I agree with all except 1 + 1. According to scripture, 1+1=1.
Marriage...expensive or just the wedding?
- Thread starter Lanolin
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I agree with all except 1 + 1. According to scripture, 1+1=1.
Lazy, cheap, don't want to commit are just a few reasons. If you really love each other you will go to the trouble to get the paper.
The one that don't want responsibility.
easy in, easy out.
However in America, there is a common law marriage in many states. After 7 years or so, they are considered married by the state. I am not exactly sure the details. But especially if they have children together, they are hold responsible.
While I don't completely disagree here Lanolin, the fact is this is changing... and it's about time! Up until the 1950's, weddings were FAMILY affairs and not theatrical productions where everyone tried to out-do,,, or OVER-do others. Yes, there will always be a few who will fall into the excessive category, and that's because we as humans are designed to be different and competitive. Our culture has allowed ad agencies to dictate new cultural norms for so long that now far too many believe they are ENTITLED to these lavish productions, are entitled to live at least as well as their parents are currently and are entitled to begin their adult lives with high paying or family supporting jobs. What has been forgotten is the CLIMB necessary to get to all of these and the steps...education, sacrifice and self-denial.... necessary to achieve that climb. No one, not parents, not family, and certainly not the government is obligated to provide anything more than the basics, and we as individuals are obligated to achieve these successes for ourselves if that's what we desire.
I DO completely disagree that a marriage is a 'joining together of property and fortune of two families.' It is NOT. It is a joining together of two individuals into a new family unit, separate from the families of origin and with new priorities focusing on each other and HOPEFULLY a common and abiding faith.
Sometimes it's fear, sometimes it's pure selfishness, but either way it's sinful. If these two people are engaging in activities that could produce a child, then it is irresponsible as well as selfish.
I blame the Royal Family for making weddings so lavish and filming them to be broadcast everywhere that everyone wants to copy them.
Of course they are paid for by the taxpayer so they don't have to worry about it.
If it really was about two people coming together and not families joining or making alliances and inheriting property etc, no wives would change their surname to the husbands...or have double-barrelled surnames indicating they married, they'd just not bother or..they'll make up some portmanteau word
Like for example if a Smith married a Jones they'd become a Smone or a Jith, or a Smith-Jones or a mash of everything like a Tissmitjo
Of course they are paid for by the taxpayer so they don't have to worry about it.
If it really was about two people coming together and not families joining or making alliances and inheriting property etc, no wives would change their surname to the husbands...or have double-barrelled surnames indicating they married, they'd just not bother or..they'll make up some portmanteau word
Like for example if a Smith married a Jones they'd become a Smone or a Jith, or a Smith-Jones or a mash of everything like a Tissmitjo
Sorry Royal Family
It's just that your weddings were televised live so everyone could watch
The puffy meringue Lady Diana wedding gown with the 20 foot train...I don't understand why she thought she had to LOSE weight to fit into that one?!
Fergie's made front page news. I was 6? I remember cutting out newspaper clippings and being fascinated she had a coach, like in the Cinderella story. It looked like it could have been a pumpkin.
'Waity Katies' was elegant and lacy....but why was her sis Pippa wearing white? I thought that was a no-no! The bridesmaids should not look like she was getting married as well. She got away with it because instead of having a train she had nothing so everyone could see her backside.
As for rings. I thought it was bad luck to wear your divorced mother-in-laws engagement ring but then I suppose it was 'something blue'
Meghan. It was her second marriage as she was a divorcee. My mum did not approve. She said she shouldn't have been wearing white, and was older than Harry. Nice Tiara though. Wonder where she got it. But it turned out, as they said in the Oprah interview, that it was all fake! They really got married a few days before. At the courthouse.
Well Aussie Royalty Kath decided she could afford her own pumpkin coach but...turned out she was a few quid short. And she had baby Jesus statues.
It's just that your weddings were televised live so everyone could watch
The puffy meringue Lady Diana wedding gown with the 20 foot train...I don't understand why she thought she had to LOSE weight to fit into that one?!
Fergie's made front page news. I was 6? I remember cutting out newspaper clippings and being fascinated she had a coach, like in the Cinderella story. It looked like it could have been a pumpkin.
'Waity Katies' was elegant and lacy....but why was her sis Pippa wearing white? I thought that was a no-no! The bridesmaids should not look like she was getting married as well. She got away with it because instead of having a train she had nothing so everyone could see her backside.
As for rings. I thought it was bad luck to wear your divorced mother-in-laws engagement ring but then I suppose it was 'something blue'
Meghan. It was her second marriage as she was a divorcee. My mum did not approve. She said she shouldn't have been wearing white, and was older than Harry. Nice Tiara though. Wonder where she got it. But it turned out, as they said in the Oprah interview, that it was all fake! They really got married a few days before. At the courthouse.
Well Aussie Royalty Kath decided she could afford her own pumpkin coach but...turned out she was a few quid short. And she had baby Jesus statues.
Kath Day became Kath Day-Knight when she married Kel
Love the Satin PJs. But their wedding was a disaster. They ended up eloping to New Zealand after they found out Marion had her marriage celebrant license revoked. Or she didn't even have one. ?!
But I can't quite get over, how years in the future, Kim's daughter Eponnae-Rae looked just like Charlene in Neighbours
Love the Satin PJs. But their wedding was a disaster. They ended up eloping to New Zealand after they found out Marion had her marriage celebrant license revoked. Or she didn't even have one. ?!
But I can't quite get over, how years in the future, Kim's daughter Eponnae-Rae looked just like Charlene in Neighbours
