Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I guess I get to sign up first.
    
    -- Mike

        Elaine and I were married in a civil ceremony, so I am not sure
       if I qualify or not. 
        However we lived together before we were married which would
       certainly meet the requirements for signing up.
        Then again I've never repented for previously having been a 
       fornicator, so I guess I still might be one.
         As usual I am confused by the finer points of distinguishing
       what is or is not as sin.
          
                                                               Mike
       

    
            In the strict intrepretation on the bible, even the thought
    would make you qualify.....so.....Yup.  Though any further comment
    would be delving into my personal life so I'll leave it there.  :^)
    
    
    Dave

	I am not allowed to get married, so I guess I'll always be one! 



Glen

    Mike, I think you definitely qualify as one if you and your wife used
    to live together.  In my own case, I am about to become a serious
    fornicator this Wednesday, when I will acquire a female roommate, to
    whom I am not married (not only that, but she is a *gasp* Christian!)

    I think you have raised a valid point, though, in that we probably need
    an official definition of fornication.  We could call it the Human
    Un-sinful Manual of Practices, or HUMP for short.  Whenever you wanted
    to know if you were sinning or not, you could just consult the HUMP
    guide.  It could contain an alphabetized listing with topics like
    "Breasts, Kissing", or "Whipped Cream During Foreplay"--pretty much
    whatever you might need to know on the subject of human sexuality.  Of
    course, under "Homosexual" (pronounced, of course, like any good street
    preacher would, as "Home-oh-sex-you-ell"), it would simply prohibit the
    practice altogether.

    -- Mike

    You guys are gonna roast in.... well, you know.
    
    Mike

    Hafta admit...
    
    I've been HUMPing (fornicating and much more  8^o ) for years now.  
    By all indications it's not going to change anytime soon -- unless 
    I receive a proposal I just *can't* refuse....  
    
    8^)
    
    Karen              

    RE: 6
    
    Thanks, I sure didn't want to be the first to say it, because I've
    gotten jumped on, and probably still will...but even though I do and
    have fornicated, it is NOTHING to be proud of.  That's why I continue
    to pray for forgiveness, and that God will hear me and do so, though I
    may continue...a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do...but that still
    doesn't make it right in the sight of God, and good for the soul that
    hopes to make it to heaven or the kingdom of God.  
    
    If it weren't for the backwardness and difficult time it is to get
    along with women these days, I'd marry and stay that way, but black or
    white, all seem to be troubling in marriage.  So occasionally, when my
    chest gets too heavy I've GOT to have release, I don't hide from God,
    but acknowledge him in all that I do.  And I don't say just because I
    know I'm gonna do it, that there's no need to ask forgiveness, because
    I know that's not the point, the point is staying clean.  Just like we
    sweat/perspire each day, and get dirty, we still bath/shower each day,
    I wouldn't EVER say that because I know I'm gonna sweat or get dirty
    today it's fruitless to bath or shower!  It is also written in
    scripture don't stand long in sin, don't pile sin upon sin...and this
    is of relevance in these matters...I'm not proud to sin.
    
    Playtoe

    Playtoe, the smiley face in the title of reply 6 suggests to me that
    the author was being, well, tongue in cheek, so I suspect that makes
    you the first one to really say it after all.

    And to all you beloved HUMPers and fornicators in this notes file, I
    hereby declare today, May 23, as International Fornicator Pride Day, in
    your (and my) honor.

    -- Mike

re Note 237.3 by DPDMAI::DAWSON:

>             In the strict intrepretation on the bible, even the thought
>     would make you qualify.....

        I believe that President Jimmy Carter was recorded as saying
        something to that effect.

        Bob

Well,....I'm not sure how proud I am of it now....but, in the days before
we were married, when we were just fornicating fools, I have to confess
that I sure enjoyed it at the time.

Presently, I'm very married and as loyal as a puppy dog.

And, I have to confess, I do occassionally fantasize, but I do not dwell
in the fantasy.  I realize that, regardless of this, it is still a sin
and that I am a sinner.  Did I ever say I was perfect?

Peace,
Richard

    Playtoe,
    
    as I understand it, using your hand is much less of a sin, if it
    one at all...( the text on Onan is, to my mind, not against
    self release). 
    
    and to add to the confessions, 'the DR' and I knew each other
    before our marriage, also, Richard....
    
    
    and Mike, give E my love and hugs, I'm *so* glad you two found
    each other... may you have many joyous times together.....
    
    much love
    
    Bonnie

    Haven't had the time (or inclination) to note here lately.  But I
    peeked in here today and look what I find.
    
    Sure I'll sign up, what the heck, got nothin' better else to do...
    
    Ro
    

    This is really getting weird....???????? 
    
    %-),$-),&-),:)

    Re: 12
    
    Bonnie, I half way agree.
    
    I have an interpretation of Isaiah 66 that gives a beautiful method of 
    making love without penetrating the vagina, which is the crux of the
    sin of fornication (i.e. we should not "break the walls" of the vaginal
    opening with no intention of procreating, the feelings that come from
    penetrating intercourse create too strong emotions for the average 
    person to handle (and I can elaborate this.  In the chapter, I perceive
    it to say that the man and woman handle either, he kissing and sucking
    and playing with her breasts and rubbing her clitoris (but not
    penetrating the vagina, she "dandling" (i.e. makeing up and down
    motion) the penis between her thighs or in her hands, thus both reach
    climax, but the thought of possible pregnancy is eliminated,
    procreation is a powerful force of reality.
    
    So I agree that the "use of hands" is ok, but not upon yourself. 
    Actually, I reading only recently, either in Nag Hammadi or it was in
    the "the pale fox" a book on Dogon religious ideas, where it calls such
    self attention, "consorting with self" and it was said that this is not
    good...."consorting with self" think about that.
    
    I'll post my interpretation of Isaiah 66 next week.
    
    Playtoe

    Darn!!  I guess I won't get to pitch the first stone!!
    
    Richard

    Stephen,
    
    the only thing in the entire Bible that can possibly be considered
    as being against masturbation, as a sexual release, is the story
    of Onan. and his 'sin' was that he with drew from sexual intercourse
    with his brother's widow, with whom he was *not* married, because
    he did not want to give his seed to raise a child of his seed to
    be his brother's child. His sin was failure to give his brother's
    widow a child, not masturbation.
    
    Do you think that the unmarried are sinners if they masturate?
    
    I do not.
    
    Bonnie

    and I think Onan was married....so God must condone adultery
    in some situations..i.e. he was *punished* not for having
    sexual relations as a married man with his brother's widow....
    
    no, he was *supposed* to do that...
    
    he was condemed for not making her pregnant.......
    
    interesting, huh?
    
    BJ

    re: .15
    
    Oh, *darn*!  I'm scr....errrr....I'm in trouble now!  (*8 
    
    Good thing I don't believe in the same God a lot of you seem to, since
    I don't believe in marriage, I will never have children, I don't
    believe in celibacy, and I *am* the aforementioned roommate-to-be!
    
    
    E Grace_who_won't_be_staying_in_this_file
    

    E....
    
    wish you would, you Christian Quaker, fornicator, you, ..
    love you and Mike so much...
    
    btw, I looked up Onan, in Cruden's concordance, and there is
    *no* mention of his name, or seed in reference to him, or
    spilling....
    
    guess itwas too risque to mention, in the offical lists..
    
    sigh
    
    Bonnie

    RE: 17
    
    Bonnie, I've actually seen nothing in the scripture about
    "masturbation", but I also don't see anything about a lot things which
    we call by english terms....that's why God was wise in providing
    "descriptive" references, "you'll know them by their fruit", rather
    than by name.  Anyway, here's the scripture in Isaiah I was referring
    to:
    
    Isaiah 66: 9-14
    
    "Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth (abortion)?
    saith the Lord, shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb (tying
    tubes/hysterectomy)? saith thy God.
    	Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love
    her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her.
    	That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her
    consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance
    of her glory.
    	For thus saith the Lord, behold I will extend peace to her like a
    river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream; then shall
    ye such, ye shall be borne upon her sides, and be dandles upon her
    knees.
    	As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you, and ye
    shall be comforted in Jerusalem.
    	And when ye see this, your heart shall rejoice, and your bones
    shall florish like an herb, and the HAND of the Lord shall be known
    toward his servants, and his indignation toward his enemies."
    
    Can you hear what the Spirit is saying?
    
    Playtoe

    
    	Last I read, we are to be REPENTANT not PROUD of sin.
    
    	_ed-

    If I don't consider it a sin, there is nothing to be repentant of.
    
    -- Mike

	If every person were to open themselves up and be filled with the
	full presence of God while they were having sex, I believe they 
	would be glorifying God....no matter what the circumstances were.  
	In that state, you can only love.  You cannot do harm.

	I read recently in a book (and I can't remember which one it was)
	that if people were to have sex in this state, there would be no
	need for birth control, as only those who really wanted a child
	at that time would conceive.  What a beautiful thought!

	Carole  

    Not only that, Carole, but you don't have to be in the missionary
    position to glorify God.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

	"But fornication and all uncleaness or unbridled greedy lust, let it not
even be named among you, as is fitting for saints;" 

Ephesians 5:3

	

    Oh, well, since you put it that way, I guess that settles it.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

re.27

	God already settled the matter. 

	I just mentioned it.

	Decide.


ace

    That's your opinion.
    
    -- Mike

    RE: 23
    
    Two scriptures for you Mike:
    
    1)	Where there is no law there is no sin.
    
    2)	But when the law came, I died...in the law is death.
    
    So, as long as you don't have laws you'll never sin...but God has laws
    for you if you plan to see him. 
    
    

    Thanks, Playtoe, for sharing that with me.  However, as I mentioned, I
    don't consider what many people define here as "fornication" to be a
    sin.
    
    -- Mike

    Another scripture for you, Playtoe...
    
      As you believe so shall ye be.
    
    
    Nanci  }:-)
    
    

Note 237.26

>	"But fornication and all uncleaness or unbridled greedy lust, let it not
>even be named among you, as is fitting for saints;"  (Ephesians 5.3)

	Is it possible that the first century understanding of fornication
does not correspond to what we now call fornication?  That is, like what
we've heard happened to concepts such as engagement and marriage?

>Note 229.94

>This does not correspond either to what we now call a marriage or what
>we now call an engagement.

Whimsically,
Richard

    
    re .32
    
    	Nanci,
    		Scripture reference please.  Can you give that to us in
    context.
    
    	ed

    re.33
    
    	Ok, Richard.
    
    	So are you saying that in another 100 years or so, if our idea of
    what lying or stealing or murder or ...  changes then Gods' laws need
    to adapt to our perception of sin rather then us conforming to His idea
    of righteousness?
    
    	_ed-

re Note 237.35 by CSC32::LECOMPTE:

>                               -< I don't buy it. >-

        If I may be so bold to but in:

>     	So are you saying that in another 100 years or so, if our idea of
>     what lying or stealing or murder or ...  changes then Gods' laws need
>     to adapt to our perception of sin rather then us conforming to His idea

        Ed,

        Either Richard didn't express it well, or you didn't read it
        well.

        What Richard was saying is that if in 100 years, the words
        "lying" or "stealing" mean something other than what they
        mean today (which is approximately what they mean in the
        current Biblical texts), then for a 21st-century Noter to
        start a topic "Liars and proud of it" would not be
        necessarily counter to Scripturally-based morality.

        (The issue of adapting God's laws doesn't come up, it's just
        a matter of linguistic usage.)

        Bob

    Ed,
    
    I can't remember the reference off the top of my head.  I'll see if I
    can find it over the weekend.  
    
    Nanci

RE.29

>That's your opinion.

What then does Eph 5:3 mean in Quaker beliefs? 



ace

re.16

>John 8:7

	Ahem.

	Read on....

	John 8:11  "...go, and from now on, sin no more"

    Ace,
    
    I don't speak for all Quakers.  Quakers disagree among themselves on
    many issues of theology.  I am sure that different Quakers would react
    differently to the passage you cited.
    
    -- Mike

    Re: 31
    
    Actually, the bible speaks of two forms of fornication, one is a
    commandment, the other is statute.  The one we're speaking of here is a
    statute (i.e. having sex out of marriage), the other is "fornication
    with idols", which is against the first commandment "Thou shalt have no
    other god before me."
    
    Not to commit Adultery is the commandment, if you're married you SHOULD
    NOT sleep around.  Sex "fornication" is like "worshipping idols" in
    that you are making love to someone you do not love (an idol, being
    unreal, you do not love, because though you think you do it is not
    god, can you see the correlation? kind of the reverse scenerio.)
    
    Fornication "defiles" YOUR spirit, like putting your eggs in a basket
    with holes in it, like "casting your pearls to swine" (I'm not calling
    any person a swine, I'm just making an analogy).  
    
    God has a high regard for "seeds" and how and where they're planted.
    
    Commandments, seem to have more collective ramifications when broken,
    statutes are more for the "individuals" well being.
    
    Playtoe
    
    

    RE: 32
    
    I can accept that...but I also believe in having multiple wives!
    
    The bible says, "Do not become one with a harlot (one who sleeps
    around)", I know from experience the reason for this, IT'LL TEAR YOUR
    HEART APART.  The bible says "the bishop and the deacons should have 
    ONE wife", one could say this infers others may have more!
    
    Playtoe

    RE: 33
    
>	Is it possible that the first century understanding of fornication
>does not correspond to what we now call fornication? 
    
    If what we now call fornication is not what they meant long ago, we
    better find out what THEY meant and do that.  If we change the meaning
    of what they were meaning when they said it, then we have effectively
    removed ourselves from the realm of what they meant, and are on our
    own.  Surely, you can't change the meaning and yet expect the SAME
    rewards..."lean NOT unto thine own understanding."
    
    I think it is IMPERATIVE that we do what ever we can to find and obey
    the original meaning of the scriptures.  I will never work us changing
    the meaning and expect God to respect that new meaning as replacing the
    old.  Consider this, "Who authorized the change, God or men?"  Who gave
    us the original, God or men?"  If God gave it, men can't change it.  If
    men gave it, then indeed do with it as you will...but the bible itself
    says, it came not by the will of men, but by the will of God.  So if
    you say men gave it, you've already begun to change the meaning.
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 36
    
>        (The issue of adapting God's laws doesn't come up, it's just
>        a matter of linguistic usage.)
    
    I think this is known as "deception".

    Re; The Discussion so far
    
    I really think we're doing something with this topic...seriously
    discussing it.  I like this...
    
    Mike, it's safe for you to keep ducking behind "denominations" but are
    you finding any answers for YOU, are YOU coming to the understanding
    that will help YOU do the will of God?  To me, your comments are more
    like footnotes, something to which I feel strange responding to, am I
    talking to YOU or to the multitude of Quakers and their various
    beliefs?
    
    Playtoe

    Actually, Playtoe, I am very  much satisfied with the answers I have
    come to considering the questions of sexual morality.  I was asked a
    question about how my denomination felt about that particular issue,
    and I answered  that there is no single Quaker response to the
    question.  I *have* expressed my own views on this issue here in this
    topic, as well as elsewhere, but I cannot say that this is how
    "Quakers" as a group feel about it.  I know that unprogrammed Quakers
    have generally moved in the direction of accepting homosexuality (some
    Quaker meetings even perform same-sex marriages now), but the Friends
    United Meeting (which represents most programmed Quakers in the U.S.)
    has generally been less accepting of homosexuality.

    I always speak for myself when I write in this notes conference.  I may
    or may not also be expressing characteristic Quaker views at the same
    time; if so, I usually identify those views with Quakerism.  Otherwise,
    I don't speak for other Quakers.

    -- Mike

re Note 237.44 by SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST:

> >        (The issue of adapting God's laws doesn't come up, it's just
> >        a matter of linguistic usage.)
>     
>     I think this is known as "deception".
  
        Playtoe,

        There are scores (hundreds?) of words whose principal common
        meaning has changed over the centuries for all sorts of
        reasons.  Some of them may even be words that are used in
        English translations of the Bible.  Is this ordinary
        evolution of language "deception" to you?

        Bob

    Re: 47
    
    >    English translations of the Bible.  Is this ordinary
    >    evolution of language "deception" to you?
    
    No, that's not what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is if you believe that
    the "ordinary evolution of language" which has caused the change of
    meaning of the original words used in the bible--what they
    meant--qualifies us to change the meanings of the original intent of
    the bible, I think you are deceived, and if you teach that you are
    teaching "deception".  
    
    What SHOULD occur is, if a word today no longer means what it meant
    yesterday, when you translate yesterday's words into today's english,
    you'd better use the today's english word for yesterday's words. 
    You must remember when someone translates a word from one language to
    another, you're translating "meanings"...if the new translation doesn't
    mean the same as that from which it was translated, then that is a
    "mistranslation", wouldn't you say?  
    
    Playtoe

    Playtoe,
    
    	I agree with nearly everything you said in 237.43.  You've
    articulated one of the main reasons I personally rarely read
    the King James version of the Bible.  The English language has
    changed that much in just 300 years.
    
    Richard

    First of all, "fornication" is such a value-loaded term, I really
    don't care for it.  But for those who wish to take its Biblical
    meaning (any sexual activity outside of marriage between a man
    and a woman), I'm sure I'm considered a fornicator, even though
    I've been in a committed, monogamous relationship with my
    partner for 13 years.
    
    Question: if we were married by a Unitarian Universalist
    minister, would we no longer be considered fornicators?  There is
    a UU minister in Portsmouth NH who marries same-sex
    partners.
    
    Richard

    RE: 50
    
    In my way of seeing things, "two become one" by the power of love, and
    not by a piece of paper.  Marriage, therefore, means when two people
    fall in love.  The "Marriage License" is something that is "rendered to
    Ceasar", or to the State, for legal purposes.  This is supported also
    by the fact that according to the State, two people are legally married
    if they 'live together for more than 6 months', known as "Common Law"
    marriage.  If the Marriage license was a "requirement" for true
    marriage, the Common Law marriage could not be recognised...anyway, my
    brother, if you love God, do his will according to how he said it.  If
    you don't, I guess don't worry about ANY of it. 
    
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 237.50
    
Richard,

	There are growing numbers of clergy who are willing to officiate
and bless covenantal relationships within same-sex dyads.

	Among them are some Unitarian Universalist ministers, as you
mentioned.  Among churches more traditional in theology, the MCC
(Metropolitan Community Church) will consecrate and honor Holy Unions,
that is, same-sex marriages.

	A friend of mine and his lover were counseled and united in
a religious ceremony performed by an Episcopalian priest.  The priest
did so without support from the larger Episcopal body.  But, he did do
it.

	Members of Dumbarton United Methodist Church favored sanctifying
the marriage of two women in their church, but their bishop refused to
allow the ceremony on UMC premises and threatened to have the credentials
of their pastor revoked if he officiated the event.  And so, the sanctuary
of another denomination was secured and a United Methodist layperson
conducted the celebration of love and commitment between the two women,
as witnessed by a congregation consisting mostly of United Methodists.

	Mike Valenza, do you know where Friends currently stand on
overseeing same-sex weddings?  I suspect it varies widely; that there
is currently no consensus.

	Actually, Richard, after 13 years of fidelity with the same
partner, it sounds like you might be more married now than many heterosexual
couples who've experienced a church-sanctioned ritual of matrimony.

Peace,
Richard

    somewhere in this file, Collis dismissed my assertation about
    sexual relations being acceptable after a formal betrothal..
    
    but when Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem, she was still his
    'espoused' wife.... I can't imagine that in those times a man
    and a woma could be allowed to travel together as spouses,
    and not have it expected, under 'normal' situations that they
    were not intimate.
    
    Sorry Collis, but I'll accept the word of scholars and preachers
    and other sources who told me that was the 'norm' before I'll
    accept your casual dismissal of me as being wrong.
    
    Bonnie

    Richard,

    To answer your question about Friends overseeing same-sex weddings, you
    are correct that there is currently no consensus on this issue.  As I
    understand it, the Friends United Meeting has taken a stand against
    homosexuality in general; but many unprogrammed meetings outside of
    FUM, on the other hand, have performed same-sex marriages.  The
    following item appeared in the December, 1989 issue of Friends Journal:

    	Although a few meetings considered same-sex marriages in the 1970s,
        the first known same-sex union under the care of a meeting occurred
        in Seattle's University Meeting in 1981 when two women requested
        marriage.  Some Friends had reservations about calling it marriage,
        so the meeting went forward with a ceremony, calling it a
        "celebration of commitment."  Since then, several meetings have
        had celebrations of commitment...

        The first recorded single-sex marriage in a Friends meeting
        occurred at Morningside (N.Y.) Meeting in 1987.  Five other
        marriages occurred later that year at Grass Valley (Calif.)
        Meeting, Penn Valley (Mo.) Meeting, North Meadow Circle of Friends
        (Ind.), Twin Cities (Minn.) Meeting, and Berkeley (Calif.) Meeting.

        Judging from the minutes produced by these meetings and by several
        other meetings that have registered their support for single-sex
        marriages or ceremonies of commitment, the search of clearness on
        this issue has catalyzed a re-evaluation of the meaning of a
        marriage when it occurs under the care of a meeting.

    -- Mike

| First of all, "fornication" is such a value-loaded term, I really
| don't care for it.  But for those who wish to take its Biblical
| meaning (any sexual activity outside of marriage between a man
| and a woman), I'm sure I'm considered a fornicator, 

	Richard! You can't be a fornicator! Remember, it's any sexual activity
outside of marriage between a man AND a WOMAN! So you're scott free! ;-)

| even though
| I've been in a committed, monogamous relationship with my
| partner for 13 years.

	Talk about love! How many marriages last that long these days? I guess
it goes to show you that it's LOVE that will keep people together, not a piece
of paper. It would seem that God IS a very BIG part of your life Richard, and
I'm sure you seek his help when things go wrong, and I know God is there for
you. Wouldn't it be great if you could get the same respect from ALL people that
you get from God? Wouldn't it be great to be able to walk into a church (any
church) with your partner (husband for all practical purposes) and NOT have
anyone flinch? Maybe someday people will get over it and love everyone,
regardless of their differences, the way God loves us.

| Question: if we were married by a Unitarian Universalist
| minister, would we no longer be considered fornicators?  

	Good question Richard!

| There is
| a UU minister in Portsmouth NH who marries same-sex
| partners.

	Thanks Richard. You never know when that info will come in handy! :-)



Glen

| In my way of seeing things, "two become one" by the power of love, and
| not by a piece of paper.  

	I guess I should have read on BEFORE I replied, huh?

| Marriage, therefore, means when two people
| fall in love.  The "Marriage License" is something that is "rendered to
| Ceasar", or to the State, for legal purposes.  

	Ceasar, the State, aren't they one in the same? ;-)

| This is supported also
| by the fact that according to the State, two people are legally married
| if they 'live together for more than 6 months', known as "Common Law"
| marriage.  

	Is this just for heterosexual couples? Are you talking about
Massachusetts? The reason I ask is if you become leagally married after
6 months of living together, then I would think that then the benifits
you receive from a "legal marriage" should come into play, right?

| If the Marriage license was a "requirement" for true
| marriage, the Common Law marriage could not be recognised...anyway, my
| brother, if you love God, do his will according to how he said it.  If
| you don't, I guess don't worry about ANY of it.

	Can you elaborate on that Playtoe? I'm not 100% sure of what you meant
and don't want to jump to conclusions. Thanks! :-)

Glen

    RE: 56
    
> is "rendered to
>| Ceasar", or to the State, for legal purposes.  

>	Ceasar, the State, aren't they one in the same? ;-)
    
    That's what I was trying to say, "rendered to Ceasar" means "State".
    
>	Is this just for heterosexual couples? Are you talking about
>Massachusetts? The reason I ask is if you become leagally married after
>6 months of living together, then I would think that then the benifits
>you receive from a "legal marriage" should come into play, right?
    
    The time varies from state to state (6 months on up), but I believe
    every, if not most states, have a Common Law marriage law.  For the
    most part this law applies to heterosexual couples.  And the benefits
    you receive from a "legal marriage" do come into play, especially in
    terms of "dividing the things the house has gained since you two were
    living there together"...
    
>| If the Marriage license was a "requirement" for true
>| marriage, the Common Law marriage could not be recognised...anyway, my
>| brother, if you love God, do his will according to how he said it.  If
>| you don't, I guess don't worry about ANY of it.
    
>	Can you elaborate on that Playtoe? I'm not 100% sure of what you meant
>and don't want to jump to conclusions. Thanks! :-)
    
    If the Marriage "license" was a requirement, I mean to say "in the
    sight of God"...which in turn suggests that marriage is when two people
    fall in love and consummate that love by engaging in sex...I think the
    crux of the matter is rooted in "having sex".
    

	Thanks! I appreciate it.



Glen

    Most states do *not* recognize Common-Law marriages.  Those that do
    require something more like 7 years of living together.  However, since
    living together without benefit of marriage is illegal in most states
    (still!) this becomes a catch-22.
    
    Also, there must be a declared avowal of marriage between the two
    people involved.
    
    E Grace
    

    E Grace
    
    I thought it wasn't so much a 'clared avowal of marriage' but that
    they gave the impression to outsiders that they were married..
    or is that the same thing?
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .59   E,
    
                  In Texas its 24 hours and anything that relates you two
    as a husband and wife....ie....Mr. & Mrs. at the local motel regestry.
    Quite a few people have been "caught" on this one. :-)
    
    Dave

    RE: Common Law Marriages
    
    Yes, I stand corrected...been watching too many movies about Texas!
    
    But, the point still stands about "common law" marriages being as legal
    as paper ones...I think sex has a lot to do with it.
    
    This point was made, however, to say that fornication and adultery
    involves people in love, moreso than people bound by paper.  "Adultery"
    means to "adulterate" or "contaminate" the LOVE RELATIONSHIP, IMHO.
    
    But, bottom line is for all fornicators who are proud of it, please try
    to pray a little for that.  You know, I've found it a terrible thing to
    get use to justifying sinful acts, once you start it's hard to stop! 
    One thing leads to another and the next thing you know you've totally
    rejected the spirit of godliness in you and then that's when the
    trouble starts.
    
    Playtoe

Note 237.62

>   ...I think sex has a lot to do with it.

With this, I could not agree more. ;-}

Richard

    RE: .62  Playtoe.... 
    
    >Yes, I stand corrected...been watching too many movies about Texas!
    
    
       (in my *best* John Wayne)
    
                      
               *Smile when ya say that pilgrim!*
    
    
    ;^)
    Dave       

    Dave
    
    it doesn't work without the accent!
    
    :-)
    
    BJ

    RE: .65  Bonnie,
    
                      Weeellllll....unfortunatly this is not "voice notes".
    
    ;^)
    Dave

    Yeah, I know, the way we New Englanders 'read' what you write isn't
    the way you 'speak' it.
    
    BJ

    Is anyone else beside me missing Mike and his wonderful sense of humor?
    
    
                                  Patricia

Definitely!  Mike was at his best when he was poking fun at the sexual
morality of the right, or when mocking self-righteous televangelists.
But he could also be serious, as when discussing "process theology" or
other religious theories.

I have an idea: we should institute a "Mike Valenza award" to be given to
recognize witty, satirical Valenza-like notes.

				-- Bob