Implications of Common Law Marriage

[Thinkingstuff]

I have not argued that, and I do believe polygamy is condemned by scripture.I've tried this before, but I'll try again. You basically have 2 arguments. The first is that common law marriage violates Roms. 13, that we are to obey the government.

But common law marriage does not result in disobedience to the government because there is no law (in the other 39 states that don't recognize common law marriage) that forbids a couple from taking vows before God, telling family and friends they are married, moving in together and raising a family.

If you know of a state that makes it illegal to do so, please point me that that statute.

The consequence, if you will, of not getting a state license, is that the state will not recognize the marriage as valid. That will have implications about how you file taxes and other such dealings with the state.

For someone who believes state sponsored marriage has become so corrupt that to participate in it would be an affront to God, such consequence has no meaning since their desire is to please God and not man.

Your second argument, as I see it, is that such actions goes against the norms/culture of our society, and to participate sets a bad example for Christianity.

I have pointed out, with scripture, how cultural traditions corrupted the origional institution of marriage as given by God. God said that for this reason a man should leave his father and mother, be joined with his wife and the two become one flesh. (btw, that is the best argument against polygamy, imo, you can't have "two become one flesh" if there are 3 or more)

Examples of culture corrupting God's intentions for marriage in scripture are polygamy, concubines, prostitution, divorce, homos*xuality, and even non-believers marrying believers just to mention some.

If the cultural corruption has filtered into the state sponsored "marriage" by acceptance of divorce, inter-marriage between believers and unbelievers, homose*ual unions (all of which are recognized, at least in some states), then some genuine Christians can sincerely believe that participation in the state sponsored institution of marriage is giving tacit support for sin.The question is, how do you respond to genuine Christians that see it differently than you do?

From what I have seen on this thread, the most likely response to their desire to please God and recapture the intent of the institution of marriage is to claim (without any support from scripture, btw):

1. their marriage is invalid without state approval

2. they are living in sin/are engaging in fornication

3. their children are bastards

peace to youraying:

I believe polygamy is wrong. But you guys are saying Polygamy is condemned by scripture. Show me. Pauls letter to Timothy shows the pastoral preferance but doesn't seem to condemn non clergy to be involved. The only place I can see it is a refererance to Adultry but how does it refer to multiple wifes if marriage was made? After all look at all the people in the bible who had more than one wife and we consider them righteous. Where is the condemnation? Preference yes Condemnation I'm not certain about.

 

[John Toppass]

I believe polygamy is wrong. But you guys are saying Polygamy is condemned by scripture. Show me. Pauls letter to Timothy shows the pastoral preferance but doesn't seem to condemn non clergy to be involved. The only place I can see it is a refererance to Adultry but how does it refer to multiple wifes if marriage was made? After all look at all the people in the bible who had more than one wife and we consider them righteous. Where is the condemnation? Preference yes Condemnation I'm not certain about.

HUH?? So now the bible contains preferances and not instruction? Which chapter of the book of whatever is this found?

 

[canadyjd]

Pauls letter to Timothy shows the pastoral preferance but doesn't seem to condemn non clergy to be involved.

Even though this is off subject, I'll respond.

The pastoral qualifications (and deacons as well) are not the qualifications of "super-Christians". They are the qualifications of Christian leaders that will be examples of what Christians should be. The only exception, IMHO, is the gift of teaching which is a requirement for pastors, but not for deacons.

Therefore, their being the example, and the requirement of being a "one woman man", tells us that polygamy is condemned.

Also, the institution of marriage began with God's statement that "the two shall become one flesh". You cannot have "two become one flesh" if 3 or more are involved.

God's intention for marriage did not include polygamy. That is a cultural deviation that must be rejected.

peace to youraying:

 

[Marcia]

I have not argued that, and I do believe polygamy is condemned by scripture.I've tried this before, but I'll try again. You basically have 2 arguments. The first is that common law marriage violates Roms. 13, that we are to obey the government.

But common law marriage does not result in disobedience to the government because there is no law (in the other 39 states that don't recognize common law marriage) that forbids a couple from taking vows before God, telling family and friends they are married, moving in together and raising a family.

If you know of a state that makes it illegal to do so, please point me that that statute.

The consequence, if you will, of not getting a state license, is that the state will not recognize the marriage as valid. That will have implications about how you file taxes and other such dealings with the state.

For someone who believes state sponsored marriage has become so corrupt that to participate in it would be an affront to God, such consequence has no meaning since their desire is to please God and not man.

Your second argument, as I see it, is that such actions goes against the norms/culture of our society, and to participate sets a bad example for Christianity.

I have pointed out, with scripture, how cultural traditions corrupted the origional institution of marriage as given by God. God said that for this reason a man should leave his father and mother, be joined with his wife and the two become one flesh. (btw, that is the best argument against polygamy, imo, you can't have "two become one flesh" if there are 3 or more)

Examples of culture corrupting God's intentions for marriage in scripture are polygamy, concubines, prostitution, divorce, homos*xuality, and even non-believers marrying believers just to mention some.

If the cultural corruption has filtered into the state sponsored "marriage" by acceptance of divorce, inter-marriage between believers and unbelievers, homose*ual unions (all of which are recognized, at least in some states), then some genuine Christians can sincerely believe that participation in the state sponsored institution of marriage is giving tacit support for sin.The question is, how do you respond to genuine Christians that see it differently than you do?

From what I have seen on this thread, the most likely response to their desire to please God and recapture the intent of the institution of marriage is to claim (without any support from scripture, btw):

1. their marriage is invalid without state approval

2. they are living in sin/are engaging in fornication

3. their children are bastards

peace to youraying:

The things you mention that "corrupt" state sanctioned marriage, such as adultery and divorce, are not any worse than affairs or divorce in a marriage "before God" without the state. The corruption is not in what the state allows but what people do. Does foregoing state marriage somehow protect the couple from corruption? I would say absolutely not.

The state may also give health benefits to gay partners. So will this couple forego health insurance if they work for the state? Their taxes may go to fund state or local hospitals that perform abortions. Will they stop paying taxes or not enter a hospital if they need surgery?

I find this attitude smug and unrealistic, which is not a biblical way of dealing with the world.

 

[annsni]

What really makes me laugh is the idea that "We're not going to get married because marriages end in divorce and adultery, homosexuals are now and will in the future be able to marry and I just don't want to be tied to that. Instead, we're going to do our own thing and just commit before God and a few friends (or maybe not a few friends) that we're going to commit to each other forever." is separating from the evil of this world. YET, is this not exactly what the world has already been doing AND homosexuals have been doing?

So by going common law, we are disobeying the law in many states, and we are disregarding God's command to marry. In order to have a common law marriage (in other words, in order to be married) in 48 of the states, cohabitation must occur for there to be a valid state marriage. In other words, the appearance of fornication must occur in order to be married. I do not see that as being supported in Scripture in any form or fashion.

Those who wish to disregard Biblical teaching and the law of the land are being dishonest and disobedient IMO.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

HUH?? So now the bible contains preferances and not instruction? Which chapter of the book of whatever is this found?

Show me scripture that say polygamy is wrong. That should be easy enough.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Even though this is off subject, I'll respond.

The pastoral qualifications (and deacons as well) are not the qualifications of "super-Christians". They are the qualifications of Christian leaders that will be examples of what Christians should be. The only exception, IMHO, is the gift of teaching which is a requirement for pastors, but not for deacons.

Therefore, their being the example, and the requirement of being a "one woman man", tells us that polygamy is condemned.

Also, the institution of marriage began with God's statement that "the two shall become one flesh". You cannot have "two become one flesh" if 3 or more are involved.

God's intention for marriage did not include polygamy. That is a cultural deviation that must be rejected.

peace to youraying:

I'm not trying to go off topic its just something I noticed in your discussion.

First of all you have to derive this answer. It's not stated in scripture at all. Decons are to be an example I don't disagree but I don't find condemnation either.
second, two become one flesh is showing a multiple state into one state. So Mary and Bob become one flesh the mary and bob flesh are joined by by sue. Still one flesh. Listen like I said before I think its wrong but the consept is derived at not specifically stated and I don't find condemnation for polygamy anywhere in the bible. Find the verse that condemns it was my only point.

 

[Aaron]

Show me scripture that say polygamy is wrong. That should be easy enough.

Have ye not read that He which created them in the beginning created one woman for the man?

 

[Aaron]

Does anyone here know what Common Law is? There are a lot of judgments being passed on common law marriage by those who appear to be dreadfully ignorant of the concept.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Have ye not read that He which created them in the beginning created one woman for the man?

Book and verse please.

 

[Aaron]

You should change your handle to unThinkingstuffedshirt.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You should change your handle to unThinkingstuffedshirt.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Woah... Ha ha ha ha ha ha good one. * wipes a tear from the corner of my eye* (Sarcasm. I love it.)


Where you being sarcastic on your previous post? If you were; you're right I didn't catch it. Hard to catch sometimes when things are typed.

On the other hand if you're referring to Genesis that still doesn't meet my contention that the bible doesn't condemn polygamy. Many things changed since then. God made them naked. Later they had to be clothed and now to be naked publically is shameful.

 

[canadyjd]

First of all you have to derive this answer. It's not stated in scripture at all..........two become one flesh is showing a multiple state into one state.

What is stated in scripture is clear. The "two" become "one flesh". You have to "derive" that God doesn't mind polygamy because He doesn't say "two....not three or four or more....two....just two...and no more than two....." become "one flesh".

That is not only "deriving" something not in scripture, that is turning somersaults and backflips and loop d loops with scripture to come to that conclusion.

So Mary and Bob become one flesh the mary and bob flesh are joined by by sue. Still one flesh.

That is the most convoluted reasoning I have ever seen.

peace to youraying:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What is stated in scripture is clear. The "two" become "one flesh". You have to "derive" that God doesn't mind polygamy because He doesn't say "two....not three or four or more....two....just two...and no more than two....." become "one flesh".

That is not only "deriving" something not in scripture, that is turning somersaults and backflips and loop d loops with scripture to come to that conclusion.That is the most convoluted reasoning I have ever seen.

peace to youraying:

Fine but show me one passage in the Bible that Condemns Polygamy out right. Condemns it mind you. Like Homosexuality is clearly condemned in scripture. I can even show you verses. Why can't you show me a scripture verse that condemns polygamy? Just one condemning polygamy. One that says its an abomination. Just one please. Can you?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Here is an application that is reasonable. And to be honest I saw it play out where I grew up.

In Kenya there is a tribe of people called Maasai. They permit and value several wives. More wives mean more children means greater weath to the man who has the wives. Now along with having many wives is a responsibility of taking care of them and the children.

Along come some missionaries that I know. They preach the Gospel and the married Maassai man accepts Jesus as his personal savior. But later is confronted by the fact that he has multiple wives. The missionary tells him that in order to be right in God's eyes he must give up his wives and choose one.

Now the man has a choice to make. He has to choose one wife. If he lets go of the others he doesn't have the responsibility of having to spend his wealth on them to take care of them. Good deal so far. He ends up staying with the youngest wife since she's a teenager and will bare him more children. And he doesn't have to take care of his wives who are now "spoiled" and may have a difficult time finding a husband. Especially, the older ones. These women who have a culture responsibility to have children may now not be able to and its a shame to them. For the man its a win win situation. For the women devestating.
Other men come to this man and ask how can they have such an opportunity? And he tells them to accept Jesus.

Now for those of you living in Ivory Towers in your comfortable air conditioned western homes with Cable television and access to Mcdonalds. What do you think about the situation these people find themselves in now? Was it responsible for the missionary to tell them that? Or to permit Polygamy and its responsibility teaching the younger ones its wrong?

Still show me one verse that out right condemns polygamy and calls it an abomination as scripture does for homosexuality.

Ridicule me all you want. But I've witnessed this very thing.

 

[canadyjd]

Fine but show me one passage in the Bible that Condemns Polygamy out right. Condemns it mind you. Like Homosexuality is clearly condemned in scripture. I can even show you verses. Why can't you show me a scripture verse that condemns polygamy? Just one condemning polygamy. One that says its an abomination. Just one please. Can you?

You have stated several times you believe polygamy is wrong. Why do you believe it is wrong?

peace to youraying:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You have stated several times you believe polygamy is wrong. Why do you believe it is wrong?

peace to youraying:

Because the example given in Timothy for a deacon is a "husband of one wife". My point primarily because of the post above your last one is that I don't find it condemned as people are saying. I view it kind of like divorse. Divorse in my mind is wrong in all instances however God permits it for a specified reason. But the person who finds themselves divorsed for that reason are not condemned. The fact is I find no where in the bible strong language against Polygamy. You do with divorse ( he who remarries commits adultry) and Homosexuality (abomination) but not Polygamy. Unless I'm wrong and you can find one. But read my previous post and see Why I'm harping on this a little bit despite what Aaron has to say.

 

[canadyjd]

Because the example given in Timothy for a deacon is a "husband of one wife". My point primarily because of the post above your last one is that I don't find it condemned as people are saying.

What you are doing is making an argument from silence. Your argument is that, even though scripture clearly gives the positive command as an example (the two shall become one flesh....a husband of one wife), since scripture doesn't specifically condemn all possible violations of the positive example...it can't be proven to be wrong or a violation of scripture.

Concerning your example concerning the African with many wives (I heard the same story years ago, BTW, so it must be happening a lot over there) a Christian should not abandon a woman who has been his wife. Even if he choses to keep one, he should still honor his commitment to them and to care and provide for them.

If the missionary told him different, then the missionary is wrong.

peace to youraying:

 

[John Toppass]

Fine but show me one passage in the Bible that Condemns Polygamy out right. Condemns it mind you. Like Homosexuality is clearly condemned in scripture. I can even show you verses. Why can't you show me a scripture verse that condemns polygamy? Just one condemning polygamy. One that says its an abomination. Just one please. Can you?

HMMMMM so you want someone to find something in the bible that states what you demand it should state even tho throughout the bible the very same something is stated plainly in various ways. Kinda makes me wonder whose word you hold as the real truth.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

HMMMMM so you want someone to find something in the bible that states what you demand it should state even tho throughout the bible the very same something is stated plainly in various ways. Kinda makes me wonder whose word you hold as the real truth.

You know Canadyjd made a lot more sense. I'm not sure what you're saying. But the bottom lines seems to be you can't find a verse to support your assertion. Hmmm.