So what about Joseph?

[Charles_Austin]

Gee, so the real deal in a marriage is commitment and care, disconnected from the mechanics of sexuality? Wonder where we could go with that?

[Brian Stoffregen]

Gee, so the real deal in a marriage is commitment and care, disconnected from the mechanics of sexuality? Wonder where we could go with that?

I think someone wrote that some time ago -- and was chastised for suggesting that the key element of marriage is commitment.

[ptmccain]

Brian, you have attempted to define marriage as chiefly "commitment" in order to prop up your advocacy for homosexual "marriages" and "unions". Let's at least be honest in what our positions are.

And it is also to be noted how Brian S. chooses to continue to derail yet another topic on this forum with entirely irrelevant comments.

[Steven Tibbetts]

Gee, so the real deal in a marriage is commitment and care, disconnected from the mechanics of sexuality? Wonder where we could go with that?

<sigh!>

[ptmccain]

Indeed, let's use the Holy Family as a way to shoehorn in homosexual "marriages" or "unions."

Any such idea is vile, disgusting and perverse.

[Charles_Austin]

ptmccain writes:
Indeed, let's use the Holy Family as a way to shoehorn in homosexual "marriages" or "unions." Any such idea is vile, disgusting and perverse.

I ask:
And who exactly is doing that? Not me. I just wondered whether the basis of a marriage between a man and a woman (or even Joseph and Mary) might be commitment, vocation, care, etc. etc., rather than boudoir activity, or the creation of children. I made no mention of same sex unions. That seems to be the obsession of ptmccain, not me.

[Jeff-MN]

IF Mary were not Semper-Virgo, wouldn't elderly Joseph have to register as a sex offender?

[Brian Stoffregen]

Brian, you have attempted to define marriage as chiefly "commitment" in order to prop up your advocacy for homosexual "marriages" and "unions". Let's at least be honest in what our positions are.

Bunk! I stated numerous times that defining marriage as "commitment" came from a book I read in the early 70's, before there was any discussion of same-gender unions -- even before I had met an openly gay person. (I know now that I had met some earlier, but they weren't open about their orientation.)

Even today, I believe that there are states that if a marriage is not consummated by sexual intercourse, it can be annulled -- it wasn't really a marriage. The two hadn't become one. It has been "traditionalists" arguing against Charles and me who have made "two-become-one-flesh" a definition of marriage. So, for such traditionalists, isn't it reasonable to think that if Joseph never consummated his relationship with Mary, they wouldn't be considered legally married especially in the first century?

[Brian Stoffregen]

IF Mary were not Semper-Virgo, wouldn't elderly Joseph have to register as a sex offender?

Not in the first century. Depending on the state today, it is not statutory rape if the couple are married. Jerry Lee Lewis got out of rape charges by marrying a 13-year-old.

[BrotherBoris]

Brian, you have attempted to define marriage as chiefly "commitment" in order to prop up your advocacy for homosexual "marriages" and "unions". Let's at least be honest in what our positions are.

Bunk! I stated numerous times that defining marriage as "commitment" came from a book I read in the early 70's, before there was any discussion of same-gender unions -- even before I had met an openly gay person. (I know now that I had met some earlier, but they weren't open about their orientation.)

Even today, I believe that there are states that if a marriage is not consummated by sexual intercourse, it can be annulled -- it wasn't really a marriage. The two hadn't become one. It has been "traditionalists" arguing against Charles and me who have made "two-become-one-flesh" a definition of marriage. So, for such traditionalists, isn't it reasonable to think that if Joseph never consummated his relationship with Mary, they wouldn't be considered legally married especially in the first century?

Perhaps that is why we Eastern Orthodox often refer to the Virgin Mary as the "Unwedded Bride" or in another translation "Bride without Bridegroom".  In a sense she wasn't even married to Joseph, she was simply betrothed to him. He was her caretaker, not her "husband" in the intimate sense.

[Keith Falk]

Can't you people stop making it all about sex and arguments about sex (and, before you even pipe up about it, arguing that commitment is more important than sex is still an argument about sex) for once and peacefully contemplate the mystery of the Incarnation? 

[Brian Stoffregen]

Perhaps that is why we Eastern Orthodox often refer to the Virgin Mary as the "Unwedded Bride" or in another translation "Bride without Bridegroom".  In a sense she wasn't even married to Joseph, she was simply betrothed to him. He was her caretaker, not her "husband" in the intimate sense.

That would show consistency in your beliefs.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Can't you people stop making it all about sex for once and peacefully contemplate the mystery of the Incarnation?

Some of us have been stressing the importance of Joseph's commitment to Mary and the child.

I will be preaching on the theme, as I have in some year's past, about the miracle of God changing Joseph's mind after he had determined what he would graciously do with "found-to-be-with-child" Mary. A miracle of repentance -- with the literal meaning of the Greek: a change in thinking -- that did not happen to Ahaz. (I'll be preaching about him at our Wednesday mid-week service.)

[Keith Falk]

Can't you people stop making it all about sex for once and peacefully contemplate the mystery of the Incarnation?

Some of us have been stressing the importance of Joseph's commitment to Mary and the child.

I will be preaching on the theme, as I have in some year's past, about the miracle of God changing Joseph's mind after he had determined what he would graciously do with "found-to-be-with-child" Mary. A miracle of repentance -- with the literal meaning of the Greek: a change in thinking -- that did not happen to Ahaz. (I'll be preaching about him at our Wednesday mid-week service.)

I knew the response would be forthcoming, so I edited my comment at 5:30... apparently it didn't post in time.

[cssml]

This question is also taken up on the "New Theological Movement: blog.  From the intro:

" with simplicity of heart and purity of mind, we look to the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, and we ask: What was St. Joseph really thinking, when he had intended to put Mary away secretly? Did he perhaps suspect the most holy Virgin of sin? Did he perceive the gift he had received?
In matters so highly sensitive, we will not rely upon our own reasoning, nor less on the reasoning of the modernist biblical "scholars" of our day – men who know little of true piety – rather, guided by the expositions of St. Thomas Aquinas and the learned scholar Fr. Cornelius a' Lapide, we will look to the sound interpretation given by the Fathers of the Church."

http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/12/did-st-joseph-suspect-blessed-virgin.html