OMG....
CON: If you live together without a marriage license, you are just cohabiting, which is sinful.
I might suggest, these forums create a ‘cause and affect’ in these threads. The cause is created by the one creating the thread. The affect is conducted by those who participate in these threads. The affect, many times, is referred to as ‘iron sharpens iron’.Where are scriptual referrences for anyones posts
Yeah, I brought my wife here on a fiance Visa, and we were required to get legally married within 90 days.I know Christians that know nothing of the polygamous community who avoid getting marriage licenses as they are not interested in the state being involved. I am thinking there is a rise in this sort of reasoning with the state sanctioning gay marriage.
When I was in the Navy they paid you more if you were married. I knew a guy that secretly got legally married just to get the extra pay. They were planning a more public marriage later.
I have one. I would get one again only if there was a specific need for one, like for immigration reasons, or for significant pay and benefits.
Yeah, I brought my wife here on a fiance Visa, and we were required to get legally married within 90 days.
Fascinating! I like reasons 1, 2, and 3! Of course #4 doesn't really help, if you have to have some other legal arrangement to declare yourself in a form of alternative partnership with your spouse, not that any of us are all that concerned about polygamy, to begin with. The pamphlet would more accurately state that you are involved in polyamory, which we would all object to. #5 is only a problem when you put your children in the public school system. Our oldest is now in public school, but he has had enough home school and private school, to hate the things of this world. I love the fact that this minister has 11 children!Thought I would share in case it has not been shared. I take reason 4 with a grain of salt. http://mercyseat.net/mscc/2015/10/07/marriage-licenses/
It's an interesting read and yes, 1 to 3 are good points. ThanksThought I would share in case it has not been shared. I take reason 4 with a grain of salt. http://mercyseat.net/mscc/2015/10/07/marriage-licenses/
Knowing him that is not going to happen. However, he is spot on regarding most topics.Good points. Now he just needs another paradigm shift towards plural...
Well at least he can't throw out the "Polygamy is against the LAW" argument, that most of our opponents like to throw out there, when the rest of their arguments have been refuted!Knowing him that is not going to happen. However, he is spot on regarding most topics.
I dont think he would, he believes that marriage is under the realm of " family government". However, he like many believers adhere to the "one man one woman" stance on marriage. As a pastor, of course, he would be expected to adhere to the standard of " husband of one wife".Well at least he can't throw out the "Polygamy is against the LAW" argument, that most of our opponents like to throw out there, when the rest of their arguments have been refuted!
Sure, but if we can show him the error of misusing Scripture to read into it (i.e. Eisegesis), the "One man, one woman" doctrine, he might be a great asset to have in our corner!I dont think he would, he believes that marriage is under the realm of " family government". However, he like many believers adhere to the "one man one woman" stance on marriage. As a pastor, of course, he would be expected to adhere to the standard of " husband of one wife".