Polygamy or Polyamory

[alabaster jar]

I did not even say that polygamy could not work. Merely that in the OT stories there is conflict that no one mentioned, so I brought some of them up. The basic one being competition among the wives and favoritism of their own heirs.

If someone could possibly love their non-blood children was not the point. And doesn't seem to be illustrated in the OT stories of the matriarchs that I know of. If it is a common theme somewhere, just point me to it. (I'm not an expert by any stretch) Just giving my 2 cents.

My point was that Sarah and Hagar did not get along. Rachel and Leah also competed. Women are not, of course, in the forefront of many biblical stories to begin with, so we have fewer sources to begin with.

I was only pointing out some downfalls of polygamy and not attacking anyone or saying it was not possible to love stepkids. Geez. (although, big surprise, lots of stepkids don't get along with their stepparents--not exactly news there.)

Thank you for the namecalling. Very Christian of you. (the PMS was a joke and not to be taken seriously, sorry if I offended any women, or men.)

For me, as I said I see a lot of problems with polygamy, including supporting numerous wives and all their offspring and trying to give them all the attention each rightly requires. It seems to me (just my opinion) that the more wives, the more complications. If all the wives get along and everyone is happy, I don't think it's a sin at all. However, I think in the Catholic church, marriage is a sacrament, but don't know what all that means.

Sincerely, I think I was misunderstood. It was not my intent to judge anyone if this is their way of life. As I said, each to his or her own.

 

[PetticoatLace]

Alabaster Jar-
I am sorry if my actions here were less than honorable. I do not mean to insult you in any way. Please forgive me if you felt insulted by my words. You are right, we are all Christians here, and dissagreement or discussion should be done with gentleness, and consideration of feelings. If you feel my words hurt you, I am sorry.


I am a person who does polyfidelitous relationships. Think "polygamy" if it helps. There are many like me who do this and feel respected, loved, and fulfilled. It is not for everyone, many people are made to be monogamous with just one partner. I respect that. In my biblical beliefs and personal walk with God I don't personally find conflict, although many would see things different. I think I probably took your joke far more serious than you intended it to be, and for that I apologize. I do wish for God's blessings on you and your life, and hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me of any wrongs I have done you.
This is ment with a sincere heart.

~PetticoatLace

 

[Ave Maria]

I did not even say that polygamy could not work. Merely that in the OT stories there is conflict that no one mentioned, so I brought some of them up. The basic one being competition among the wives and favoritism of their own heirs.

If someone could possibly love their non-blood children was not the point. And doesn't seem to be illustrated in the OT stories of the matriarchs that I know of. If it is a common theme somewhere, just point me to it. (I'm not an expert by any stretch) Just giving my 2 cents.

My point was that Sarah and Hagar did not get along. Rachel and Leah also competed. Women are not, of course, in the forefront of many biblical stories to begin with, so we have fewer sources to begin with.

I was only pointing out some downfalls of polygamy and not attacking anyone or saying it was not possible to love stepkids. Geez. (although, big surprise, lots of stepkids don't get along with their stepparents--not exactly news there.)

Thank you for the namecalling. Very Christian of you. (the PMS was a joke and not to be taken seriously, sorry if I offended any women, or men.)

For me, as I said I see a lot of problems with polygamy, including supporting numerous wives and all their offspring and trying to give them all the attention each rightly requires. It seems to me (just my opinion) that the more wives, the more complications. If all the wives get along and everyone is happy, I don't think it's a sin at all. However, I think in the Catholic church, marriage is a sacrament, but don't know what all that means.

Sincerely, I think I was misunderstood. It was not my intent to judge anyone if this is their way of life. As I said, each to his or her own.

Hey thanks for clearing that up alabaster jar. I must also apologise along with PetticoatLace. I misinterpreted you as well. Please forgive me. May God's blessings be upon you and all Christians here.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I have skirted nothing. I simply assert that God allowed something less than ideal in multiple wives as He did in marriage and divorce.

Then you are indeed skirting the issues, because you are still failing to grapple with the fact that the Lord Himself gave multiple wives and identified Himself with polygyny, which is antithetical to the idea that a plurality of wives was merely something that God "allowed." You appear to not be willing to accept the enormity of God's own actions and words. Turning a blind eye to these things only demonstrates your desire to follow after an idea that you still have not effectively defended. Where in the OT is there ANY indication that polygyny was merely "allowed"? Can you at least show me that? Once I see that, then we can proceed forward. One step forward and two steps back is not moving forward.

This was only the beginning of the change. People usually follow the example of their leaders.

Another statement of convenience. It lacks biblical backing. Don't you have anything from the scriptures to say that directly quotes, or is in any way backed by, the actual intent of what is written, within its context?

If you insist on slavish adherance to the "witier's topical application" then you must throw out many of the Scripture examples used by Jesus and Paul.

The absurdity of this charge is magnified by your own denials of what is clearly written that has already been discussed. You can ignore the words and actions of the Lord all you want, but that will never make them go away, nor will it transform them into what you personally have chosen to accept as writ. You are arguing from silence.

In addition, you must never take a moral stand on issues God never specifically spoke about like child molesting and racism.

These things are addressed. Don't you know your Bible?

You are just looking for a way to justify fleshly indulgence. How many wives do you have?

I knew that someone would eventually resort to ad hominem tactics. This will never win the day for you. It only demonstrates your inability to stick to what is actually written in God's word that just so happens to violate your sensibilities. You don't like it that the Lord doesn't fit into your nice, neat little system of socially engineered idealisms in relation to theology and social sensibilities. Come on! Can't you do any better than this? I would expect this from a juvenile, not a man who is mature in thought and belief.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I did not even say that polygamy could not work. Merely that in the OT stories there is conflict that no one mentioned, so I brought some of them up. The basic one being competition among the wives and favoritism of their own heirs.

There are only two examples out of many where conflict is at all mentioned. I don't think it needful for anyone to appologize for making mention of your attempt at using those two examples as the paint to be splashed across all the other OT examples of plural wives. Can you be more specific as to this competition you spoke of? We can walk down to our local ball park and observe "heirs" battling it out to simply be called members of the winning team. Back then, they were seeking to obtain whatever they could to keep from having to fight each day for mere survival.

If someone could possibly love their non-blood children was not the point. And doesn't seem to be illustrated in the OT stories of the matriarchs that I know of. If it is a common theme somewhere, just point me to it. (I'm not an expert by any stretch) Just giving my 2 cents.

Understood, and thanks for sharing.

My point was that Sarah and Hagar did not get along. Rachel and Leah also competed. Women are not, of course, in the forefront of many biblical stories to begin with, so we have fewer sources to begin with.

And fewer sources can also indicate a lack of any need to make mention of what may not have existed. Abraham and Jacob both had other wives who we are not told had any problems with one another, possibly because they got along great. Also, it was said of Abraham that he obeyed God's statutes, laws and ordinanaces, which speaks against the idea that he was doing something that the Lord grudgingly allowed just because it was OT times. What a crock! I keep reading this kind of nonsense from various people who have no clue as to the implications of this charge against the Lord they claim to believe in. (Not talking about you, of course. )

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

You are just looking for a way to justify fleshly indulgence. How many wives do you have?

Also, you have unwittingly accused the Lord of being party to providing David with fleshly indulgences. Porky, I don't know what manner of god you have created in your mind, but you are not talking about the God portrayed within the pages of the Bible. Fleshly indulgence can and does fall within the classification of sin, because it is not one of the qualities of marriage. David was married to all those women. Marriage is honorable in all its manifestations the Lord made provision for. To speak against a form of marriage the Lord not only sanctioned in His moral Law, gave by His own Hand, and identified Himself with, is to become an authority over nothing but your own socially dictated biases. You can beat your head against the wall all you want, but the facts within the text simply serve as a solid wall against your attempts at creating nitches you think to try and cram miniscule transliterations, misinterpretations and misrepresentations to try and weaken what clearly is beyond your ability to bring down.

If the Lord were against a man having plural wives, then one would think that the great men to whom He spoke on numerous occasions would not have been so dull as to not discern that on their own. I used to think the same way you do right now, but a great theologian and friend of mine, Dr. Don Dean, helped open my eyes to some harsh truths that went against the grain of my decidedly inferior understanding of scripture. A few years ago, I would have followed along with you in blind agreement, but have long since taken off the social blinders so that I can see more of just how vast and glorious God's word really is. The chains are off so that the Lord can show me His deeper truths that clearly are unacceptable to our Westernized, adulterated system of theological dogmas.

Be warm, healthy and happy in your little box, but I prefer the instruction of that still, small voice, and to walk the wilderness if need be, to know Him and His thoughts more than I have ever known them before.

BTW

 

[StaySalty]

What do you all think of Polygamy or Polyamory? It is not specificially condoned or condemned in the Bible right? If it is, please specify where including book, chapter, and verse. I personally believe that God will bless such a relationship if it is focused on Him. What do you think?

Well, as far as I know, in America this is illegal. And therefore, according to
1 Peter 2:13-14, we shouldn't do it.

13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.
1 Peter 2:13-14

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Well, as far as I know, in America this is illegal. And therefore, according to
1 Peter 2:13-14, we shouldn't do it.

13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.
1 Peter 2:13-14

Actually, this is incorrect. It is only illegal to attempt acquiring a license for more than one wife at a time. Legal recognition of a marriage is purely up to each couple. There is no law requiring legal recognition of a marriage in any state unless one wishes to get government benefits after a spouse has passed away, or wishes to pay the marriage penalty tax to the government. So, no law is being broken for a man to be married in the eyes of God to more than one wife.

I also know that this opens yet another can of worms where the concept of "shacking up" is concerned. Most people consider it to be immoral to be married without that little piece of paper from City Hall. This, of course, is hogwash. There are absolutely no moral ties to that piece of paper, or the ceremonies performed within organized religion. God defined marriage once and for all in Genesis, which does not include licenses, vows, acknowledgments, exchanges, recognitions, or any of the plethora of traditions that exist within any given culture throughout the history of mankind. That is up to each couple as to if they desire to hand over to the government any measure of authority over their marriage. However, the Lord at no point in His word handed over to mankind and his traditions His sole authority over marriage and its definition.

I'm sure there's going to be some knee-jerk reaction to this, so I just wanted to say that up front before it hits. If anyone can reference any law on the books of any state that says otherwise, then I would like to see it.

If we really want to get down and dirty where TRUTH is concerned, let's look at all the serial polygamy going on right there in your "church". How many of your friends and/or fellow congregant members have been divorced for non-biblical reasons, and are remarried? Hmm? If people are going to jump on the bandwagon of polygyny-bashing, let's look at what's going on right there within the sphere of your own circle of influence, friends, fellow "church" members, and possibly even family. Oooooo! That HURT! Don't want to go there, do we? Well, let's rub that salt in real good, shall we? Let's grind it into the wound till there's no room for hypocrisy. Far too many "pastors" and "priests" (so-called) have for far too long turned a blind eye to what's going on right under their own noses, thinking that if they ignore it, their membership numbers will stay up, and that the marital problems stemming from a gross ignorance of God's word will just ooze on out the door. Well, guess what, it didn't. It's stench can be enjoyed within the halls, classrooms and sanctuaries of almost every religious organization in the Western hemisphere.

Before we poke a finger of accusation against those men who have more than one wife, let's first clean up our own back yards of all those things that clearly ARE declared to be sin, shall we?

BTW

 

[alabaster jar]

Hi again. A rather comical (at least I kinda think it is) picture of the two wives Rachel and Leah fighting:

This occurs after Leah laments that Jacob does not love her in Genesis 29: 31

I'll skip over the child-bearing by Rachel via her servant.

One day during the wheat harvest, Reuban found some mandrakes growing in a field and brought the roots to his mother, Leah. Rachel begged Leah to give some of them to her. But Leah angrily replied, "WASN'T IT ENOUGH THAT YOU STOLE MY HUSBAND? NOW YOU WILL TRY TO STEAL MY SON'S MANDRAKE ROOTS, TOO!"

Rachel said, "I will let him sleep with you tonight in exchange for the mandrake roots." Genesis 30: 14-15

Then we have Jacob who loves Joseph, his son through his beloved Rachel more. He makes Joseph a special robe. The brothers were the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah (not Rachel) although Bilhah was Rachel's servant and she bid that Jacob sleep with her, as did Leah with her servant Zilpah. (so here we have half-brothers and, of course, they plot against the favored Joseph.

So, anyway, these are what came to mind in way of examples of fighting and favoritism and competition among heirs. Of course, this did happen with true or full blood brothers as well. I'm thinking of Cain and Able and Esau and Jacob. Conflict of course makes a story interesting and memorable. The lesson of Leah and Rachel and Sarah and Hagar could be that if you have more than one wife, be sure to love them each and not pick favorites as it will reverberate on down the line to the children.

I always felt sorry for Leah. I think that if my husband took another wife, I might have her feelings. Still I enjoy the OT stories and love the mandrake episode.

I'm glad we could come full circle and discuss this as loving Christians. That is why I enjoy this forum. May God continue to bless you and your family!

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I will agree that favoritism will do nothing but cause problems, and showing favorites is exactly what Jacob did when giving that colorful coat to Joseph. Not at all a smart thing to do.

It must also be acknowledged that sibling rivalry is found within both forms of marriage, not just polygyny. Bickering and fighting, whether among siblings or steps, is always ugly.

Having said that, there's good reason to believe that harmony was indeed the norm for many OT families with plural wives. Perfect harmony? No. I haven't seen such a family, and I doubt one exists.....except for those that are buried together.

It's quite a shock to most people who find out that Abraham had several wives throughout most of his married life. Hagar was not the first additional wife Abraham ever had, for it is revealed that he had concubines. Additionally, many people assume that concubines were nothing more than relief valves for sexual energy. Quite the contrary. They were full fledged wives like any other, the only difference being that their offspring didn't receive the inheritance.

BTW

 

[Ave Maria]

I will agree that favoritism will do nothing but cause problems, and showing favorites is exactly what Jacob did when giving that colorful coat to Joseph. Not at all a smart thing to do.

It must also be acknowledged that sibling rivalry is found within both forms of marriage, not just polygyny. Bickering and fighting, whether among siblings or steps, is always ugly.

Having said that, there's good reason to believe that harmony was indeed the norm for many OT families with plural wives. Perfect harmony? No. I haven't seen such a family, and I doubt one exists.....except for those that are buried together.

It's quite a shock to most people who find out that Abraham had several wives throughout most of his married life. Hagar was not the first additional wife Abraham ever had, for it is revealed that he had concubines. Additionally, many people assume that concubines were nothing more than relief valves for sexual energy. Quite the contrary. They were full fledged wives like any other, the only difference being that their offspring didn't receive the inheritance.

BTW

Wow! This thread is very enlightening. I have learned so much! I think that I have easily convinced myself that polygamy or polyamory is a good thing according to God! I am just wondering though... are there any examples of any saints or early Christians who were involved in polyamory?

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I am just wondering though... are there any examples of any saints or early Christians who were involved in polyamory?

I'm not aware of any written records of first century believers having multiple wives. The Greco-Roman culture was not known for polygyny, although the Hebrews were. Most assume that all the apostles and all the Hebrew believers around them were monogamous, which is pure assumption since we really don't know for sure, but it is known that some of the more wealthy Hebrews did have multiple wives.

Additionally, it is recorded that Luther didn't see any biblical problem with a man having more than one wife.

Also, Augustine actually wrote an article expressing his belief that it was ok for a man to have more than one wife. However, that article caused such a stink among the people, that he wrote, not so much a reversal of his earlier statements, but rather a watering down of his position that didn't qualify as a complete reversal. He stated that it was "best" that a man have only one wife. That satisfied the general populace enough that they accepted it and let it go.

BTW

 

[PetticoatLace]

Well, as far as I know, in America this is illegal. And therefore, according to
1 Peter 2:13-14, we shouldn't do it.

I agree with you, that the US government does not allow more than one marriage licence. A marriage licence does have significant meaning in this society. It is a signed piece of paper that gives the bearer certain rights:
The right to joint taxes
The right of power of attourney for a spouse incase of accident or illness
The right of visiting a spouse durring hospital non-visiting hours
The right of spousal medical insurance.

However- one can be in love without a marriage licence, date, and even have a life partner without the marriage licence "piece of paper". All of which are not illegal even in plural, as long as the same person does not get two "pieces of paper". It is sad though, that without those "pieces of paper" one does not get certain rights that have nothing really to do with love,.. but I feel make life easier. In accordance to the law I will not be getting "two pieces of paper".

 

[BeforeThereWas]

A marriage licence does have significant meaning in this society.

Very true indeed. I didn't go into this particular issue to any depth, but perhaps now would be a good time to hit upon some points of interest. The inordinate emphasis upon that license has created some serious flaws in people's understanding of marriage. God defined marriage in Genesis, but we have our Westernized definition of marriage wrapped up in that license. So much so that many who claim to love God give that license a life of its own by way of moral crisis if a couple doesn't have one while living together in a marital relationship.

So, what do most people see as the defining authority of a marriage? The license. They give lip service to God's word, but their actions speak loud volumes about the lack of any real commitment to what they claim to believe.

Our legal system allows for the dissolution of that license for reasons that are purely unbiblical. Thus, many professing believers think that once that license is rescinded by the government, that they are then free to remarry. God's definition of marriage and limitations upon divorce are all but forgotten, not to mention never really understood and adhered to by these same divorcees and their married counterparts.

As a matter of fact, I also found out where that "marriage license" came from. It was completely unknown until about the mid 1800's. A few of the southern states decided they wanted to allow interracial couples to marry, but they knew that the general populace would never allow the laws against such marriages drop from the books. So, the next best thing to was to create a "marriage license" as a means of getting around the laws on the books of every state against interracial marriage. This is similar to licesnes to handle explosives. If you get caught with explaosives without a license, then you go do jail.

Goerge Washington and Abraham Lincoln didn't have licenses for their marriages, and yet a couple will be classified as "living in sin" today if they don't have one. Therefore, I have no respect for those who attach a moral dilemma to a piece of paper from a government that already exercises far too much power over the lives of families.

Anyway, as is the usual tendency of big government, that license and those over which it exercised authority was expanded, and professing believers began to jump onto yet another bandwagon for reasons that I still can't figure out.

It was the Marriage Act of 1911 that brought that license to its full stature of social acceptance, and thus the idea was born that not having it was a badge of disadvantage for those who didn't have one.

As you have probably already figured out, it wasn't long before the dupes behind America's pulpits began to preach the alleged inevitability for the presence of sin in the lives of couples who didn't have one. Why? Well, "pastors" themselves had to be licensed in order to issue "marriage licenses," and there was much money to be made in the issuance of those licenses and the performance of the ceremony.

It is a signed piece of paper that gives the bearer certain rights:
The right to joint taxes

Which is not much of an advantage....

The right of power of attourney for a spouse incase of accident or illness

Such powers can be granted to anyone.....

The right of visiting a spouse durring hospital non-visiting hours

This is a red herring. I have never been stopped from visiting my friends in the hospital after visiting hours.

The right of spousal medical insurance.

This too is a red herring. The company I work for is providing coverage for queers AND their perverse partners. Many companies have already jumped onto this new social glory button.

It is sad though, that without those "pieces of paper" one does not get certain rights that have nothing really to do with love,.. but I feel make life easier.

That is debatable. There are all kinds of legal avenues available apart from the license. I can list the guy living in the gutters as my beneficiary on insurance, inheritance, or anything else of my choosing.

In accordance to the law I will not be getting "two pieces of paper".

At least, not unless you want to go to jail.

BTW

 

[Ave Maria]

I'm not aware of any written records of first century believers having multiple wives. The Greco-Roman culture was not known for polygyny, although the Hebrews were. Most assume that all the apostles and all the Hebrew believers around them were monogamous, which is pure assumption since we really don't know for sure, but it is known that some of the more wealthy Hebrews did have multiple wives.

Additionally, it is recorded that Luther didn't see any biblical problem with a man having more than one wife.

Also, Augustine actually wrote an article expressing his belief that it was ok for a man to have more than one wife. However, that article caused such a stink among the people, that he wrote, not so much a reversal of his earlier statements, but rather a watering down of his position that didn't qualify as a complete reversal. He stated that it was "best" that a man have only one wife. That satisfied the general populace enough that they accepted it and let it go.

BTW

Oh wow! That is very interesting!

I agree with you, that the US government does not allow more than one marriage licence. A marriage licence does have significant meaning in this society. It is a signed piece of paper that gives the bearer certain rights:
The right to joint taxes
The right of power of attourney for a spouse incase of accident or illness
The right of visiting a spouse durring hospital non-visiting hours
The right of spousal medical insurance.

However- one can be in love without a marriage licence, date, and even have a life partner without the marriage licence "piece of paper". All of which are not illegal even in plural, as long as the same person does not get two "pieces of paper". It is sad though, that without those "pieces of paper" one does not get certain rights that have nothing really to do with love,.. but I feel make life easier. In accordance to the law I will not be getting "two pieces of paper".

Yep, I think that the government should not be allowed to interfere with marriage in such a way. It should be between the couple and God.

Very true indeed. I didn't go into this particular issue to any depth, but perhaps now would be a good time to hit upon some points of interest. The inordinate emphasis upon that license has created some serious flaws in people's understanding of marriage. God defined marriage in Genesis, but we have our Westernized definition of marriage wrapped up in that license. So much so that many who claim to love God give that license a life of its own by way of moral crisis if a couple doesn't have one while living together in a marital relationship.

So, what do most people see as the defining authority of a marriage? The license. They give lip service to God's word, but their actions speak loud volumes about the lack of any real commitment to what they claim to believe.

Our legal system allows for the dissolution of that license for reasons that are purely unbiblical. Thus, many professing believers think that once that license is rescinded by the government, that they are then free to remarry. God's definition of marriage and limitations upon divorce are all but forgotten, not to mention never really understood and adhered to by these same divorcees and their married counterparts.

As a matter of fact, I also found out where that "marriage license" came from. It was completely unknown until about the mid 1800's. A few of the southern states decided they wanted to allow interracial couples to marry, but they knew that the general populace would never allow the laws against such marriages drop from the books. So, the next best thing to was to create a "marriage license" as a means of getting around the laws on the books of every state against interracial marriage. This is similar to licesnes to handle explosives. If you get caught with explaosives without a license, then you go do jail.

Goerge Washington and Abraham Lincoln didn't have licenses for their marriages, and yet a couple will be classified as "living in sin" today if they don't have one. Therefore, I have no respect for those who attach a moral dilemma to a piece of paper from a government that already exercises far too much power over the lives of families.

Anyway, as is the usual tendency of big government, that license and those over which it exercised authority was expanded, and professing believers began to jump onto yet another bandwagon for reasons that I still can't figure out.

It was the Marriage Act of 1911 that brought that license to its full stature of social acceptance, and thus the idea was born that not having it was a badge of disadvantage for those who didn't have one.

As you have probably already figured out, it wasn't long before the dupes behind America's pulpits began to preach the alleged inevitability for the presence of sin in the lives of couples who didn't have one. Why? Well, "pastors" themselves had to be licensed in order to issue "marriage licenses," and there was much money to be made in the issuance of those licenses and the performance of the ceremony.

Wow, thanks for the history lesson. That was pretty interesting. If you don't know me, which I'm sure you don't, I am a history nut!

Which is not much of an advantage....

I don't understand how it isn't.

Such powers can be granted to anyone.....

It can? How so?

This is a red herring. I have never been stopped from visiting my friends in the hospital after visiting hours.

I've also never had that trouble but then again, I am not going to say that PetticoatLace is lying. She very well could have had that trouble before.

This too is a red herring. The company I work for is providing coverage for queers AND their perverse partners. Many companies have already jumped onto this new social glory button.

Just because your company does doesn't mean that most companies do. In fact, most companies will not offer insurance coverage for unmarried partners, especiall those of the same sex.

That is debatable. There are all kinds of legal avenues available apart from the license. I can list the guy living in the gutters as my beneficiary on insurance, inheritance, or anything else of my choosing.

Like what?

At least, not unless you want to go to jail.

BTW

I agree with PetticoatLace, I am also polyfidelitous and when I marry my partner in the future, I will also not violate the law. Besides, the Bible says to obey the government authorities so it would be a sin to violate the law unless the law prevents one from obeying God in my opinion.

 

[porcupine]

I knew that someone would eventually resort to ad hominem tactics. This will never win the day for you. It only demonstrates your inability to stick to what is actually written in God's word that just so happens to violate your sensibilities. You don't like it that the Lord doesn't fit into your nice, neat little system of socially engineered idealisms in relation to theology and social sensibilities. Come on! Can't you do any better than this? I would expect this from a juvenile, not a man who is mature in thought and belief.

BTW

I ask the question because it bears upon your credibility and motive. Since you apparently approve of multiple wives, how would it be "ad hominem" to ask you?

 

[Ave Maria]

I ask the question because it bears upon your credibility and motive. Since you apparently approve of multiple wives, how would it be "ad hominem" to ask you?

I'm not him but I do approve of polyfidelitous/polyamorous relationships. In fact, I am in one.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Yep, I think that the government should not be allowed to interfere with marriage in such a way. It should be between the couple and God.

There are those who argue that the license helps to protect women, etc. Actually, there are already laws in place to protect women and children without any need for that license. If a boyfriend beats up on his girlfriend, he goes to jail just like a husband beating his legally married wife. No difference whatsoever.

There are some biblical, harsh realities about marriage, divorce, property, the children, etc., that most people have absolutely no clue. I prefer not to go into those things here since they would violate the sensibilities of many professing believers. All I will do is encourage people to read their Bibles for themselves, and for what is written, in order to glean these deeper truths that escape the vast majority. Putting aside the pervasive Westernized religious blinders is not an easy thing to do. It is these kinds of things that have driven people away from the faith, with the blame being placed upon seminary schools and Bible colleges. Granted, there are many falsehoods perpetrated by professors that contribute to many students becoming unbelievers, or followers after some other religion that caters to their particular likings, but there are deeper truths in the Bible that the weak of character simply can't accept without a violent upheaval within their hearts and minds against what they prefer to reject.

Wow, thanks for the history lesson. That was pretty interesting. If you don't know me, which I'm sure you don't, I am a history nut!

Not me. I love people, not history, although it does have intrisic value to help keep us from making the same mistakes........a lesson not well learned by most.

I don't understand how it isn't.

It wasn't my intention to say that there is no advantage to the license. What is sad is that there is any advantages at all. Why not recognize what God Himself recognizes?

Anyway, what I meant to say (and failed miserably due to lack of time) was that the disadvantages many time far outweigh the advantages. The particulars are too numerous to list, so I will leave this as a general statement for now.

It can? How so?

I can grant power of attorney to anyone I like. I don't have to be married to give a non-related friend power of attorney and/or executor of my estate, etc. There are also other legal avenues of allowance that parellel the marriage license.

I've also never had that trouble but then again, I am not going to say that PetticoatLace is lying. She very well could have had that trouble before.

No. It was not at all my intent to say that she is lying. What I had in mind is that this is the same argumentation I have heard from supporters of legalized marriage between queers. They tried to use that argument, which is known to be little more than a red herring. I suspect that she has heard it from others and assumed it to be true. If I am mistaken, then I would like to hear what manner of hospital stopped a non-relative from visiting at any time to someone who was not related or a legal spouse. I have heard of ICU's keeping just anyone from visiting because of the condition of the patient, but I have never heard of one asking to see a marriage license. If a couple is married without a license, simply stating that one is the spouse gains them access from my experience.

Just because your company does doesn't mean that most companies do. In fact, most companies will not offer insurance coverage for unmarried partners, especiall those of the same sex.

You're right. This is the one area of advantage that a couple would have to weigh against the disadvantages. My main thrust was that the advantages simply do not make that license a matter of moral requirement.

the Bible says to obey the government authorities so it would be a sin to violate the law unless the law prevents one from obeying God in my opinion.

Agreed. I will reiterate, however, that there is no law requiring a married couple to acquire legal recognition of their marriage. If there was, then we would truly be living under the reign of tyranny.

BTW

 

[porcupine]

I'm not him but I do approve of polyfidelitous/polyamorous relationships. In fact, I am in one.

So, would you consider it an insult if I saked how many "amours" you have?

 

[Ave Maria]

So, would you consider it an insult if I saked how many "amours" you have?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean.