claims Legal framework and traditional law are entrenched in same sex unions historically. He considers that because marriage and family is fundamentally a social institution, discrimination between heterosexual and same sex marriage should not be present. He claims because there is not one fixed model of marriage, legal reforms for recognising same sex unions must be contemplated. He suggests that Internationally there are several types of recognition that exist on legalisation of same-sex marriage, a genderless approach in the legal framework, separate legislation for same sex union, utilising different forms of union, providing options to both same sex and heterosexual couples, locally authorised same sex unions and recognising same sex unions registered abroad. Moscati believes that the most controversial concern in same sex marriage is the consideration of parenthood. When it comes to adoption and artificial insemination problems arise because of the different levels of recognition displayed across different jurisdictions. Finnis (1994,1997) purported same-sex marriage as immoral and the nature of marriage should be to serve procreation. This view reflects the congregation of the doctrine of the faith which declares ‘…such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race’ (2003) (cited in Moscati 2013).

There are now a growing number of jurisdictions recognising same sex married couples’ rights to a family and allow couples of jointly foster or adopt children, lesbian women are allowed medical insemination as well as joint parental status although this is not always the case for registered partnerships (Johnson 2013). However, parenting rights are not always given to homosexual couples even if the country recognises same sex unions. The equality argument is that same sex partnerships or individuals are just as able to bring up children as heterosexual partnerships or individuals and children need families and homes regardless of their parents (biological or adoptive) sexual orientation. Some would put forth the argument that children who are in fact raised by same sex families are more likely to grow up being accepting of this and teach tolerance of people’s differences, minimising future discrimination. Alternatively, just as some countries determine whether same sex partnerships should be recognised, they also have the right to determine who should parent. In some countries equality of this nature goes against their religious beliefs and traditions that the aim of unity of marriage is for a man and woman to procreate. Traditionally marriage is a union between a man and a woman and by allowing same sex marriage the traditional institution is disrupted which in turn not only creates negative issue in children but also poses risks to society (Wardle 2003, 2006). Moreli 2013 also states that traditional perspective believes that same sex marriage is not only harmful to the traditional concept of marriage it has a detrimental effect on children. He goes on to explain that same sex marriage is seen by traditionalists as a violation of the 1989 united nations convention on the rights of the child. Gallagher 2003 suggests that children must grow up in a heterosexual family because same sex marriage will influence and lead to adolescent homosexual activity. Moscati argues however that some heterosexual couples cannot or chose not to procreate, same sex unions can be beneficial when a child is bought up by two loving parents regardless of gender and same sex unions can have a positive effect on society both economically and financially. In accordance to the European convention on human rights, Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 8 rights to respect for private and family life same-sex couples should be afforded the same rights as opposite couples with a view to have a family but this is often not the case, for example, Frette v France (2002) where a homosexual man complained that the denial to adopt a child was based on prejudice about his sexual orientation. The court found no violation of article 14 and no violation of article 8 as they had based it on the interest of the child. Another example was Boeckel v Germany who relied on article 8 in conjunction with article 14. A female registered civil partnership were refused the right to register as a parent to their partners child as they were found not to be in a relevant situation to a heterosexual couple when it came to the entries on the birth certificate (European court of human rights 2017)

Conclusion

The levels of recognition same sex marriage have been given throughout the world is vastly different a blatant example would be that South Africa prohibits sexual orientation as grounds of discrimination whereas Uganda bans same sex marriage completely. Nevertheless, there is a clear trend towards the further recognition of same sex partnerships even though there remains to be limited recognition in some countries and remains highly controversial in other countries across the world, for example a Ugandan member of parliament introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in 2009 and in Nigeria in 2007 the same sex marriage (prohibition) Bill was unsuccessfully challenged.

Under EU law some member states have marriage equality, and some allow civil or registered partnerships. These steps even though limited give hope that one day even the more conservative member states will recognise the rights of same sex couples and equal marriage laws will be EU wide regulated. It should be a legal obligation to recognise same sex couples and EU law, family laws especially, must adapt to allow same-sex couples to be able to move between member states equally. Same-sex partnerships should not have to negotiate EU laws to ensure the same rights as a heterosexual married couple such as inheritance, residency and the right to have a child. Recognition of same-sex marriage should reflect social change, for there not to be recognition is a violation of fundamental human rights, a right afforded to a heterosexual couple to ignore it is to uphold heterosexual privilege and power and enforce heteronormative conceptions and interpretations. Same-sex marriage should not be a controversial or sensitive subject and there needs to be a harmonisation of the laws across the EU. The principle of marriage is the promise of long-term commitment between a loving couple there are reasons why two people should not make this commitment but being a same sex couple should not be one of them. Modern society should be promoting respect for all ensuring an inclusive institution for every member of society regardless of sexuality. The court’s interpretation of article 12 must evolve to match article 14 jurisprudence which states it is unacceptable to treat people differently based on sexual orientation. Focus must shift from ‘traditional’ interpretation and be bought into line with contemporary conceptions of marriage so that in the not to distant future all countries will recognise the rights of same-sex couples.

Introduction

This essay is about the moral response of Christians toward people who identify as a sexual minority. Like the lesbian woman in the opening quote, many sexual minorities experience rejection from their churches. Why do some Christians support same-sex marriage when others do not? For the first time in recorded history, several nations have officially recognized that a significant minority of men and women have different sexual identities and romantic interests than do the majority. As a part of that official recognition, several nations have legalized same sex marriages. These changes have come about in the past few decades and represent a fast pace of social change compared to other social changes in human history. For example, for most of human history, people have been legally held as slaves, and most nations severely restricted the rights of women. Social activists worked for more than a century to end slavery, the unequal treatment of racial and ethnic minorities, and the minimal role of women. But changes to accord rights to approve same-sex marriage have occurred within the past two decades. Christians have different views on the role of men and women in society and in the church. Most Christian traditions restrict the role of women in ministry, but this has changed in recent decades. When it comes to marriage, only a few Christian groups have changed their stance to marry same-sex couples. Christian leaders have explained why some forms of sexual activity are immoral and why a Christian marriage should only be between one man and one woman.

In this essay, I will attempt to clarify key moral issues related to sexual identity and same-sex marriage. To accomplish this goal, I will first explain some of the ways people talk about sexual identity and relationships that are not heterosexual. Second, I will refer to the SCOPES model outlined to illustrate how key aspects of personal functioning can be different for sexual minorities. Third, I will show how Christians can use the six dimensions of moral psychology to appraise the way different Christians view the moral issues involved in sexual identity and same-sex marriage. In concluding this overview, I will refer to the biblical texts that most people cite when discussing the morality of sexual activity other than sex within a marriage between one man and one woman.

The Reason for Choosing To Write On This Subject

I believe same-sex marriage is one of the most controversial topic or subject facing not only the moral standard in the Christendom, but also the social life and the human right of an individual today in our society or generation today. Have seen and heard many fruitless effort being made to see how best to eradicate this issue, and being able to write and research on this very subject will help give me a clary picture of the course of it, the gravity and if possible know the lead down plans in which institution, the government, and the Christian body have put in place to help solve this issue. Also as an up and coming servant minister of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ , its will help me get ideas of how best to handle cases such as this practically , should I encounter one in the ministry.

My method of Research is on past articles, court journals, Christian’s articles and the theological view that leads to me using the Bible, newspapers and website. I choose to use this methods especially the past articles and journals and the Bible because I believe this issue started way back in the old testament in the bible in the city of Sodom and Gomorrah, where the sin of man was very grievous in God’ so sight and due to that He destroyed a whole city because of this same issues which was very rampant in those days. Moreover, it has carried it on from our past till now. Therefore going back to the root course of this file or methods will give me vivid picture on how to best present this issue or subject.

Courts journals and past newspapers are the number one source I believe one can use because of its practicality and the reality of the social view on a said matters when it’s got to do with the right of humans.

The Analysis of The Problem (The Creation Account In Genesis)

The first point most make comes from the creation account in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. God created two sexes, male and female and joined them together in a blessed union. Jesus referred to these Genesis verses when he explained that God designed marriage as a permanent relationship.

A second point refers to the sins of the people at Sodom and Gomorrah, Both stories refer to sexual assault and include references to desire for same-sex activity. Third, a law in Leviticus banned male with male sex Finally, the apostle Paul addressed the matter of sexual conduct and marriage in a few places, but a passage from Romans chapter 1: 24– 31 specifically mentions same-sex activity as wrong for both men and women. Jewish and Christian scholars have offered different opinions about the correct translation of the words and phrases as well as the interpretation of these verses. Christian leaders also argue about how Hebrew laws and the teachings of Paul should guide contemporary Christians in how to live a moral life. Finally, I will modify a phrase from my presentation on psychology and morality to address the current issue. Christian moral judgments about sex-related issues are based on four factors: An interpretation of the biblical texts, the influence of one or more aspects of human nature (e.g., SCOPES model) informed by life experiences, a specific understanding of relevant sexuality, and one or more moral reasons common in their culture. Talking about Sexual Identity and Same-Sex Relationships Before discussing the moral issues, it is important to be as clear as possible about what people mean by commonly used terms. On a simple level, children are identified as girls or boys based on their natal sex.

Natal sex refers to sexual identity based on visible sex organs present at birth. As children grow, they are treated differently by peers and adults based on their appearance as boys or girls. Most societies have different clothes and activities considered right, or at least normal, for girls and boys, women and men. The terms boys, girls, men, and women are gender terms and not sex terms. Gender refers to the cultural aspect of sexuality that is only remotely linked to biological sex characteristics such as genitals and hormones. The permissible similarities in clothing and activities between the genders vary from culture to culture and from historical era to era. The prohibitions on what women and men can wear come from many sources, such as law, religion, tradition, and families. Sexuality is commonly thought of in terms of distinct categories, which works for communication purposes but does not describe the experiences of some persons. A common category is heterosexual vs. homosexual referring to a person’s emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction. Homosexual men are identified as gay, but homosexual women sometimes identify as gay and sometimes as lesbian. Bisexuals experience sexual attraction to both men and women but may emphasize one preference more than another. Bisexuals may identify primarily as a heterosexual man or woman or as a gay man or lesbian woman.

The Nature Of The Problem

I will use those four dimensions to discuss aspects of sexual identity important to understanding the complexity of the sexual issues Christians judge as morally right or wrong. First, a review of the six dimensions. People have a Spiritual (S) core, which is heavily influenced by the religious beliefs of family and friends as well as personal experience. Cognition (C) involves thoughts, memories, and images. Observable (O) behavior refers to those durable patterns of behavior that form unique personalities. Psychologists commonly recognize five personality traits or behavior patterns of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism in addition to other traits. Physiology (P) is the dimension that encompasses our biological state, which includes our general health, hormones, and anything we take to alter our biological functioning such as medicine, food, and drink. Emotions (E) are sometimes difficult to describe, but many recognize feelings as positive and negative. Emotions are part of what it takes to motivate people to act. Social (S) functioning refers to influence due to social context. Any given human action can be influenced by several factors including our spirituality (S), thoughts (C), personality traits (O), general health and biological functioning (P), feelings (E), and our social context (S), which involves our location, the people present, and the time of day or year.

The Spiritual Effects

Now let us see how the model provides a framework for understanding different aspects of sexual identity. Christians who become aware that they are different from other men and women have a challenging Spiritual experience. Desires for emotional, romantic, or sexual relationships with Same-Sex Marriage. One’s own sex or discomfort with one’s sexuality can be disturbing when differences are summarily dismissed as sin. Spiritual well-being is vitally important to committed Christians. And commitment involves living life according to biblical principles.

Sexuality is also a major part of what it means to be a person. A great deal of life for most persons is bound up in life-long loving relationships. The Christian ideal for relationships is typically portrayed as marriage, and a common desire for couples is to have children. People who are uninterested in heterosexual relationships can feel a great deal of inner distress and tension when their sexuality seems at odds with the teaching of their faith. And many Christians increase this distress by removing LGBTQ persons from church ministry or asking them to leave a church. Some Christian parents have told LGBTQ persons they don’t want them around their children. For many LGBTQ persons, openness about their gender identity and sexuality means leaving their spiritual home.

Thoughts (Cognition) can be preoccupied by a search for identity. Even when a person reaches a point of clarity that he or she is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, there are still thoughts about who to tell, how to live, and how to deal with rejection. For many Christians who are sexual minorities, the Emotions linked to the troubling thoughts will be decidedly negative. Anger can be felt toward God and all those who offer only condemnation and insults. The whole experience can obviously be depressing when people lose friends and family members or their worth as a human being is continually challenged. And anxiety can be expected when threats of violence and damnation in the afterlife occur.

Another important emotion linked to some forms of sexuality is disgust. Many people experience a strong aversion to certain types of sexual expression Observable behavior can be a challenge. In a non-supportive setting, any behavioral expression of romantic interest in a person of the same sex will be condemned. Some try to fake being straight, and some have even married people of the opposite sex and had children despite their inner sense that these actions feel unnatural.

Physiological differences may not be obvious for many who identify as gay or lesbian, but some researchers have identified differences for some sexual minorities. Scientists have found evidence for chromosomal differences, but these findings are not definitive. Others find that testosterone levels are higher in heterosexual men and lesbian women. Some researchers found that a same-sex orientation occurs more frequently among twins and siblings and is more common among family members than in the general population Studies of sexual responding reveal clear and quick biological responding to sexual stimuli that is different between straight and gay men as well as between straight and lesbian women Because of the role of culture, sexuality cannot be fully accounted for by physiological factors alone. A person’s Social context makes a difference in dealing with sexual maturity regardless of orientation.

The Magnitude Of The Issues And Its Relevance To Urban Living

An average-looking boy is raised in the home of a fundamentalist pastor who has remarried after the death of his first wife, the boy’s mother. His step-mother has two boys who are older and feel called to be missionaries. As he enters the teen years, he finds that he is sexually attracted to other boys. Although friendly with girls in the church, he has no romantic interest in them. Not wanting to appear different, he goes on group dates with the youth group. He wonders how he will ever be able to talk with someone about his feelings. He prays that God will change him.

A girl is raised by a loving single mother who is quite busy with work, two younger children, and attempts at having a personal life. The girl has a pleasant disposition and enjoys times to visit her friends but she’s known as a tomboy. One day things go horribly wrong as an older brother of a neighbor seduces her and threatens to harm her and her siblings if she says anything. She keeps her sexual abuse a secret. As she matures she finds men repulsive and enjoys the comfort of other girls. Eventually, she connects with another young woman with whom she shares common interests. In each social setting there are parents, peers, siblings, pastors, and others who can make a difference in a young person’s life. The words they use and the way they demonstrate love and respect can have a profound influence on the way people think about, feel toward, and act upon their romantic and sexual desires. The social setting (e.g., home, college, work) will also be a factor in how comfortable the person feels in seeking spiritual guidance or consulting a psychotherapist.

Addressing The Issue (Care vs. Harm)

Care vs. Harm Conservatives and progressives often refer to harm when judging an act as immoral. In many contexts, the opposite of harming someone is caring for someone. Christians can point to Jesus’ formulation of the second greatest commandment, which tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves.15 Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan illustrates caring for a beaten man in contrast to allowing him to be stranded by a roadside without treatment.16 Conservatives view same-sex marriage as harming the individuals and the church. Based on the verses mentioned earlier, people who engage in same-sex relations commit acts of immorality and can expect to be harmed as a result. It was this kind of thinking that led some Christians to view the AIDs epidemic as God’s punishment because at first, AIDs was commonly found among gay men. This judgment is less common since AIDs spread to heterosexual adults and children. A less literal conservative view refers to harm in a spiritual sense. This perspective leaves the specific judgment about what happens to those who violate biblical teaching up to God.

In The Institution of Marriage

Same-Sex Marriage – Another conservative perspective focuses on the harm done to the institution of marriage. As noted above, conservatives cite biblical texts to show that a Christian view of marriage includes one man and one woman. Any other relationship harms the Christian community and society at large because it violates God’s view of an orderly society. Progressive Christians focus on the harm done to individuals who find themselves attracted to people of their own sex. To deny LGBT persons the right to marry someone they love and to enjoy intimacy is to subject them to emotional pain for their entire life. Conservative Christians cause additional harm to LGBT persons when they refuse admission to schools (e.g., Christian colleges), restrict employment opportunities, or participation in church activities. 17 The limitations on education, employment, housing, and worship result in economic hardship, social isolation, and feeling disconnected from God. Some progressive Christians point to examples of the sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults as the reason Paul condemned same-sex relationships in his era. These harmful activities are of concern, not the loving relationships of LGBT persons who desire to marry.

Liberty vs. Oppression

The Exodus story is the quintessential example of liberation from oppression. Although Christians do not celebrate the Passover as Jews do, they do recognize God’s liberating power Same-Sex Marriage and the importance of resisting oppression. Conservative Christians encourage people to be free from the burden of sin, which includes forbidden sexual activity and relationships that are different from God’s original plan. To live a life that is contrary to God’s rules is to live a life in bondage, which will ultimately lead to eternal punishment. Progressive Christians focus on liberating LGBT persons from the oppression of religious and social rules that keep them from enjoying a fulfilled life in a loving relationship with another person. They not only point to Jesus’ teaching about loving others, but they also point to Jesus’ teaching about a new way of living that is free from the old laws. For example, Jesus taught that people could not put new wine in old wine bottles, suggesting that he was offering a new way of life. Also, as noted above, progressives point to the attempt of the early church leaders to reduce the unnecessary burden of old rules, which new Christians were required to keep. 25 Today, Christian leaders are advised to consider which old rules should be kept and which ones should be let go in order to promote freedom in Christ rather than keep people chained to old ways of thinking.

Biblical and social Ways in Addressing the Issue

The church ought to be supportive of people attempting to understand their sexuality to treat people with love and respect. They should observe that all people are sinners and in need of redemption. Also Considering these perspectives, the church ought to be supportive of people attempting to understand their sexuality they have to understand that one sin is not worse than another is. A loving and caring attitude offers lifelong support through fellowship and encouragement.

Finally, the governmental agency must if possible pass out a roleing in the favor of the LGBT concerning discrimination against the LGBT in order to offer them safety and security and also acceptance in the society, whereby they can have equal right as any normal individuals and be able to work and have a life for themselves. Some advocate maintaining relationships with LGBT persons and trusting that God’s spirit will do the work of convicting people of any sin in their lives when people seek to live in a right relationship with God.

Conclusion

To Conclude I leave you with a final statement as a guide in thinking about Christian morality and same-sex marriage: Christian moral judgment about same-sex marriage is based on an interpretation of biblical texts, the influence of human nature modified by life experiences, an understanding of human sexuality, and one or more moral reasons influenced by culture. Actions taken on the basis of moral judgments about same-sex marriage can have a life-long impact on the lives of individuals as well as their relationships, families, churches, and people in their social network.

The new Testament has shown to demonstrate the efforts of a young community, and the teachings of Jesus Christ our Savior, and the way He influenced the community in a significant way. The confrontation with the Jewish culture which holds true for the Judeo-Christian traditions, and the Hellenistic traditions, as seen in the Pagan Christian traditions, which was influenced by the Hellenistic Judaism models. Because of this the New Testament cannot be approached without carefully distinguishing the different cultural settings of the Christian tradition which faced the young community.

The Teachings of Jesus

Jesus wants to remind us of Gods promise, by explaining Gods plan which is also his promise. In focus of Gods will, it can be understood that any man who abandons his wife is guilty of sin, its not so much seen as a moral dilemma as it is with the fact that it interferes with Gods plan, Gods will, and Gods promise. Thus, the focus is moved from the understanding of marriage as a natural reality, to a practice of moralities of do and don’ts, to a point where marriage is seen trough the perspective as the place of man and woman apprehending the promise and the grace of God. The Gospel of Matthew reports that the disciples said to Jesus his teaching on marriage : ‘ If such is the case of a man with marriage out of the purely juridical significance . I will return to notice what the Gospel of Matthew after hearing his teaching on marriage if such is the case with man.

In the teachings of Jesus on divorce, Jesus, does not talk much about the law but rather focuses on the reality of marriage. The words of Jesus makes it clear that divorce is against the original will of God. The will of God continues to exist and qualifies the disunion, but it can however not maintain the union beyond its breakdown.

CHURCH AS SACRAMENT OF MARITAL VOCATION

The meaning of marriage and family in its central theological meaning consists of an ensemble of four symbols. The implications of marriage and the development of the covenant and vocation it can be seen how the primacy of the nature of communion shifts to the importance of the grace of God. The movement shifts from understanding marriage as a metaphor to the manifestation and the redemptive purpose of God and the purpose of recreating our world.

In order to understand the role of the church within the dynamics of marital communion, we have to remember the importance for perfect publicity. Second, we have to remember the importance of the churches role in the redemptive thrust of God’s grace. In relation to the communion of marriage the church must first focus on the cultivation of the perfect realm presented by God to humanity. The first action is to focus on the importance of witness and public action. And the second action that needs attention is how the natural fact of marriage can advance Gods Republic.

At the centre of the conception of the sacraments is the action of Ritual. A sacrament can be defined as a symbolic ritual action. It can be defined as a ritual because of the fact that it has a definite pattern of action that has been established by tradition. Its symbolic in a sense that it widens our pattern of understanding, association and our expectations. Its action because we move as well as the fact that we are being moved. Sacramental actions provide us with a pattern and the meaning of acting on the drama of birth, death, commitment, failure and renewal.

Sacramental action therefore enhances the meaning of our culture, values, and the motivation to live our life to the full glory of God. Sacraments are a action that not only brings together thoughts and emotions, but it can also bind public and people of various sizes together.

Just as the Holy Bible can first be seen as a parental covenant, so are the sacraments of the church firstly focused on parenthood, and not spousal communion. The communion of the couple is grounded in nature. The acting of their parenthood however is participated in and also formed by the community. The young are a reminder of the couple’s faith in the future, and the church as a sacrament can cultivate a more perfect publicity.

Over the last few centuries Christians have been trying to find sacramental responses to vocation first in the manistic life and then in clerical ordination. This however has been used to the constriction of the call to a wider publicity. In resent times the meaning of vocation has been rediscovered by the Christian public. In regards to the sacrament of marriage the importance of the call of the couples should increased in their pursual to joint vocation.

Sacraments are not the only actions that are available to our use in order to establish the psychological conditioning and cultural bonds that make it possible for a man and a woman to enter into communion with one another. In baptism it provides us with the understanding ourselves and the fact that we are equals in Gods public. Vocation enables us to engage as actors in response to God and ourselves, and gives us the power to live our own life and engage into the conversation of the living.

In the observation of this dynamic view we can understand the influence that the symbols have in order to fill the circle of life and how each symbol reinforces the other in its own particular way. Structure in the covenant is found through communion. Parenthood and vocation is found through the covenant. Communion is an essential aspect in the grounding of the sacraments. In turn it can create the means of communion.

The Early Medieval Inheritance

In so far as we can understand the and know of the fundamental rules and customs can be derived from the Roman law: marriage was part of the Christian churches inheritance and was seen as a secular custom, it was a part of their law of nations. In the Roman law there was an agreement between the spouses and their families, and the fact that there had to be consent and an intent to marry one another. But in the twelfth century it was not a real problem if you wanted to leave the marriage. It was easier to get a separation than it was to get married. This however was not seen in a good light with the Christian emperors of the time. Divorce in principle became more difficult to achieve. As the barbarian kingdom of the west came to maturity with time, there were records of great attempts in the ninth century, that prevented kings to change wives and get divorced. But for centuries the barbarian tribes were in alliance with the Roman law, which made divorce a legal action. This was the case in even so late as the thirteenth century in surviving texts of the welsh law, that there was no moral compass to the idea and reason for wanting to divorce.

This is a good example of secular customs of canon law, there is also a great deal of evidence that even due to the fact that the church brought marriage under its courts, there are many of the older believes and practices that survived. In this long period during which the church approved of the Roman law of marriage underlines the fact that there were strong elements of the Bible and traditional practices. However, a remarkable revival happened with the cult of celibacy in the eleventh century, and the gap between sexual morals expected of laity and clergy widened.

The Bible

We were given the doctrines of marriage from the Christian and the Jewish roots by the Bible, but the word does not only provide us with that information, but also prescribed stories read by the middle ages. While the Bible enlightens both the spiritual and cultural heritage as a whole civilization, the Word on marriage brings both confusion and meaning to its readers. One of the great Authors of Genesis gave us a very inspirational image within the creations of Eve where man and wife became One in flesh. This is where the confusion and meaning comes into place due to the fact that this phrase can be interpreted in the metaphorical or allegorical direction, because the union of marriage can be seen as the type of relation were Christ and the church as the authors of Ephesians said that the man is the head of the house as Christ is the head of the church, by describing men as the dominant entities of the society he also complimented man and woman as the highest union which could be imagined.

The tragic stories come from the early prophets on Hosea to cherish an unfaithful wife and the allegorical meaning of Israel as a child. The remarkable Jewish hymns from the song of Solomon and Psalm 45 came later which was admirably suitable for the medieval allegorical interpretation on the rhapsody on marriage in Ecclesiasticus. As the Word said, “what God had joined together let not put asunder”. The conscience of a husband or wife was explained in the marvelously evocative loyalty between them but will not be seen the same way in a lawcourt. If there was a witness to the marriage of a couple who can say that they were joined together by God? The medieval Church where on many grounds permitted annulment. The argument of Moses starts by the same token in common sense and human understanding but falls under the legalism it explains before the end. A husband was permitted to dismiss his wife by Deuteronomy, it did not guarantee any responsibility for her – yet, Jesus appeared to say: if she had been maidenly and after her redundancy falls into unmaidenly, the husband whom deserted her is to blame.

To some this may seem as a very harsh saying, but it’s in a different order than from the version in Matthew 19: 9 where it extends the argument with Moses to a ceremonial prohibition of divorce, except where one partner is abstinent – save for adultery. There is no doubt that Jesus set a peculiarly high store on marital loyalty, and that the medieval Church accurately described this, and proceeded to act upon it. Matthew’ s phrases a legal statement which inspired it to a ceaseless argument on the topic of divorce, its meaning and the prohibition of divorce.

The Interpretation of the Bible

In the middle of the twelfth century the pope of England was challenged with the problem of validation of the marriage of slaves. The consequences of the fall has always been accepted by the church as due to slavery and lordship, and as a part of the Roman empire. The law did not condemn slavery neither did it restrict a lord’s rights over his slaves. It has always been viewed as acceptable in the community that a slave may not be able to marry if at all, especially not without his lords’ consent. But for the English pope however marriage was seen as a Christian sacrament. They fully accepted the words of Paul’s famous words in Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”. Just as in Christ Jesus there is neither a free man nor a slave, who may be prevented from receiving the sacraments of the Church.

In the traditions of the canonist Gratian the church fathers declared that heathen marriages are acceptable, and converted the law to prevent heathens from abandoning their spouses. A deep considered question was answered by Pope Innocent III (1198 – 1216) on the debate of heathen marriages. The first address was to an Italian bishop, in which he quoted 1 Corinthians 7 : it is better for the Christian partner in a marriage to preserve the marriage ; but if the heathen partner wishes for separation , the Christian cannot be bound – he or she is free , says the pope , to marry again.

The second address was to the bishop in the holy land, in this address he hammered on the case of non-Christians who had several wives or married within a forbidden degree of some sort. According to the Apostle the marriages could all have been deemed as valid marriages, but in Christian law however only one of the marriages could have been valid. The four children that was conceived in heathendom were all legitimate. The decision was related to the doctrine of putative marriage : that a child born of parents reasonably supposed to be married could be reckoned legitimate even if the marriage was later annulled.

The marriage between Joseph and Mary is seen by most theologians as the most holy of communions. As legend has it in the stories of our Holy Bible we read that Jesus Christ was conceived by a virgin called Mary who was the wife of Joseph. But when Joseph herd of Marys pregnancy he wanted to divorce his wife Mary. He did not want to expose Mary to the public. However before Joseph could follow through with his decision to separate with his wife, Joseph had a dream that the child Mary will conceive is of the Holy Spirit. Joseph was commanded to take Mary as his wife. Joseph did as he was commanded, did not have intercourse with her until her son was born. It has been believed in the time of the fifth century and even before the fifth century that the marriage between Joseph and Mary was never consummated. The communion of Joseph and Mary is a perfect illustration of the fact that a marriage is constructed by consent and not consummation.

Augustine

Although a lot of theologians and canonist agreed on the fact that the communion of Joseph and Mary was perfect in its own ways, there were other arguments that denied the union as a respectful model of the Christian marriage. According to Paul, in his very specific writings made the statement that a husband and a wife should not deny themselves from one another. Carnal union was a powerful tradition stemming from Judaism at the center of marriage.

When Augustine spoke of the good things about a marriage, Augustine made the statement that a child is the first good fruit of a marriage. In Augustine’s view it was possible to support the notion that the woman can be viewed as the temptress, and that she is inferior to the man. “If man perchance were weary of being alone , how much more suited for common life and good conversation would have been two male friends living together than a man and a woman”, According to Augustine, Eve was created to have children, but Augustine strongly disagreed with St Jerome’s statement of female wickedness. Augustine also made the statement that in his view that a carnal union after the fall cannot avoid at least some taint of cupidity, which only gets worse as passion enters the communion.

Augustine saw the difficulty in making marriage wholly indissoluble in the light of Matthew 5 : 32 and 1 Corinthians 7 , but came steadily to a fairly ‘ strict and rigorist position ‘ in his later life which deeply affected his medieval successors . He accepted in principle that it was consent not consummation which made a marriage — and the prime purpose of his book was to addressed that hen all was said and the first aim of o that there was convince the ascetic nuns to whom it was address marriage was no inferior state . Yet when all was sa done his voice was heard to say that the first marriage was to have children – and so , that the something incomplete about marriage unconsumm and the book itself is deeply concerned , not to obsessed , with the sexual element in marriage.

The Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries

If we look into the eleventh and twelfth centuries, we can see marriage defined under five aspects. First there is a liturgy of marriage : In the regions of England and France a complete ritual of marriage consists of the betrothal, the exchange of promises or vows, the blessing of the brides chamber. The next aspect states that the church has full jurisdiction over the marriage, they at least claim to be. The third aspect, theologians are compiling lists of the sacraments, which include the sacrament of marriage and it defines the nature of the act and its symbolism or meaning. Poets were also developing their own writings of human love and affection and the various attitudes in marriage are set in opposition to other kinds of human affection. Marriage was also the main key to the inheritance of land, estates and kingdoms in the late Middle Ages was a very rare event , and the conqueror ‘ seat – grandson, Henry II, built up a great empire out of the alliances of his ancestors , his wife , and his children.

In the essence of the law of marriage in the twelfth century are in the affirmation of positions have already been established in earlier times. Consent is what makes a marriage not consummation, yet the essence of a marriage consisted of children. Marriage is a sacrament, and the doctrine of these laws are largely found in the New Testament, the paradox that marriage is a holy communion but still inferior to virginity is nothing new.

If we go back and focus our attention on the seventh or eighth century, marriage was still a civil institution and one did not need blessing of any sort to be able to get married, neither was it normal occurrence for a second marriage after a spouse had passed on to the afterlife, we also do not have any records of a marriage that consisted of a complete ritual earlier than the eleventh century.

The marriage customs of the church had been inherited from Rome, and from the barbarian tribes that has also been under the influence of Rome. But the civil courts however did not intervene in the affairs of a married couple, as long as these unions did not involve legal irregularity or violent scandals. The council however did take strong actions against infanticide, abortion and contraception, adulterers and fornicators experienced a heavy penance if they broke the rules. Furthermore, a woman was prohibited to enter the church during menstruation, nor may they have entered the church for forty days after giving birth. Intercourse was prohibited during this time as well. A man may not get married to a woman that he has committed adultery with. And perhaps the most frowned upon was the idea of incest. A man did not have the right to get married to his cousin for example, and this has been the case from the sixth century onwards. A legacy has been left behind from the early middle ages that is filled with love and lust and a high on asceticism, consisted of sweet reason venom and sin, all to set aside the nature of human emotion. The aspects of the human affection can at a moment be more perverse than any other animal, and on the other hand lower than angels. Human affairs are full of paradox ; and the inheritance of eleventh and twelfth century marriage was infinitely rich.

Have you ever wondered why same-sex marriage is not legalized everywhere yet? I mean it’s just two lovers getting married, right? Some people think it’s an abomination to society….but why? People should be able to choose who they want to love. Remember when women didn’t have rights? Just because they thought that women were weak? This is no different. Same-sex couples are often criticized for picking their own gender over the other one but that’s not true. They don’t have a choice, since they were born that way so they can’t choose the other gender even if they wanted to. It’s already legal in a lot of places so why try and stop it now?

Let’s say we did legalize it, what would happen then? Well, according to a website on same-sex marriage, legalizing it would cause divorce rates to decrease, it will diminish youth suicide, it will increase the number of children successfully adopted, and so much more! How can it do all that?! It’s just marriage! Actually it’s not just marriage! It’s a step forward in society. Everyone said that equality was perfect after women got their rights, but they were so very wrong. Tons of same-sex parents have to work so hard just to adopt a kid, or to even get a good job! There are so many more lgbt people then we think, it’s just more than half of the people that commit suicide are part of the LGBT. They do this because they think they aren’t normal, or do it because of the pressure they are feeling when people hate on them. Showing them that we accept them as people, like we should, will make them feel more welcome and less outcasted in this world. They struggle so much already, with not feeling normal, when they are just as normal as me or you. Also allowing same-sex marriage will increase child adoption because we all know how children are made by now, and it just doesn’t work out for same-sex couples or marriages favor. Tons more children would be able to have a home causing less of those kids to go homeless.

Most people who despise same-sex marriage are religious, scared of change, or just stupid. Out of those three, it’s religious people who are often the first ones to stand up and shout “I OBJECT!”. This is oftenly because they were taught from maybe even a young age that same-sex marriage was bad. Why? Because their religion said so. This does not apply to all religious people. This mostly applies to really religious people who would listen to any and everything that has to do with their religion. I can understand why they would not appreciate same-sex when it comes to religion, but sadly religious people are not the only homophobes. There are even some people who hate on same-sex just because it isn’t normal in their eyes, and normal is supposedly good. There are still quite a few countries that still don’t allow same-sex marriage. Italy, Japan, Israel, Mexico, Greece, Northern Ireland, Switzerland, Thailand and Germany are just a few examples of those countries. Luckily, we are still pushing forward and hopefully we will be able to convince at least a few of these countries to legalize it.

Even if we do end up succeeding in legalizing same-sex marriage everywhere, there will still be people who disagree with it and there’s nothing we can do about that. People will stick to their opinions if they truly believe it. All we can do now is keep fighting for their rights as humans. If there is enough of us fighting, I know we will be able to achieve our goal. Even if people still disagree, even if there will still be hate, we just need to keep fighting. Then eventually after all our hard work I know it will pay off. If it doesn’t pay off in money it certainly will in smiles and love. By legalizing same-sex marriage we are not only making dreams come true of a lot of people of the lgbt but also a lot of depressed and orphaned kids that some homophobes might actually care about. So next time when you’re thinking how weird lgbt people are, remember to look more into it before opening your mouth. They might have it a lot harder than you would have thought. Don’t judge a book by it’s cover, don’t judge a personality by his or her race, and don’t judge a person by his or her sexuality because they’re just as much of a human as me, you, and everyone else on this planet.

In this essay I will demonstrate how Marriage was reformed thought out the Reformation period. Particularly we will look at the matrimony during the 16th century in Western Europe. I will observe it’s customs and culture of how marriage has been done; its traditions and practices. I will focus on marriage as a religious matter, and walk through how it has been reformed to a more civic way of practicing marriage. I will look at Martin Luther’s family as an example of a reformed family. We will see how this family introduced a modern way of living, at the same time it was still deeply rooted in traditional way preserving matrimony and expressing marriage. Then, we will see how the marriage changed nowadays and how it developed to what we know now. Let us start.

During the Late Middle Ages the towns as in the country the entire families live and work together under one roof. A hierarchical social unit: father, mather, and the unmarried servants. Each member of the household has his or hers fixed positions and duties. This order is reinforced by the reformation, the woman’s role – redefined. Luther upgraded marriage to a God given status. All women should be married and as quickly and early as possible. Journeyman servants, farmhands maid servants were unmarried as were nuns, monks and priests. Luther rejected them all. Everyone should live in the same state of matrimony as willed by God. For Luther marriage is the first order of God and nevertheless a worldly thing. Man and woman are destined to produce and raise offspring therefore marriage stands under God’s special blessing. Sexuality, on the other hand, outside of marriage is unlawful. In the Late Middle Ages, prostetution is still tolerated by the civic authorities but now in the course of the Reformation it is criminal. During the reformation, one can see how the brothels are closed down, one after the other. The upgraded appreciation of matrimony results in sexuality being only permissible within marriage. Criticized too were the double standards of many priests monks and nuns who despite celibacy and vows of chastity do not live abstinently. That was an open secret – the priests had housekeepers with whom they lived, but just couldn’t marry, nor could their children inherit. So an added argument was to put an end to these undignified relationships and allow priests to marry like everyone else. Very soon the first priests are married. This is a break with a tradition of celibacy going back almost a thousand years and a huge provocation.

In the Middle Ages celibacy was considered more holy than married life. This belief leads 25% of the people to celibacy. In the late 15th century and early 16th century approximately one fourth people had taken a vow of celibacy. 25% of the population was seeing marriage as socially and religiously as something to be avoided. The Middle Ages had places the marriage not as something evil, however, it was on the lower scale then celibacy. Celibacy was a holier way of life. When Luther was reforming the church, he didn’t leave out the marriage life as well. Luther was convinced that people practice celibacy just to earn their way into heaven. It was a matter of his basic understanding of our way of salvation, moreover, it was also part of his doctrine on creation – God has created us in the family and created the family to nurture a human life and bring us up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. He writes: “The ultimate purpose [of marriage] is to obey God, to find aid and counsel against sin; to call upon God; to seek, love, and educate children for the glory of God; to live with one’s wife in the fear of God and to bear the cross; but if there are no children, nevertheless to live with one’s wife in contentment; and to avoid all lewdness with others” (Luther, The Estate of Marriage, 1522). By the time you get to the Middle Ages there clearly is established hierarchy of what it means to be religious – to follow this monastic pattern, to follow these vows of celibacy, obedience and poverty. In particular, let us look at how people interpreted Jesus’ Sermon on the mountain. Its dialog with a rich man was used to justify two different tiers of Christianity, two types of religious life. When Jesus met the rich man, the rich man asked: “What must I do to enter eternal life?” And Jesus answered: “You know the Ten Commandments, follow those”. Man replied: “I’ve done all of these since my youth”. Jesus responded: “If you would be perfect, sell all you have, give it to the poor, and follow me”. The Middle Age church took this dialog between Jesus and the rich man and interpreted it as talking about two different types of religious life. On one hand, you have people who are living their life in the world trying to be obedient to the Ten Commandments, and through this type of life would eventually end to enter the kingdom of God. On the other hand, you have people who would be perfect and they had an advanced spiritual status. They followed Jesus’ more strict councils and Commandments.

Luther ends up turning this two-tiered Christianity upside down. Instead of the monks or priests being the spiritual class, where laypeople being a secular class. Luther recognized that baptism in the Scriptures described all people as priests. He writes: “The priest is not made. He must be born a priest; must inherit his office. I refer to the new birth-the birth of water and the Spirit. Thus all Christians must became priests, children of God and co-heirs with Christ the Most High Priest”(The Man Who Rediscovered God, 64) This is what truly made you religious and spiritual. And the role of a bishop or a clerk or a monk was really an issue of human invention; an issue of order and not spiritual status. Luther had realized that spiritual class: the priests, the monk, the bishops were no better in God’s eyes then the non spiritual class. This way was open to view all sorts of vocations as ways to serve God and neighbor and to please God and neighbor. One of those vacations was the vocation of family and marriage. Luther writes: “All our work in the field, in the garden, in the city, in the home, in struggle, in government-to what does it all amount before God except child’s play, by means of which God is pleased to give his gifts in the field, at home, and everywhere? These are the masks of our Lord God, behind which he wants to be hidden and to do all things’(Luther on Vocation, Gustaf Wingren, 116). The calling of family life in a sense replaced the monastic and priestly callings for Luther at the very core for God’s plan in the society. In the Large Catechism Luther says essentially if nothing works in the family nothing else in the society will work either. The concern was to give pastors a marriage rite that would fit with local customs while maintaining the inherent dignity and holiness of marriage as God’s institution and the heart of civil society. Marriage, as it is given for the companionship of man and woman, for the enjoyment of God’s gift of sexuality, and for procreation, should be upheld in reverence and with proper decorum. “Because up to now people have made such a big display at the consecration of monks and nuns (even though their estate and existence is an ungodly, human invention without any basis in the Bible), how much more should we honor this godly estate of marriage and bless it, pray for it, and adorn it in an even more glorious manner… it has God’s Word on its side and is not a human invention or institution” (Marriage Booklet, 1529).

Father and mother on the family were seeing as both having callings from God. These were vocations, they were just as holy as calling to be a priest, or a monk, or a pop, or a bishop. As baptized children of God they all can stand on account of Christ. They have roles as parents: father and mother. And they become in effect kind of a pastor: the priest and priestess as it were in the home for family purposes. Luther writes: “More religious than a monastic life, is the married life. Married life is the epitome of religious life” (The Estate of Marriage, 1522).

As the institution of marriage develops in the Middle Ages, it becomes one of the seven sacraments of the Church. Martin Luther views marriage from a different perspective. For him marriage is not actually a churchly act. It’s rooted in the creation, in the broader life of humanity. In a sense it is there before even a church. Marriage is instituted in Genesis 1, therefore marriage is something that’s rooted in Creation, not in Redemption. Trevor O. Reggio in his work Luther on Marriage and Family explains that Luther saw marriage as something outside of the church. “Pagan marriages according to Luther are still valid because they carried out God’s intention in the first article on the Creation — human beings would be fruitful and multiply: “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth…He also gives me clothing and shoes, food and drink, house and home, wife and children, land, animals, and all I have.. This was seen as the bedrock of all social structures”’(Luther on Marriage and Family, 119). Luther writes in his article The Estate of Marriage: “Be fruitful and multiply is more than a command. It is a divine ordinance of work which is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore… It is not a matter of free choice decision, but a natural and necessary thing” (The Estate of Marriage, 1522, pp17-22). By putting marriage into a civil and social sphere, it was regulated not by churchly canon law, but rather by the state, by social and civil norms. So much would this be the case that Luther would see marriage something that happens outside the church, in the civic sphere, and then perhaps would go into the church and receive a blessing and celebrate that marriage. Thus, Luther interprets marriage as an institution rooted in natural law. Luther’s commentaries on Genesis, he reflected how in the Garden of Eden after the praise of God, marriage and procreation would have been the greatest work of human beings. (Commentaries to the Genesis,69).

Martin Luther is centuries ahead of his time in his writing on the role of father: “I confess to Thee that I am not worthy to rock this little babe or wash its diapers or to be entrusted with the care of the child and its mother. How is it that I without merit have to come without a distinction of being certain that I am serving Thy creature and Thy more precious will? Oh, how gladly I will do so” (Luther, The Estate of Marriage, 1522). In many ways the way that a Christian is going to be most closely conformed to the image of Christ is through washing diapers and caring for kids, and just dealing with all kinds of things that are uncontrollable in the family life. I think one of the biggest differences between monastic life of the experience, and family life – is the monastic life is still in a sense in control of what’s happening because there is a daily regimen and you know what’s coming. Of course, it is a human community where unexpected things happening, but nonetheless, it’s the regimen, the routine that is essential to spirituality. In the family life although you are not in control of how life is going to look like. Therefore, in that way Luther is borrowing this language of the monastery and applying into the marriage life. This shows an important transition in spirituality. Luther recognizes that there’s a new sphere in marriage. He reformed the traditional way of marriage and family to a new form of it.

There were numbers of people who wrote about marriage as an important and holy union in God. For example, St. Augustin defended marriage in On the Good of Marriage. He argued for the supremacy of celibacy in On Holy Virginity. We may disagree with Augustine’s view of the superiority of virginity; however, his defence of marriage sets out a theological basis for the inherent goodness of marriage. In fact, his theology of marriage provided the basic framework for the traditional Western view of marriage. Augustine writes: “ Wherefore, even as there is not unequal desert of patience in Peter, who suffered, and in John, who suffered not; so there is not unequal desert of continence in John who made no trial of marriage, and in Abraham, who begot sons. For both the celibate of the one, and the marriage estate of the other, did service as soldiers to Christ, as times were allotted; but John had continence in work also, but Abraham in habit alone.” (On the Good of Marriage, 35). However, Luther especially emphasizes family as a primarily sphere of spiritual development. I think that’s something extremely important for today’s marriage life.

Let us now look into how marriage is perceived nowadays in comparison to roman Empire and what role did Luther’s family played during the Reformation. Marriages and families nowadays are facing increasing pressure, due to the stress of modern life. Divorce rates among Christians are comparable to those among secular couples. Christian homes are being broken and disrupted at an alarming rate. Marriage rates in America and Western World are at historic lows. People are getting married later, or simply not marrying or engaging in other alternative living arrangements. Today’s society in this aspect is comparable to the last days of the Roman Empire shortly before its collapse. Ancient Rome suffered from the same problems as we do today — in the first 500 years of the Roman Empire, not a single divorce was registered, however, by 234 AD Romans’ divorce was as common as marriage. Later, Roman aristocracy discovered romantic love and began to neglect the traditional values ​​of marriage; divorces and infidelities began, and as a result, childbearing decreased. Religious and political thinker of the twentieth century. Ivan Ilyin wrote: “History has shown … the great ruins and disappearances of nations arise from spiritual and moral crises, which are expressed, first of all, in the decomposition of the family” (fgf). How familiar does this sound? Nowadays we can clearly see the tendency of divorces, decreasing numbers of offsprings, and unwillingness to commit or trust another person.

Luther’s pedagogy considers the preservation of marriage as one of the ways of self-preservation and development of the state. According to Luther the family is a natural school of love, self-sacrifice, and an altruistic way of thinking – to prevent the thread of life from breaking, the young generation should be instilled, and the old should rethink traditional values. The well-known testament of the educator Ivan Ilyin is in tune with the teachings of the Reformer: ‘Take care of the family, the family is the support of the people and the state.’ Martin Luther proved the value of marriage by getting married to a runaway nun, Katharina von Bora which caused a strong influence on German culture and the entire protestant world. Marrying during the Peasant War, Luther wanted to restore the honor of marriage as the order of the Lord. Considering that he could die every minute among the raging rebellious peasants, he did not want to leave this world, without confirming with his own example, his belief that the forced celibacy of monks and nuns was condemned and was an interference with God’s gift. Luther and Katharina’s marriage wasn’t celebrated in a romantic setting, but with peasant efficiency, became a model of Christian family life.

Preservation of marriage is a school of life, enshrined in the experience of generations. Luther found real happiness in marriage. By personal example, he testified his faith in marriage, more than anyone else, defining the nature of family relations for the next four centuries. According to National Geographic: When the couple married in 1525, it was a scandal that reverberated across Europe—and the beginning of a partnership that lasted more than two decades and shaped the course of history. In fact, the family was the only sphere that the Reformation has touched so deeply. The family way of life accepted the fullness of love and piety in the patriarchal atmosphere, which Luther approved in his family as a model. At the time, Luther’s marriage was a scandal on many levels: He was a monk who had broken his vows, married to a nun who had broken hers. As Luther continued his career as a theologian and preacher, his marriage flouted centuries of Catholic teaching about celibacy and the priesthood—and established married clergy as a precedent for Reformation churches. “As soon as this former monk married a former nun, people took interest,” says Gabriele Jancke, a historian at Freie University in Berlin. “The moment someone left the cloister, they destroyed themselves, from the Catholic point of view. It was as bad as being divorced.” It is understandable that this family unit forever changed the world’s perspective on marriage.

However, not only by getting married did Martin and Katie Luther stip up the society. Their marriage in itself was a novelty to a settle patriarchal society. Martin Treu in his book Katherine von Bora, Luther’s wife talking about Katie’s strong character writes: “There’s no reason to doubt this account, and thus there, in her desire to acquire land, a very special character trait of Katherine is manifested, which not only set her apart from her husband, but also enable her to prevail over him”(Katherine von Bora, Luther’s wife, 54). One of Luther’s famous quotes says: “In household chores, I give way to Katie. In everything else, the Holy Spirit leads me. ” We can see how deeply Luther valued and loved his wife. Katherina was seen as self-confident, strong-willed, and independent, which were all negative attributes for women at the time. While their marriage had sharply defined roles that would seem foreign to modern feminists, “she was an equal partner,” says Treu.For Luther von Bora wasn’t just one of the sinful, numb,

INTRODUCTION

Marriage is a formal union of a couple legally and socially that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners (Britannica, 2019). According to Puja (n.d.), marriage is “both a biological, psychological, cultural and social affair”. Marriage is a special type of relationship between permissible couple involving certain rights and obligations. Comment by Dan Jules Fermilon:

Marriage also holds a particular position in different cultures and religions. Marriage from different faiths has various rituals and rites during the ceremonial union, accustomed to the couple’s religious beliefs and practices. Religions have several similarities regarding the issue of marriage, even if there are differences in the restrictions and conditions of marriage (Zarean & Barzegar, 2016). In reality, some couples marry out of love despite their religious differences. With that, inter-religious marriage exists.

Inter-religious marriage is a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Christian, like a member of Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism. (Culp, 2015). Also known as mixed religious marriage, religious exogamy, and interfaith marriage, inter-religious marriage is used to indicate a “marriage between persons of differing religions.” It is a form of intermarriage and a “type of interaction between religious groups, sub-societies, or societies” (Cavan, 1970). Comment by Dan Jules Fermilon:

Inter-religious marriages are viewed differently in different societies. It is treated, in some communities, as a behavior that is contrary to the dominant norms and values of marriage (McCutcheon, 1988). Cavan (1970) argues that “inter-religious marriage threatens values, security, and continuity of a religion.” Religious intermarriage is perceived, according to a study, to be a potential cause of secularism and thus imperiling the spouses ‘ religious participation. Furthermore, as they become more spiritual, the religious involvement of the partners declines after marriage due to the theological differences between the husband and the wife, and the resulting friction and conflict (Petersen, L. R., 1986).

In this paper, an essay entitled “The Road to Aras-asan” by Rebekah M. Alawi is analyzed, focusing on inter-religious marriage. The story is about the journey of the inter-religious marriage of Alawi’s son with Islam faith partaking wedding rites with a Catholic faith. The proponents aim to identify the effectsa of inter-religious marriage in the context of the characters in the story.

METHODOLOGY

This paper will analyze the inter-religious marriage of Alawi’s son and his Catholic bride using the lens of social structure theory. Under this, Blau’s “Inequality and Heterogeneity” will be used to identify the effects of inter-religious marriage on the characters of the story.

Social structure refers to a pattern of social relationships in a society. This structure places people in a hierarchy that affects how people interact with one another in their community (new world encyclopedia).

Social structure serves as a constraint to people’s lives. This means that social structure “limits” the people’s behavior inside the society in which he/she belongs to. These constraints are influenced by the culture, politics, religion and the history of the place that the society is located (Merawi 2018).

The Social structure is governed by rules called social norms. Social norms are informal rules that dictate and control the society inside the social structure. It is mainly a product from the culture of the people included in the said society (J. Martin 2015). The ones that follow these norms are called “normal” and thus are part of the majority of the Social structure. The ones that don’t follow the rules are called “abnormal” by the society and thus they are part of the minority in their community (L.Wade 2016).

Blau’s “Inequality and Homogeneity” is a study widely used by sociologists in studying intergroup relations (F.Merawi 2018). In the social structure theory, we have constraints that limit the individuals in the society. The members of the said society have the capability to go against these constraints but the influence of these restrictions is more significant than their protest. The effect of these constraints varies depending on the society that the individuals live in. However, individuals will always be subjected to these constraints and they will never be able to escape from these in any situation in their life (Blau 1977).

The social structure theory shows us that relations between different groups are products of different types of structural factors. “Group size, physical isolation, distinctive ideology, prejudice, the salience of group parameters” are some of the major structural factors that define intergroup relationships (Blau 1977)

Inter-religious marriage is a union of a man and a woman of different religions. It is a practice which can be traced back to when different religions were being created. The significance of inter-religious marriage varies from different societies. It might be accepted by some while others might label this as prohibited in their society (F.Merawi 2017).

When inter-religious marriage occurs, usually the couple chooses whose religion or faith is followed. One side has to give up his/her faith and must follow the religion of his/her partner. When this occurs, the constraints of the two parties involved in the inter-religious marriage may create a conflict. These cause problems in the couple’s life, their family, and even in their society. The outcome of these conflicts can vary from society to society (Jasmin 2017)

As of now, there is an increase in the number of interfaith marriages occurring even though the society does not encourage it to be practiced. This is evident in the european countries where the trend of interfaith marriage is steadily increasing (F.Merawi 2017). This means that the influence of the constraints imposed in the social structure to the individuals living in the society is slowly weakening and thus there is an increase in the individual’s freedom of expression. People now act according to their free will without minding the constraints that their society created. (B.Schlesinger 1968)

There are several factors that influence an individual’s perception about inter-religious marriage. Some of them are prejudice, parents’ religious background, religiosity, age, educational status, group size, and heterogeneity (Davidson et al., 2002).

Heterogeneity has an effect on the opinions of people on inter-religious marriage. People that are living in a community that has different kinds of religion would likely view inter-religious marriage as acceptable. Heterogeneity is the diversity of groups given in a specific area. There is a higher chance of inter-religious marriage in a diverse community but it does not mean that it is regularly practiced. It would depend whether the people living in those societies are progressive and acceptive or more of conservative and religious. (Blau 1982)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Blau’s approach on social structure takes into consideration several opportunities and constraints that collective life imposes on individuals. The story presents a number of constraints on the characters because of the inter-religious marriage between Rebekah’s son and his Catholic bride. The decisions made by the characters are affected by these constraints which lead to corresponding situations. First is Rebekah’s son who was the reason why they traveled to Aras-Asan and witnessed a church wedding. The Muslim son was constrained by his love for his Catholic bride. His love for the girl bounded him to agree to get married in a Catholic Church, as evidenced by an excerpt from the text: “My son’s passive resignation to the demand of the bride’s family – a church wedding and solemnization of the marriage by Catholic rites – does not augur well for his unwavering devotion to the faith.” The son agreed even though it was considered an apostasy in his society. His unyielding love made him be able to go beyond what is accepted and is believed.

The next evident result where in we could apply blau’s social structure theory is when Rebekah sided with his son even though the wedding is forbidden in their beliefs she herself was constrained to her actions of being a mother “by my son’s predicament aroused my maternal instinct and bade me take up cudgels of the underdog” it is evident that she was duty bound to her role as a mother to the point of threatening her husband to file a divorce if he did not followed her wife.

Another evident result is where the family is constrained by the society where they are only allowed to follow their certain beliefs and norms shunning out other religious groups it can be seen “ My husband was outraged when he learned of the couples distribution of the invitation to the community. Although we had grudgingly consented to the arrangement , we expected some face-saving sense, some tact and discretion on the part of our son. The whole community needs not to be privy to the apostasy” it can be seen that they don’t want the community to know of this happening. They are constrained through the community because it is against their belief which .

And lastly the constraint of the father’s love to Rebekah. It is clear that the father’s love for Rebekah constrained him from following what he wanted “the battle of wills between my husband and me was played out in icy silence. We were not on speaking terms for three days and it looked like the situation- an impapss- was deteriorating

REFERENCES

1. Barnett, Larry D. “Research in Interreligious Dating and Marriage.” Marriage and Family Living, vol. 24, no. 2, 1962, pp. 191–194. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/347013. Accessed 12 Feb. 2020.
2. Cavan, S. R. “Concepts and Terminology in Interreligious Marriage”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 9 , 1970, pp. 311-320.
3. Culp, Doug. “Mixed and Inter-Religious Marriages.” Faith Magazine, 1 Jan. 2015, faithmag.com/mixed-and-inter-religious-marriages. Comment by Dan Jules Fermilon:
4. Jasmin. “Should Muslims And Christians Marry?” Isa and Islam Religious Dialogue, 3 Mar. 2017, www.isaandislam.com/miscellaneous-questions/islam-christianity-different-religions-marriage/?gclid=CjwKCAiAvonyBRB7EiwAadauqeie_EEFM4pDQxmTOGek2EYhP62DYwNShGrygm-XZbaovPZ6JvfUkBoCOy8QAvD_BwE. Comment by Dan Jules Fermilon:
5. Mansoureh Zarean; Khadijeh Barzegar. ‘Marriage in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism’. RELIGIOUS INQUIRIES, 5, 9, 2016, 67-80. Comment by Dan Jules Fermilon:
6. McCutcheon, A. L. “Denominations and Religious Intermarriage: Trends among White Americans in the Twentieth Century”, Review of Religious Research, 29, 1988, pp. 213-227.
7. Merawi, Fasil. Interreligious Marriage: Social and Religious Perspectives. Vol. 3, 2017, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328929008_Interreligious_Marriage_Social_and_Religious_Perspectives.
8. Mondal, Puja. “Marriage: Characteristics and Types of Marriage.” Your Article Library, www.yourarticlelibrary.com/marriage/marriage-characteristics-and-types-of-marriage/6177.Petersen, L. R. “Interfaith Marriage and Religious Commitment among Catholics”, Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 1986, pp. 725-735. Comment by Dan Jules Fermilon:
9. Rytina, S., Blau, P. M., Blum, T., and Schwartz, J. “Inequality and Intermarriage: A Paradox of Motive and Constraint”, Social Forces, 66, 1988, pp. 645- 675.
10. Schlesinger, Benjamin. “Interfaith Marriages—Some Issues.” Social Science, vol. 43, no. 4, 1968, pp. 217–220. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41885323. Accessed 12 Feb. 2020.
11. ‘Social structure.’ New World Encyclopedia, . 29 Aug 2008, 15:39 UTC. 11 Feb 2020, 10:19 . Comment by Dan Jules Fermilon:
12. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Marriage.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 18 July 2019, www.britannica.com/topic/marriage. Comment by Dan Jules Fermilon:
13. Wilterdink, Nico, and William Form. “Structure and Social Organization.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica,` Inc., 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/topic/social-structure/Structure-and-social-organization.

Corinth was a cosmopolitan city. There were all kinds of people lived in the city with their own religious believe which was mixed of Greek, Roman and Oriented. Corinth was known as ‘sin city, which is ‘’Las Vegas” of Roman Empire. Corinth was the home of the temple of goddess of sensual love and pleasure known as Aphrodite or Artemus. It is said that one thousand temple prostitute served at the temple. Roman used the word “Corinthian’’ for someone do immorality act and were immoral.

Introduction

Paul began his ministry in Corinth on his second missionary journey under much opposition (Acts 18:6-17). While Paul living in Corinth, he worked among Jews and Greeks that represented in the Corinthian church. After his second trip to Corinth he went to Ephesus and while he was in Ephesus he heard of the problems and divisions in the church in Corinth so he wrote this letter to the Corinth in the year 53 A.D. His purposes for writing this letter is to instruct and guide the people on how to deal with the issues that are faced. Thus, below the discussion will be based on the first Corinthians chapter 5-7:1-40 which identified various problems with marriage including challenges that Paul encountered in order to address those marital issues. The issues that are identified are: Immoral behavior and Lack of discipline (1 Cor5:1-13), Lawsuits between believers and Litigation in the body (1 Cor6:1-20), and sex within marriage (7:1-40).

Body

Dealing with a Case of Incest and shunning the devil (1corinthians 5)

“It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality in your midst such as does not exist among the Gentiles: namely, the someone is having sexual relations with his father’s wife. Are you conceited? More than that, shouldn’t you have mourned with the result that the one who is doing this be removed from your midst”. (1cor5:1-3)

Paul observation that sexual immorality exists in the midst of the community considered to be a social issue. It is considered incestuous and in violation of social norms. Marriage within the family member was not allowed not only by Jewish law but Roman standards. He said, how can you be boasting about your spirit and social status when it is happening in the community. This brings Corinthians links Paul’s treatment of incest with some of the basic attitudes that leads to the lack of unity within the community. Paul stressed on about immoral act in the community. if a man/woman is doing this immoral act, he must not be entertained by the community meaning God will judge and remove the evil one from you own midst. Meaning remove him from the community and give him to Satan.

Lawsuits between believers and Litigation in the body (1corinthians 6)

It seems at least Corinthian Christians were involved in a lawsuit against each other over a minor dispute. Paul describes the judges involved as unrighteous and with no standing in the church (1 Corinthians 6:1–2). Paul is not saying Christians should never be under the authority of secular government, nor ever appear in court. He teaches clearly in Romans that Christians must submit to government authorities. Paul says, those in Christ will one day judge the world and angels. Instead of going to court before unbelievers, it would be less of a defeat to just live with being wronged or defrauded. It is shameful to see brothers or sisters in Christ cheating one another (1 Corinthians 6:3–8). The wicked or unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom. They will not share in God’s glory forever. The unrighteous are labeled by their sinful activities: sexual immorality, idol worship, adultery, practicing homosexuality, stealing, greed, regular drunkenness, and spewing angry insults (1 Corinthians 6:9–10). Paul is urging them to live up to that new identity and not down to the standards of their culture (1 Corinthians 9:11).

Paul confronts two major issues happening in the church at Corinth. First, he is outraged that one of them has brought a lawsuit against a brother in Christ over a minor dispute. It is absurd to think that Christians—those who will judge the world and angels—cannot even judge a small matter between themselves. Second, Paul warns his readers to run from sexual immorality. Sex creates a powerful bond intended only for marriage. Since our bodies belong to and are part of Christ, we have no right to bring Him into a one-body union with someone to whom we’re not married.

Concerning marriage life (1 Corinthians 7)

Paul identified many other marital issues like forms an inclusio around exposition of his ideas on the use of courts. He also stressed his concern on sex within marriage, special situation, the unmarried which allows him to addressed the situation of those who are not yet married and those who are no longer married. People in this situation must make a decision as to whether they should marry. Paul concerned about how people should think about married life. He concentrates on the question they asked him “is it better to be married or not?”, “should married Christians have sex?”

First Paul talks about sex and marriage. He presents a further consideration on sexual matters concerning sexuality and marriage, especially on issues that arose from a slogan “it is good for a man not to have sexual relationship with a woman”. (7:1). Paul answered the questions saying, man should be having sexual relationship with his own wife likewise the husband. Wife does not have authority over her own body but her husband, like wise her husband. Always devout your marriage by praying so that Satan will not tempt both. Both must be understanding and not deprived each other. He advice to stay unmarried but he understands that God give each a gift.

Second concerned was about divorce. He said to those who are not married and the widows it is good not to married. If they have no power over themselves or self-control, then they should have married. He strongly talks about married people that one must not divorce his/her partner. If one does, they should stay unmarried or reconcile with each other. If one is not a believer they should not divorce because they have been made holy in the virtue of their sacred union to be a believer, instead they children will be unclean but they are holy.

Third cornered was to living the life God has assigned. It is good to remain and live as you were called. Each one has their own vocation in life. Living your own life according to the commandment of God. It is good to live faithfully in whatever situation of your life to follow Jesus. If you are called life-union with the Lord you are already are free man therefore Paul said, we must remain in close communion with God, despite of whatever situation is.

Fourth concerned was an advice for the unmarried. It is an instruction to the single and widowed. Paul said, if you married, stay as married, if you are single, do not rush into marriage because marriage has many problems. To spare you from marriage problems and challenges just live as single. Those who are not living with their spouse do not cry, they should celebrate and enjoy because they will be live as free from anxiety.

Firth concerned was about remarriage. Paul said to marry or not to marry. If one is bound to a marriage and the spouse dies, they are free to marry again as they desire and must be a God’s believer. However, Paul advice to remained single and happy if they have God’s spirit.

Therefore, First Corinthians 7 focused mostly on avoiding sexual immorality. Here he commands married husbands and wives not to deprive each other of sex, or get divorced, in a misguided attempt to be more spiritual. Unmarried people who can live contentedly without sex, however, should consider remaining single in order to serve Christ undivided. Getting married is good, but the time is short. The form of this world is passing away. Unmarried people should think about the opportunities to avoid trouble and serve Christ that come with staying single.

Conclusion

Paul has many purposes writing this letter to the Corinthians. The basic theme for the chapter 5 and 6 is mostly based on the purity of the community. He tells them of what is meant for the community to be God’s holy people. The two issues that Paul aware were they dealing with a case of incest “a man sleeping with his father’s wife” and lawsuits between believers, their resource to the courts to settle their petty claims against one and other. Paul stated example of men using prostitute, to show the misjudgment of their reasoning on a slogan “urging liberty in all things” (6:12). Boasting of some of the Corinthians links Paul’s treatment of incest with some of the basic attitudes that leads to the lack of unity within the community. Paul said to settle this disputes, the communities should take responsibilities to settle it in the first place. Thus, the community does not take responsibilities for this two situations. The case Paul wanted the community to adjudicate is one of incest Paul expectation that the community in Corinth should sit in judgment on and mete out a penalty to one of their number whose behavior was known was known to be egregious was one similarity. The community must judge the incestuous man and punished him. In every culture incest is considered a particularly egregious form of sexual misconduct, even if various cultures differ from one another in the determination of the specific relationships within sexual relationship would be a major violation of the social ethos.

Abstract

The Present study entitled The Role of Marriage: A feminist study of The Immigrant tries to identify the problems experienced by a married woman. Manju Kapur is a contemporary Indian feminist writer. She focuses on the NRI (Non Resident Indian) marriages where men and women both are uprooted and move to live in some alien land. Consequently, both suffer from frustration, displeasure and nostalgia while leaving their homeland. As a feminist writer, she mainly deals with the common issues relating to the life of Indian women. Some of the most dominant themes found in her novels include marriage, family relationships, mother-daughter relationship, husband-wife relationship, separation, premarital affair and extramarital relationship.

Marriage is one of the tools for a creative writer to depict the cultural code representing Indianness. The main idea of feminism is that women should enjoy all her rights, power and the opportunity. During early days the women were struggling to get equal rights in the male dominated society. Kapur in all her novels portrays the exact mind set of the modern women of this new era and their desire to become self independent. According to the Indian society, Marriage and Motherhood are the two most important cultural dials that switch the girl into proper womanhood.

The title of the novel The Immigrant signifies the reinvention of the protagonist, Nina by herself in a foreign country.

Manju Kapur is a contemporary Indian novelist in English who has established herself with her first novel Difficult Daughters (1998), which won her prestigious Commonwealth Writers Prize (Eurasia Region). She has also written novels such as A Married Woman (2002), Home (2006), The Immigrant (2008) and Custody (2011). Her novel The Immigrant has been shortlisted for the DSC Prize for South Asian Literature. Her female characters in all her novels are the modern women of this new era and their desire is to become self independent. They never accept the Tennyson’s fact that:

Man for the field and woman for the hearth:

Man for the Sword and for the needle She:

Man with the head and woman with the heart:

Man to command and woman to obey…

Weddings are joyful occasions in India celebrated with the beautiful decorations, music, dance, costumes and rituals. Marriages are contrived in heaven but it is true that efforts from both husband and wife are important for an auspicious marriage. In Indian tradition, Marriage is considered to be the ancient, the most important ritual and it is a part of their life. Myles Munroe in his Purpose and Power of Love and Marriage has stated that “Marriage is two imperfect people committing themselves to a perfect institution, by making perfect vows from imperfect lips before a perfect God” (13).

The story of The Immigrant is set in Halifax, Canada, Delhi and India. It is the story of Nina and Ananda. Nina is a thirty year old English Lecturer at Miranda House University in Delhi, living with her widowed mother. She was brought up in a conventional orthodox society. She lost her father at her very young age. Nina and her mother suffered a lot after her father’s death. Nina got a job and settled in Delhi. All the ‘Mothers’ in Kapur’s novels are eager to get their daughters married immediately after finishing their studies or even before finishing it. People in India thought that ‘Marriage’ is an essential thing for female children than getting educated. They feel that it is their responsibility and an inescapable thing which is the most expected one in Indian culture and society. Likewise, Nina’s mother is also worried and she is in search of a suitor for her daughter. It is described in the novel as:

The major topic of conversation in the last eight years had been Nina’s marriage-who, whom, where, how?… From where could fresh possibilities be unearthed on the eve of her thirtieth birthday? The lack of these, reflected in her mother’s dull, mournful eyes, was what she was going home to. (The Immigrant.03)

Nina has been married to Ananda, an NRI dentist living in Canada. He was born into a strict Brahmin family who followed some principles. Ananda’s parents died in a road accident and after that his maternal uncle forced him to move to Canada because he has settled in Halifax for past twenty years. Ananda performed well in the dental college and he broke all the principles that his parents had taught him. He drank alcohol in the college. He thought of starting a new life with Nina in Canada when their marriage proposal has done.

But after settling down in Canada, both of them started breaking down all the values that they have learnt. She breaks the social custom by eating flesh for the first time. When she comes to Halifax, she remained true to her upbringing by not eating them. After two weeks of their marriage he leaves her and moves to Canada. Nina goes alone to Halifax after getting her visa. Her first experience at the Toronto airport has been very unpleasant various questions by the immigration women which she thought were all irrelevant. She feels humiliated. Being an immigrant Nina faces many problems like search for self-identity, sexual dissatisfaction in her marital relation etc,. in Canada.

Nina becomes lonely at a place 10,000 miles away from her mother and ex-colleagues in Miranda House. Ananda remains engaged in his clinic. She feels alienated and caught in the change of eastern and western culture. Once Ananda rightly called her as “the perfect mix of east and west.” (85).

Nina lost her marriage. She has lost her home and her job. She cries, “I miss home – I miss a job – I miss doing things. I feel like a shadow. What am I but your wife?” (237). Their marriage becomes an unhappy one when she came to know about Ananda’s impotence and it serves as the main cause for their separation.

Nina then starts to wear jeans and t-shirt. Even though, she is not comfortable in her western outfit she does not give up the new vogue. Just to make friends and to reveal her identity she dressed and behaved according to the western culture. Nina faces multiple problems in the new surroundings. Even after changing her outlook, she is not able to convince people and gain respect. Before marriage she was identified as lecturer but things are different in new place. Sue, wife of Ananda’s friend suggests her to come out of her distressed state and encourages her to join two year Library Science Course. During this course she happens to meet Anton with whom she developed an extra marital affair. Her relationship with Anton is also same as her premarital relationship with Rahul, her colleague who always had some evil thoughts about Nina in his mind. He is a serial lover and he pretends to love her only to have physical relation with her. Because of the unhappy situation in their married life Ananda also finds his happiness in another woman, Mandy, his newly appointed receptionist with whom he developed an extra marital affair.

When Nina realized her mistake she bravely decides to begin a new life. When she realizes the mistake or the identity she has lost in aspiring the new, for identity has made all the difference in her life. Her mother’s death leaves Nina with nobody in the world to answer to and Nina gets the courage to take her decision of separating from Ananda. Manju Kapur concludes the novel with this Nina’s statement:

Perhaps that was the ultimate immigrant experience… For an immigrant there was no going back. … When one was reinventing oneself, anywhere could be home. Pull up your shallow roots and move. Find a new place, new friends, a new family. It had been possible once, it would be possible again. (334)

Nina’s dream of living a happy married life ends in a sour note. In the feministic point of view, her decision of moving away from Ananda seems to be the triumph of feminism. But according to the Indian culture it seems to be unfair. In this novel, we find that Nina and Ananda, both enjoys their extramarital relationships, deceives each other and both were equally responsible for detriment their married relationship. They believe that only the sensual pleasures are more important in married life than any other things. Nina’s reaction somehow shows the universal nature of women and their problems.

The novelist has also wonderfully described immigrant psyche through the characters of Ananda and Nina. She also described that, it is very difficult for an immigrant to balance between two cultures. He or She keeps swinging like a pendulum from one culture to another from home country to immigrant country. It is in marriage and childbearing that she is forced to find ultimate happiness and fulfillment as the society refuses to give her achievement in profession and identity. At last, there is complete change in the personality and mentality of the protagonist, Nina. She develops a new dimension towards life and starts moving ahead.

Manju Kapur wants to show that how the financial empowerment of the women makes her sturdy to attain herself an identity and also raises her confidence to make her decisions and cope up with her personal problems. She expresses it through the character of Nina in the novel. Nina’s loneliness makes her strong instead of making her weak, it makes her strong in terms of managing her life in her own terms.

WORKS CITED

1. Kapur, Manju. The Immigrant. New Delhi: Random House India, 2008. Print.
2. Kumar, Ashok. Novels of Manju kapur: A Feministic Study. New Delhi: Sarup Publishers, 2010. Print.
3. Manohar, Murali. Indian English Women’s Fiction. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers, 2007. Print.
4. Munroe, Myles. Purpose and Power of Love and Marriage. Destiny Image Publishers, 2005. Print.
5. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Princess_(poem), 427-431.

Marriage – the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman). When two people make a public pledge or commitment to each other to share and live their lives together that is recognised socially, legally and sometimes religiously. According to many Christian denominations, a marriage is a union between a man and woman, instituted and ordained by God as the lifelong relationship between one man as husband, and one woman as wife.In ancient Greek culture, the purpose of marriage was to reproduce, establish a family, and to have heirs who would carry on the family name,lineage and memory. In Plato’s days there was no prejudice against men having sex with other men. Sex with the same gender was quite common and accepted in the Greek culture, but men did not marry other men. Because there would be no conception and birth so marriage was not necessary. Plato is one of the most influential philosophers in the world. He has contributed in many fields like ethics, metaphysics, cosmology, politics, etc. One of his most famous works is the Republic, which contains how a philosopher runs a wise society. From his works it’s assumed that Plato never married or have any offsprings

Plato viewed marriage in a unconventional way, it was a bit different from the original concept of marriage. According to his depictions of an ideal state, the state should monitor and have a control over human reproduction. As per the philosophy of eugenics, temporary marriages shall be arranged in a festival, where the matches shall be chosen by the selected Rulers. Plato understood that this would not be accepted by the common people so it was done in secret. In Plato’s republic a number system was introduced in which your mate would be chosen by selecting a ‘marriage number.’ According to this concept the people with similar qualities will be matched together so that they can procreate. Everyone chose the names from the lot and the mate they get is chosen by God himself and if you draw a blank you are considered unfit for offsprings. Plato also wanted the offsprings to be taken away from the biological parents and wanted them to be raised in common nurseries. Plato’s reason for restructuring marriage was to abolish the concept of private family and to give power to the state, to discourage personal interest and to encourage common good and to increase the strength in the state. The reason was also to improve human conditions, the logic behind it was if people with good qualities bred then the outcome would also be good. His main aim was to bring unity among people and to have atleast some citizens in the state who had the best interest of the state. His main idea behind this was to find the best race, and the best people for this society.

However, Plato realised his error that even though people with similar qualities mated, it’s not necessary that the offspring would have those ‘golden’ qualities of the parents. Aristotle also firmly criticized this theory of Plato. He said that this theory of Plato was unworkable. As Plato has not taken into consideration the fact that natural love a parent would have towards his or her child and the emotions associated. Plato had assumed that the love for family can be transferred to the fellow citizens. Plato himself never married and he never thought that love was necessary for a marriage. He viewed the institution of marriage only as a means to procreate and to establish a family.

Introduction

Today in Melanesian societies, the marriage and family life issues has been arising due to rapid changes in the settings of traditional culture, modernization and Christianity that has been affecting society and cultures. This essay will be focused on Melanesian traditional marriage and family life inculturation. The term inculturation according to Crollius stated “they express rather an extrinsic relationship between the Christian life and message and a given culture” (Crollius, 1995). In simple understanding, according to Sybertz and Healey (1996)

“it is a process by which people of a particular culture become able to live, express, celebrate, formulate and communicate their Christian faith and their experience of the Paschal Mystery in terms (linguistic, symbolic, social) that make the most sense and best convey life and truth in their social and cultural environments”. (Bustos, 2015; Cited, Sybertz & Healey:1996, 26)

Marriage is instituted by God is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of life and love (Gen 2: 18-24). Marriage can be described as ritual or sacramental. To start with, the forms of marriage in the Melanesian, forms of marriage and family life, the most common marriage in Melanesian society, Christian marriage, inculturation of Melanesian-Christian marriage and contextualization with the gospel.

Types of marriage in Melanesian society

In the Melanesian societies there are four main types of marriages that are practiced and they are; traditional marriage according to custom and culture, Christian marriage according to church law, civil marriage according to state law and defector marriage (Bustos, 2015). Traditional/customary marriage are performed according to the customs as recognized by the people of a particular society or cultural background (Schwarz, 2015, p. 205). Christian marriage is officially being celebrated and granted church blessing by a clergy presiding over the marriage and recognized by the Christian community. (Mantovani, 1992, p. 233.). According to Schwarz, (2015) define civil marriage as, “is performed in front of a state-licensed marriage celebrant who is registered with the government official”. De factor marriage is the marriage where a couple is living together but are not recognized either by customary, statutory or religious.

The most common forms of marriage and family life

The most common form of marriage that are practice in Melanesian society is the customary/traditional marriage especially in Papua New Guinea. It has many rituals. Bustos (2015), described rituals as ‘holy action’ or ‘sacred action’ which originated from an old Indian word ‘rta’. It is performed in traditional marriages as initiated in its’ initial process. Some may ask why customary form of marriage is important in Melanesian societies? It is because of some reasons such as; customary marriage is the marital laws embodied in the customs and practices of traditional societies and involves families and clans by way of arrange marriages that happened over a certain period of time that possessed the ability of Melanesian societies took care to support and to protect the marriage partnership and also relations will always be established, mended and strengthened. It is a process of long drawn-out negotiations and discussions, usually spread out over several months or even years. It is not just a single affair of two individuals, it includes relatives and extended families. The essential aspect of this marriage is through exchange or arrange marriage, bride wealth (bride price) and child-bearing. Therefore, traditional marriage in PNG is highly valued because it is the basis of regeneration of society. (Bustos, 2015). On the other hand, Papua New Guinea is regarded as a Christian country according to preamble constitution of the nation however, they still regard customary marriage as the true marriage.

Christian Marriage

In Christian marriage, marriage is known as sacramental because it is instituted as a sacrament by Christ the Lord (Bustos, 2015), it is a covenant because Hahn, (2004) defines covenant as ‘sacred family bond’ and it cannot be broken, it is a contract because Foster (2014,2003); cited Hahn (1998) stated that contract is an exchange of promises and it can be broken, it is a vocation because God created marriage as part of the creation so mankind could fulfill God’s plan in his calling (John Paul II, 2014, Familiarsris Consortio 14) and it is for life and this makes Christians marriage unique. Christian marriage is defining as a covenant of life and love (for better and for worse) when vows are pronouncing especially in the sacrament of matrimony by which a husband and wife established and become one flesh to pro-create and educate their off spring (Catholic Church, 2012, 1601-1605; cf. John Paul II, 1982, Familiaris Consortio 18).

Inculturation

The main purpose of inculturation is to evangelize and it is trough understanding the culture and intergration of faith and culture. Therefore, to established the effective evangelization there must be openness for the spirit to work through the many positive elements of Melanesian cultures to create ‘gutpela sindaun’. Ignoring the values and the cultural forms embedded in ones’ worldview would mean that we miss the great opportunity that culture provides us to make an inculturated approach to marriage relevant from the Christian perspective (Bustos, 2015) therefore, to inculturation we must not be ignoring the values and the culture but understand and incarnating good news in a particular cultural context because this will give us the true meaning of marriage. For example; we can connect these following elements: agape, contract, permanence and a committed relationship of the biblical tradition where marriage is seen as a visible sign of the divine covenant with traditional elements of customary marriage to make meaning and sense to the people (Bustos, 2015). In Melanesian society, traditional marriage is based upon exchange or arrange marriage, bride price and bearing of offspring. This is to create strong relationship within the community which includes family, relatives, clans. However, including extended family is one of the disadvantage of the customary marriage. To inculturate, in Genesis 2:23-24 says, ‘’out of man this one was created. Therefore, a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they will become one flesh”. In this verse God’s perfect pattern has three parts: to leave, to cleave and to become one flesh. Therefore, to connect with traditional marriage, family must not depend on the extended relatives. The transformation of the family occurred within nuclear family aimed at grooming children to become good adult Christians trough reduction of extended families.

Contextualizing

Churches has been strongly talking about establishing a domestic church which consist of nuclear family to create an Ideal community. In that manner the primary purpose of marriage is through bearing of offspring and educated them. The transformation of the family occurred within nuclear family aimed at grooming children to become good adult Christians trough reduction of extended families. The concepts of the marriage and family life can be contextualized in a domestic church in which nuclear family should have;

• Communion of heart by having listening heart when solving family issues
• Communion of the Word/Faith- Parents should encourage their children to daily read the bible.
• Unity in Faith; Communion of the table by having fellowship or daily family devotion.
• Communion of Goods by sharing material and spiritual resources the family manifested caring.

Conclusion

To conclude, marriage is a process of life. Man and woman commit themselves completely to each other and to the wondrous responsibility of bringing children into their world and caring for them. Marriage can be seen as a ritual in a traditional setting and sacramental in a Christian setting. In traditional marriage, marriage is depending mostly on extended family. The primary purpose of marriage is to pro-create offspring and educated them. To inculturation marriage depend on three characteristics and they are; to leave, to cleave and become one flesh. Marriage can be consisting of a nuclear family and its aimed at grooming children to become good adult Christians trough reduction of extended families.

Looking in some ways forward is to prepare for marriage, young people should learn more about churches approach to best contemporary marriage practices. They should have good marriage preparation based upon Christian and traditional values system. In doing so, they should get married as adult to ensure that they are intellectually, socially and emotionally and spiritually matured. One way to make the experience of contextualization, inculturation of Christian marriage with the customary marriage happen requires a dialogue between the minister (priest, pastoral works, the laity) and the community.