That doesn't answer my question. You said marriage was an abstract concept. Perhaps you meant serial monogamy was an abstraction of man? Arbitrariness, in an attempt to evade accountability or consequences?
Marriage is only a real thing when you're already in an existing committed relationship with an existing partner. I mentioned it many times that there's a progression of your "other half's" perceived identity - stranger, crush, acquaitance, companion, girlfriend, confidante, fiancee, bride, wife, mother. If you desire marriage, and yet you have nobody or just an imaginary figure to marry, than how is that not an abstract concept?
It's reasonable for a single man or woman to hold the conceptual desire to marry. The conviction of those who are drawn to the idea and values of lifelong companionship and family building are no less valid.
No it's not. It's foolish and idolatrous.
I never asserted that being concatenated in one body was synonymous with marriage?
And yet that's a common misconception, "join your wife and become one flesh" has morphed into "join your soul mate and get married". This is nothing but a variant of the false prosperity gospel.
What God has put together, let no man separate. Such an explicit statement has to be apropos to marriage. Prioritising reconciliation over separation. We all know that fornication isn't a vehicle for something God would want to put together and keep together.
No sir, in that context it was an affirmation on the sancitity of marriage and a disapproval on no fault divorce. And the vice versa is equally true - what God has
NOT put together, let no man put together either.
And that's not just my opinion. In eastern Asian countries there has been many dating events organized by the government or spontaneously, in attempt to boost the abysmally low marriage and birth rate, yet there's either nobody shows up, or corporations dropping by to sell stuffs, or women overwhelmingly outnumber men, like 50 to 1.
Marriage or preoccupation with an idealised version of marriage, especially the desperate desire to be rescued from single life, is a potential distraction. But your hypothetical projections are not always the unarguable state of things.
I have no problem with some of your deductive reasoning. The premise and conclusion is true. Marriage ain't for everyone, and it is better not to marry. But that doesn't mean it's advantageous for us all to remain single. It's not to your detriment to make allowance for those who chose or want to experience what married life can bring.
It all depends on both your discernment of the time and the faithfulness of your partner. If it's a time of distress, like ever since COVID, you can hardly make a living to sustain yourself, how are you supposed to sustain a partner and kids?
Then you better consider whether your partner would bring you closer to God or farther away, and whether you'd bring your partner closer to God or farther away. Keep in mind that not everyone regards the bible as the highest authority, many regard the Supreme Court and its rulings, including many Christians. And one of their landmark ruling is the recogniztion of same sex union as marriage in 2015. If you have a partner who's affected by such distorted defition of marriage, then it's absolutely advantageous to remain single. I'd say until this ruling is overturned, like Roe v Wade, remain single.