I'm signing, but with reservations.

If they can do the same things anyway then why deny them the right to a civil marraige? Is there a right to marraige? Is the government allowed to enact whatever strictures possible on who can marry, when, where, and for what reasons?

Dan

...please learn how to spell it, and I'm not talking about just your last post. Marriage isn't from the government it is from God. Nevertheless it is the Government's duty and responsibility to encourage and protect such institution, this is why in past we had laws for alienation of affection, for child support, distinctions between legitimate and ******* children, rights per stirpes, and so forth. A couple of guys humpin' and pumpin' nor double ***** lesbians a marriage make.

I live in a country where the government is not responsible for enforcing the will of god.

Thanks for the spelling correction.

Dan

unfortunately you appear to have failed to absorb much in your History classes.

Those who live in the past are gonna get smacked in the *** by the future.

Dan

`

but I do agree with "values change"--Liberal values have changed so much that:

1. deviancy is apparently desired as a norm.

2. criminals are not responsible for their actions, society is

3. The socialist mantra regarding from each to each isn't even adequate because need needs to be changed to want

4. aid and comfort to the enemy isn't criminal

Yes, "values" change--IF you can call the changes values!

.

`?

.

The "7 post rule" kicked in with his last post.

Marriage isn't from the government it is from God.

Really? What about civil ceremonies? What about atheists and agnostics? Should they not be allowed to marry either? And if marriage isn't from the government, why should the government be able to legislate who can marry and who can't?

.

Hi, James.

>>Which of those two are ALWAYS right?<<
Despite the claims of certain religious leaders, humans are often mistaken when claiming to speak for God.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Don't forget those who think they ARE God!!! LOL!

After the Great Flood, didn't God admit that it wasn't the best idea?

Have you tried to marry your sister or first cousin lately? Government says No, you may not. Tried to marry your other two girlfriends? Not only is your present wife against it but the government says no also.

There are good reasons for such laws and I can't think of a single good reason to legitimize sexual deviants.

Would you feel better if gays got married under the condition that they participate in no sexual activities? That would end your complaint on the basis of their sexual techniques. Since you don't want sexual deviants to get married should we force all couples to agree not to participate in any deviant congress before they are wed? We'll list the acceptable practices in a booklet, or a pamphlet. OK, it'll be an index card.

Dan


Or how about the idea that sex participated in by consenting adults is no one else's business?

Do you really lack comprehension of simple terms Dan?

You must or you would not ask such questions as I have made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry in any form or fashion.

Nature should be allowed to take its course which would simply eliminate the homosexual problem. Allowing them to continue and even adopt children simply exacerbates the problem and provides "training" and continuity.

I know a lot of simple terms, Ed. Fairness. Freedom. Love. Family.

Just because the terms are simple does not meat that they should be limited to the definitions proposed by the simpleminded and narrowminded.

Homosexual 'problem'? Why does that phrasing sound so familiar? It's too bad we can't tell who the homosexuals are just by looking at them or by their names. That way we could go around some night and smash all of their windows. Or has that been done?

Dan

Hi, Dan.

>>Homosexual 'problem'? Why does that phrasing sound so familiar? <<
In fact, it's a very apt comparison, as homosexuals also were sent to the death camps, but wore pink triangles on their uniforms.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

it is a cancerous growth that has eroded moral values and it is detrimental to good social order.

NAMBLA is following closely and necrophiliacs can't be far behind.

"Is it legal to marry your widow's sister in California?" won't be a "fun" question to see if you are paying attention.

It sounds familiar because it is just the phrasing that was used to initiate the final solution to the jewish problem in Germany.

Dan

What does your question have to do with the questions I asked you?

How do civil ceremonies and atheists/agnostics fit in with your assertion that marriage is something from God?

Ah...but doesn't what is "permitted" vary according to what faith you happen to believe in? The Jewish faith doesn't permit eating pork products but most other faiths allow it. Both viewpoints are believed to be God's law by those who hold them.

And since one general point of agreement among the major faiths is the requirement that you believe in God, again, where does that leave atheists? God generally doesn't "permit" people not to believe in Him, so should atheists be allowed to marry?