Have you heard some people refer to "the wedding at Cana" in which Jesus changed water into wine? Let check the actual wording used in two different New-Testament translations:

John 2:1 (RSV) On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;

John 2:1 (KJ21) And on the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;

NO mention of wedding. Instead the word marriage is used.

What exactly is a "bridegroom?" What exactly is a "bride?" Are they not simply those who are newly married - with or without wedding party ceremony?

"Weddings" and "marriages" are NOT necessarily synonymous:

Isa 62:5 (RSV) For as a young man marries a virgin, so shall your sons marry you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.

Isa 62:5 (KJ21) For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee; and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

Indeed, there is NO record whatsoever of the words "wed" or "wedding" in the entire Old Testament of the KJ21 Bible. The closest is:

Song 3:11 KJ21 Go forth, O ye daughters of Zion, and behold King Solomon with the crown wherewith his mother crowned him on the day of his espousals, and in the day of the gladness of his heart."]

[although the RSV translation reads:

Song 3:11 (RSV) Go forth, O daughters of Zion, and behold King Solomon, with the crown with which his mother crowned him on the day of his wedding, on the day of the gladness of his heart.

Both the RSV and the KJ21 (in Matthew chapter 22) do refer to a "wedding," but only in terms of a wedding feast, which can be understand as a party to celebrate (NOT officiate nor legalize) a marriage:

Matt 22:8 (RSV) Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy.
Matt 22:9 (RSV) Go therefore to the thoroughfares, and invite to the marriage feast as many as you find.'
Matt 22:10 (RSV) And those servants went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good; so the wedding hall was filled with guests.
Matt 22:11 (RSV) "But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment;

Regardless of whether the guy was a streaker, or instead mis-attired, is not known; in any case he was not accepted to join the party, but was forcefully kicked out and brutally punished:

Matt 22:12 (RSV) and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless.
Matt 22:13 (RSV) Then the king said to the attendants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.'
Matt 22:14 (RSV) For many are called, but few are chosen."

Matt 22:12 (KJ21) And he said unto him, `Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment?' And he was speechless.
Matt 22:13 (KJ21) Then said the king to the servants, `Bind him hand and foot and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
Matt 22:14 (KJ21) For many are called, but few are chosen."

There are different types of weddings: some are elaborate and/or expensive and/or with many guests.....while others are simple and/or cheap and/or with only a few or no guests.

And sometimes there is no wedding party nor celebration to speak of accompanying a marriage:

Gen 24:67 Then Isaac brought her into the tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her. So Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

One wonders if there was much of a partying celebration when polygamous Abram took Hagar and Jacob took the maids of Rachel and Leah in marriage before impregnating them:

Gen 16:2 and Sarai said to Abram, "Hey now, the LORD has prevented me from bearing children; go in to my maid; it may be that I shall obtain children by her." And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.
Gen 16:3 So, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife.

Bells and whistles celebrating such?

Gen 30:3 Then she said, "Here is my maid Bilhah; go in to her, that she may bear upon my knees, and even I may have children through her."
Gen 30:4 So she gave him her maid Bilhah as a wife; and Jacob went in to her.
Gen 30:9 When Leah saw that she had ceased bearing children, she took her maid Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife.
Gen 30:10 Then Leah's maid Zilpah bore Jacob a son.

Here Comes The Brides..." - and you know the rest of the music?" Hopefully, Jacob had and kept a good job for all that wife and child support!

And as he did so, he most likely was not unfaithful to any of them:

Mal 2:11 Judah has been faithless, and abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the LORD, which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god.
Mal 2:14 You ask, "Why does he not?" Because the LORD was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
Mal 2:15 Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life? And what does he desire? Godly offspring. So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth.
Mal 2:16 "For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel, and covering one's garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless."

Matt 17:17 And Jesus answered, "O faithless and perverted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me."

Those patriarchs of the Old Testament loved their primary wives less after they had sex with secondary wives and concubines? I do not think so.

And it is interesting to notice that those men who were polygamous did prefer their primary wives (e.g. Abram preferred Sarai, Jaccob preferred Rachel, David preferred Bathsheba, and Solomon preferred the Shulammite).

One woman can only take so much loving, and then is temporarily frigid due to menstrual periods, headaches, other illnesses, and being grossly pregnant.

Along the lines of a king forbidden from being overly-polygamous (which Solomon perhaps had a bit of a problem with):

Deut 17:16 Only he must not multiply horses for himself, or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never return that way again.'
Deut 17:17 And he shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply for himself silver and gold.

the intention of the Lord through Saint Paul is for bishops, deacons and elders to be monogamous:

1Tim 3:2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,
1Tim 3:12 Let deacons be the husband of one wife, and let them manage their children and their households well;
Titus 1:5 This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you,
Titus 1:6 if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate.
Titus 1:7 For a bishop, as God's steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,
Titus 1:8 but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled;

Nowadays - with many people having an IRS-like mindset of giving much larger tax deductions to Single persons instead of Married persons, or the bar boys ridiculing bachelors who "get themselves tied down by marriage," and feminist-sexist chauvenists aghast at the thought of women being subordinated by the man having sex with more than one woman while married to both of them and then [falsely] accusing them of "bigamy" or "adultery" - it behooves the multiple-women husbands to publicly inform others that they have common-law concubines (to avoid confusion), or merely state that their extra spouses are their "significant others" rather than falsely state that they are "sisters" or "daughters" (involving what would appear questionable if there is a vast age difference between the 60+ husband and his nearly-teenaged mate).

At least they are married before Almighty God, and consider themselves married - if not indicating that on ["legal"] government forms and documents. And they are not "living in sin" nor having "extramarital affairs."

We are NOT talking [non-married] "mistresses" here! And the reviling term: "shacking up" sounds kind of silly when the multiple wives or concubines live in a guy's million-dollar mansion.

So how can "marriage" be adequately defined?

A good definition of marriage is: "A voluntary permanent union of a man and woman, usually for mating purposes."

Now, many qualifications can be added to or subtracted from that simple and concise definition which needlessly and counterproductively complicate and confuse immensely.

Let's suggest a few examples:

(1) Marriage is a voluntary union of a man and woman [For what cause? Only a temporary union?]

(2) Marriage is a union between a man and a woman [For how long? What about O.T. concubines and additional wives other than the primary one?]

(3) Marriage is a voluntary permanent union between a man and a woman [Only "a" woman? Where the possibility for legitimate Old-Testament-like multiple wive(s)/concubine(s) polygamy?

(4) Marriage is a voluntary union between two consenting adults [Of what genders? For how long?]

(5) Marriage is a voluntary permanent union between a man and woman who love each other enough, which man lets the woman be the feminist sexist boss over him, but which man never abuses nor sexually assaults the woman's own body [What is loving one another enough? In what ways and at what times? Is it Biblical for the woman to rule the man? For the man always to be fearful about sexually advancing toward the woman, and for the prudish woman to consider herself the sole owner of her body?]

Related to the above, you will notice that this webpage author defines marriage on a Scriptural basis - not a humanistic basis apart from the Bible. Some would question the necessity of that.

Assume - not presume - that the Bible is true and valid, instead of false and invalid and a lie.

Why not? What have you got to lose - in view of the phenomenal stakes involved as described in the Bible? It is better to be safe than sorry, yes? Consider it cheap insurance which might come in handy after your death.

Consider the case of the fool who claims to be an atheist, who defiantly blatters out that: "God does not exist." What proof does he or she have? That God is invisible and cannot be touched? Oxygen and radioactivity and microwaves are invisible and cannot be touched. Does he absurdly presume that created non-living and living entites created themselves by themselves....all at once and fully functioning with all the perfect parts in perfect places - a ridiculous and ludicrous anti-Genesis presumption of heretical evolutionary mythology? What and who would give him an idea in the first place of "God?" Why would the atheist even consider uttering a statement using the word "God" which by its very nature logically implies the existence of a God for him or her to deny the existence of?

Recall the assumed-actual-happening story of Jesus standing with Pontius Pilate (both historical figures), which Pilate said to Jesus:

John 18:33 Pilate entered the praetorium again and called Jesus, and said to him, "Are you the King of the Jews?"
John 18:34 Jesus answered, "Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?"
John 18:35 Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me; what have you done?"
John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world."
John 18:37 Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice."
John 18:38 Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again, and told them, "I find no crime in him.

So where did Pilate get the idea of Jesus being a king? Why did he even suggest the possibility of that? What was he inferring or supposing?

Suppose that I could go back in history, and tell Abraham Lincoln that a nuclear fission bomb was going to decimate the city of Hiroshima. Lincoln would not only wonder where I ever got the idea of nuclear fission, but how I knew that that explosion would someday happen. Would I be then arrested then and there for conspiring to commit international terrorism? Or instead put into an insane asylum?

If I had told Adolf Hitler that he would die of a gunshot wound to his head and that a carbon dioxide laser could bore a hole in solid steel, would he have me arrested for planning assassination, plus wondered where I got the idea of a "laser" and further queried what that was?

Illogical presumption, or logical assumption?:

If you will, presume - not assume - that if you jump off a bridge [without a parachute from a tall skyscraper with nothing but air between you and the cement sidewalk below during the fall], you will not be squished and die of shock and internal bleeding after you smash into that sidewalk. Also presume that gravity will not work in the next five minutes. Presume that the Moon will collide with the Earth in ten seconds and presume that the Sun will explode in the next fifteen seconds. Go absolutely crazy and catatonic continuing to presume more and more.

Now - instead - assume - not presume - that the following verses of the Bible are true:

Eccl 11:2 Give a portion to seven, or even to eight, for you know not what evil may happen on earth.
Eccl 11:3 If the clouds are full of rain, they empty themselves on the earth; and if a tree falls to the south or to the north, in the place where the tree falls, there it will lie.

What is wrong with those verses? A rhetorical: nothing! What is a lie about those verses? Again, a rhetorical: nothing! Diversified investing can prevent economic ruin, and it doesn't take a rocket-science meterologist to predict that copious amount of rain will imminently fall from a green-black group of nearby advancing storm clouds. Moreover, without outside force disturbing the situation, things remain in the place where they reside (or as Buckeroo Bonzai said: "Wherever you go, there you are").

Contrast that to the half-lie (not "half-truth") of Satan in the Garden:

Gen 3:4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die.

What is wrong with that declaration? An honest: everything!

When she took and ate the Forbidden Fruit, her body immediately started to decay and slowly die - even though her death in the fullest temporal sense did not occur until years later. And of course, that ALSO occurred. So Satan lied both ways. If Eve had not faith in God that He would provide forgiving redemption then and later, her soul would have died over and over in Hell eternally. That would mean that Satan would have lied three ways!

Do we not see the associates of the Devil use the same weaselword semantics nowadays, as we have seen them do over and over again in past history? "The people of Minnesota support Franken" says the lying Star Tribune editorialist and reporter. No, actually only a slight majority of Minnesotans support Franken.....is the actual truth. Thus, the Star Tribune falsely misrepresents a significant minority of Minnesotans, and thus is liable to a class-action lawsuit for fraud as a consequence.

Sometimes, loaded questions contain inaccurate information, enabling responders to be evasive or forcing them to give wrong impressions. For instance, if a reporter asks a politician if he ever kissed a certain "14-year-old" as his common-law concubine (when she actually was age 15 when he kissed her), a "No" answer by the politician to the reporter would be on the grounds that the reporter misrepresented the teen woman's age and thus would seem to be a lie pertaining to the politician kissing per se. Moreover, a "Yes" answer would have the effect of [wrongly] substantiating and perpetuating the reporter's misdeclaration of the major's and not minor's age.

The way some premise is worded or misworded on a initiative referendum on a ballot makes all the difference in the world. Consider the contrasting examples:

Do you support a person's right to choose to be gay, to be gay without being persecuted, and to legally partner with another gay person?

as compared to:

Do you want the obnoxious sight of same-gender people lustfully kissing in general public view, to violate Scriptural admonitions forbidding effeminate homosexuality, and to arrogantly engage in pseudo-"marriage" sodomy relationships resulting in AIDS and divorce?

Two very different ways of wording, indeed - which would probably cause voters to answer positively to the first.....but definitely cause voters to answer negative to the other!

No wonder the Old-Testament prophetic pronounced the prediction:

Zeph 3:9 "Yes, at that time I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech, that all of them may call on the name of the LORD and serve him with one accord.

Overbroad and squirrely miswordings, spewing out of the vile mouths of the dishonestly deviant, have been around from the beginning:

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?"
Gen 3:2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden;
Gen 3:3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"

Notice Satan's overbroad statements. From him and his ilk insinuate half-lies: "All the trees of the Garden are forbidden," "You never do anything right!" "All sex is dirty." "Abort the "fetus" now before IT becomes a murderer or rapist or handicapped." "You'll never get sex unless you fornicate now." And on and on.

Pertaining to having sex, does The Bible actually states that Christians should not "eat, drink, and be merry?:"

Luke 12:19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; take your ease, eat, drink, be merry.'

Search the Scriptures to discover that not only does the Creator Christ want His saints to eat [though sensibly] (Matthew 12:1), and drink [not only water but also (First Timothy 5:23) alcoholic beverages, though not in excess so as to get (Job 12:25, Isa 19:14, Isa 28:7, Obad 1:16, Hab 2:16) drunk], but also be merry [including having all types of non-abusive/non-bruising/non-blood-spilling (Song of Solomon+) sex with the right person(s) in the right place(s) at the right time(s) under the right circumstance(s)].

Would we want it any other way, and instead die as 400-pound pigs of heart-attack-causing gluttony, drink ourselves stupid (with Prov 23:32-33 implied hard liquor or equivalent) and become quadriplegic by smashing into a light pole under illegal intoxication, and/or get some serious VD or AIDS lustfully and not lovingly fornicating or adulterizing with some lurid sexually-defiled-and-diseased person?

Finally, some wonder if they can "get away" with aberrations with the excuse that "they were born that way."

Well, everyone created by the Creator is born with a free will and can choose whatever they choose. All people, whether "destined" (in the sense of God's prophetic foreknowledge) to ultimately love Jesus Christ The Creator or instead hate Jesus Christ The Creator right from the start of their lives harbor and exhibit an attitude of either being for God or instead against God....and that NEVER changes - ever. That is why a good but ignorant Pharisee Saul who wanted to please God by eradicting what he misthought were blasphemous Christians became an even better Apostle Paul who still wanted to please God by eventually supporting and promoting Christians. And that is why a Jews-hating Hitler whose sophomore artworks were despised became an even-worse Jews-exterminating antisemite.

Those who are "born again" basically have a basically good attitude to God all along, but merely got a lot better - finally. And those now-anti-religious apostates who were once religious altarboys or similar never really did have any good-and-productive-soil innate love for God but merely were under the rod of circumstantial religious law and conformity until their true-color seeds-in-the-roadway-or-choked-with-thorns underlying motivations eventually became quite evident.

CAN a disbeliever who hates God become a believer who loves God, and thus have the ability or capacity to do so? Well, if one incessantly misuses his or her freewill choice to relentlessly defy and hate God, God will finally cause and curse them to become not able to love Him forever:

Exodus 7:13 Still Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them; as the Lord had said.
Exodus 7:14 Then the Lord said to Moses, "Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuses to let the people go.
Exodus 7:22 But the magicians of Egypt did the same by their secret arts; so Pharaoh's heart remained hardened, and he would not listen to them; as the Lord had said.
Exodus 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart, and would not listen to them; as the Lord had said.
Exodus 8:19 And the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them; as the Lord had said.
Exodus 8:32 But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and did not let the people go.
Exodus 9:7 And Pharaoh sent, and hey, not one of the cattle of the Israelites was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.
Exodus 9:12 But the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them; as the Lord had spoken to Moses.
Exodus 9:34 But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet again, and hardened his heart, he and his servants.
Exodus 9:35 So the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people of Israel go; as the Lord had spoken through Moses.
Exodus 10:1 Then the Lord said to Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs of mine among them,
Exodus 10:20 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go.
Exodus 10:27 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go.
Exodus 11:10 Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh; and the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go out of his land.
Exodus 14:8 And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt and he pursued the people of Israel as they went forth defiantly.

Deut 2:30 But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him; for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as at this day.

1 Samuel 6:6 Why should you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? After he had made sport of them, did not they let the people go, and they departed?

2 Chron 36:13 He also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God; he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the Lord, the God of Israel.

Job 9:4 He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength - who has hardened himself against him, and succeeded?

Daniel 5:20 But when his heart was lifted up and his spirit was hardened so that he dealt proudly, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and his glory was taken from him;

Mark 6:52 for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.
Mark 8:17 And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, "Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened?

John 12:40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they should see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and turn for me to heal them."

Romans 11:7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it sought. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,

2 Cor 3:14 But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.

2 Thess 2:11 Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false,
2 Thess 2:12 so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Hebrews 3:13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.