I'm signing, but with reservations.

Your statment would seem to imply that you would not apply the limitations imposed by a religion to those outside the religion. Would this not also apply to the limitations various religions place on the institution of marriage? Those outside the religion should not be constrained by it's limitations.

Dan

Religious persons are under more constraint than others in how they live their lives. Even under Religious concepts of government there was leeway for those who weren't members of that religion, and there were also constraints.

You're saying that nonbelievers should not be limited by the confines of the religious dictates.

Dan

There have always been things for obedience that the religious were expected to perform that were not binding on others. There have also been things of a moral nature that those who believe in God are supposed to overcome and make civil law also within any country they reside in. For the most part that is matters of morality. Sometimes they have gone beyond what is necessary, but I don't see that in the case of gross sexual immorality. If anything, it is a failing earlier to keep stronger moral laws on the books that gives the homosexual agenda their specious arguments of today for their cause.

Hi, Josh.

BTW, I've often wondered about the Christian Fundamentalists who are so convinced of the "inerrancy" of the Bible as to dismiss modern science because the age of the earth should be measured in thousands, not billions of years. Why don't those folks keep kosher?
-- 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!

Hi, James.

>> a Jew could not eat of it, but was supposed to give it to his Gentile neighbors, free of charge I believe.<<
Maybe that was an early version of biological warfare?
-- 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!

The message immediatle above was supposed to be a response to James' post here.
-- 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!

Hi, James.

>>Living Wills, Last Wills, joint tenancy is available for properties and bank accounts, there is nothing that marriage will provide them legally that can't be done by other instruments of law.<<
Au contraire! Take this issue, for example:
"Some communities have rarely enforced ordinances on the books limiting the types of people who may live in a home. Broadly speaking, these ordinances provide that all occupants of a single-family home must be related by blood, adoption or marriage in order to live together within the community without violating the law. Though times have changed as more couples live together without marrying, it would be wise for an unmarried couple to check first with the local zoning department, especially if they envision buying or renting property in the community with such an ordinance." In many parts of the country, such ordinances are not "rarely enforced" when it comes to gays.

Think a will is all that's necessary to even out inheritance rights? Think again:
"It should be noted that some states tax persons different amounts based upon their relation to the decedent. [For example,] spouses usually owe no taxes, while unrelated persons would owe a specific percentage of their inheritance as tax." Not all states accept living wills, and durable powers of attorney can be contested by "the family," while absent some legal document, a mere "life partner" generally has no more legal standing than a casual acquaintance.
-- 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!

But that's a discussion for a different day.

Dan

Philip Roth and his liver seem positively angelic....

.

.

beasiality in the race to liberal activated acceptance of deviancy?

Your scenario would certainly give meaning to the old question "So who is your daaaaaady?" And the response "I don't know but he was a baaaaad boy!"

While you all are having fun being silly, I'll add to it. Why have only one sheep when you can have a whole harem? Just clone your "wife/husband" on down the road and there you go! Of course, you might have to ignore the little pipe in the head, but a good Versace scarf or Radiers hat could not doubt do wonders; beats brown paper double-bagging every time Makes it more simple too: "Do you take this flock/herd/gaggle/whatever, to be your lawfully wedded flock/herd/gaggle/whatever?"

You'd also cover the NAMBLA issues, Edward, since of course, it could be claimed that as clones, she/he is only as young as the clone from which he/she is made. Plus, with some luck and training, they can also do your typing for you. Ah, the benefits. . .

(The comments above are intentionally politically incorrect in the interest of continuing the silliness, and do not reflect the beliefs of anyone, including the author. PETA's stand on these ideas has not yet been expressed by Pamela Anderson - give it a week).

because Dolly epitomizes the lack of any NEED for such "unions" as the initial post is concerned with.

If one does not desire sexual reproduction (accepted reason for the legitimization of marriage) one needs no same sex "partner" for their offspring (they can learn to bud). Budding would also provide for any necessary "companionship" for those who deviate from the norm.

.

...

i.e. letters of the alphabet standing for numerals...
(alpha,beta,gamma,delta,epsilon,zeta,eta,theta,iota,kappa,lambda=11 yrs old)

so i went to google lambda, just to make sure i remembered the alphabet.... it was a mistake ;-(

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=lambda

.

and if you or anyone else here claim to have none the claimant will almost assuredly be lying.

I am also realistic and not swayed by political correctness designed to engineer social mores and morals to the proven detriment to society.

Homosexual activity has given us widespread AIDS and PC didn't allow even the closing of bathhouses demonstrated to be centers of spreading the disease.

they are homosexual based simply on their appearance then you have prejudice. When they admit they are homosexual, then it no longer is prejudice, it's knowledge.

knowledge can also be a causative agent for prejudice when you consider that prejudice ALSO indicates a partiality or disposition in favor of something--in other words a preference or bias.

In addition to having a prejudice against homosexuals I am prejudiced toward Columbian coffees and real cream rather than synthetic creamers.

I am also prejudiced against not Liberals but the Liberal Agenda, and that too is based on KNOWLEDGE of Liberals and their agenda.

Homosexuals are hardly to blame as the worldwide cause for the spead of HIV, and since when is family an inheent tenet of marriage. Marriage is simply a union between two people, civil or religious, and any two people who feel this way should enjoy the right to such a union. Because you feel they are not a viable family-producing unit and therefore should be denied their civil rights is morally unjust.

No one is denying them their "civil rights", as perversion is not a civil right.

What is your stand on prostitution? An acceptable occupation throughput biblical times women are almost universally prohibited from practicing it and gainful employment is indeed a "cvil right".

Family units from the beginning (regardless of which religion one happens to be) have been all about procreation, NOT "bummin' around".

Do you feel marraiges that are not formed for the purposes of procreation should be legal?

Dan

Do you feel that social constructs that don't even come close to what Marriage is and means since Man began should be called Marriage?

You answer my question and I'll answer yours. That works out nicely in a conversation.

Dan