[JaeByrd]

Originally Posted by MC1171611

it's hard to get into trouble from 2,300 miles away.

We had about 2,600 miles of ocean between us and while RIME did work we did most of our correspondence through snail mail and a few long and expensive phone calls. We wrote just about every day though. We covered almost every topic/issue that came up in later years of marriage, at least the major ones we could think of, before we saw each other face to face.

You're slow. It only took 3 months for Diligent to convince me. Another 3months to actually meet me. And 2 months after that to marry me. It has been about 14 1/2 years since we married and people still wonder if we're newlyweds.

Originally Posted by JaeByrd

We had about 2,600 miles of ocean between us and while RIME did work we did most of our correspondence through snail mail and a few long and expensive phone calls. We wrote just about every day though. We covered almost every topic/issue that came up in later years of marriage, at least the major ones we could think of, before we saw each other face to face.

You're slow. It only took 3 months for Diligent to convince me. Another 3months to actually meet me. And 2 months after that to marry me. It has been about 14 1/2 years since we married and people still wonder if we're newlyweds.

Amen, thats the way to go about it. Recreational dating, which is what dating is these days, is just what it sounds like, recreation. People go out to have a good time. The problem behind it is this, They go meet someone, "hook up" get emotionally involved, and then break up. This process repeats itself over and over and over, until finally, they do decide to marry someone, and when things get tough they see no trouble with a divorce, they just see it as breaking up again, and its becomes meaningless. Divorce literally means nothing in this day and age, people just shrug at it.

As for me, Im gonna do the whole courtship thing, which I imagine will be an experiance in itself. Going to someones father and saying, "hey, Im interested in your daughter, lets talk" Thats going to be akward. Then again Im 19, so I still have time to figure stuff out.

[MC1171611]

tkg, I've often said that dating, even in Baptist circles ("we're 'going out,'" etc.) is nothing but practice for divorce and emotional fornication. Sure, usually nothing actually sexual happens, but the bond between a man and a woman has more to do with than just sex. Their hearts become one (emotionally) as well, and when kids are going out with all the other kids in the church constantly, all that does is create adults with emotional scars from all those little "relationships."

My wife and I were each others' real first relationship; she had another guy interested, but nothing came of that (he was an absolute looser!!). While we went on "dates" alone when we got the chance (I only saw her three different times before we got married ), we kept everything pure and clean before God, to the best of my knowledge. Some people and their parents choose that the young people shouldn't be alone, and that's perfectly fine, not to mention advisable in almost all cases.

One more thing: don't look for a bride; let God show you the one. Waiting is a pain in the tush (I was married when I was your age ) I know, but it's more than worth it. God knows what He's doing.

Originally Posted by MC1171611

tkg, I've often said that dating, even in Baptist circles ("we're 'going out,'" etc.) is nothing but practice for divorce and emotional fornication. Sure, usually nothing actually sexual happens, but the bond between a man and a woman has more to do with than just sex. Their hearts become one (emotionally) as well, and when kids are going out with all the other kids in the church constantly, all that does is create adults with emotional scars from all those little "relationships."

My wife and I were each others' real first relationship; she had another guy interested, but nothing came of that (he was an absolute looser!!). While we went on "dates" alone when we got the chance (I only saw her three different times before we got married ), we kept everything pure and clean before God, to the best of my knowledge. Some people and their parents choose that the young people shouldn't be alone, and that's perfectly fine, not to mention advisable in almost all cases.

One more thing: don't look for a bride; let God show you the one. Waiting is a pain in the tush (I was married when I was your age ) I know, but it's more than worth it. God knows what He's doing.

Im not looking, Ive prayed about it and I know im not ready to be in charge of my own family, Theres a lot I need to do in my own life before I ever even consider that, I just find it funny to muse about sometimes, but right now my focus is God and that alone. Im sure he will hit me on the head if the one He wants for me comes along. :P But I totally agree with you on that about emotional fornification. Theres a brother in my church that I have had a talk with twice now about it. He goes around, gets attached to a girl and gets an emotional high off it (Nothing physical) and then when she gets attached and wants to be around him all the time he just quits talking to her. Its scary because he thinks hes good because hes not doing anything physical. Alas, I just pray the Lord wakes him up to that soon enough.

[Here Am I]

Thanks, I'm glad someone 'got' what I was trying to say...

Originally Posted by MC1171611

What I'm saying is that if the church's constitution expressly states Biblical reasons (and convictions, like Here Am I said) for certain things, then those have a chance of standing in a court of law. A constitution is a legally-binding document: in it certain things like nursery procedures, church policies, pastoral authority (limits and allowances), money handling and voting procedures should be laid out and followed to the tiniest detail. That constitution is basically the law of the church: if it were to come to a courthouse issue, then that church would be examined against the law of the land and the church's constitution.

If there is no "anti-discriminatory" laws that force pastors to marry whomever wants to be married, the church's constitution will safeguard the church leadership as long as it is expressly stated that homosexual couples are not to be married by the pastor of the church. That's a legal document that a situation will be judged by in addition to the city/county/state/national laws.

If you live in a place with "anti-discriminatory" laws like that...MOVE!!

[kittn1]

Originally Posted by aussiemama

Is this even much of an issue yet? As far as I understand, homosexual marriage is still illegal in most states, therefore pastors don't have to and can't marry them. Times they are a changin though.

It's legal in Canada and I live in Ontario. It could become a very real issue in a very short time for Bible preachers here if we're not proactive.

Legal experts puzzled over California justice's
seeming reversal on Prop. 8

Justice Joyce L. Kennard has been a reliable supporter of gay rights in the past, but last week she was the only Supreme Court jurist to vote AGAINST hearing legal challenges to the gay-marriage ban.

a close reading of the court's one-page order suggests that gay-rights advocates may have lost a usually predictable ally in their effort to overturn Proposition 8.

"It definitely isn't a good sign," said UCLA Law Professor Brad Sears, an expert on sexual-orientation law...

Although it is impossible to know Kennard's thinking -- justices cannot comment on pending cases -- others saw reason to suspect that Kennard may not be buying the argument that Proposition 8 was an improper revision of the state constitution.

The order said Kennard would hear a new case to resolve the validity of the 18,000 same-sex marriages "without prejudice" -- a phrase that indicates she was open to arguments on the issue. But she declined to modify her denial of the Proposition 8 challenges with those same words.

"What she seems to be saying is that she doesn't think it is worth reviewing," said UC Berkeley Law Professor Jesse H. Choper.

The legal challenges are novel. Many scholars believe the court is more likely to uphold the validity of the marriages that occurred before the election than to overturn Proposition 8. The court will decide both questions in a single ruling next year, probably in the spring or early summer.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,1631563.story

Here it comes folks, the pink agendists have already chosen their first official target, I don't care for Mormon doctrine, but I think you can expect this type of slander against the Baptists next...

Mormon anti-gay home invasion!
WATCH THE VIDEO LINK...
"This hysterical anti-Prop 8 ad really is flat-out scaremongering religious bigotry against Mormons. If the LDS church had produced an ad showing a gay couple breaking into someone's house and stealing or seducing their children, it would be about on this level of obnoxiousness. I appreciate that one opposes the LDS activism, and its goal, on this issue, but making Mormons out to be a theofascist Gestapo is beyond the pale..." --Crunchy Con

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE

[stephanos]

Wow, that's just retarded. Well I shared my thoughts on it in the comments, and posted your comment, well whoever Crunchy Con is.

I think we should make a video like this, something rediculously sensational.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Haha, I see your comment over there, good for you.
Crunchy Con is a conservative blogger over at Beliefnet, more here:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon...e-mormons.html