it led to child cannibalism for entertainment just before they fell.

I know that it was wrong but really, children are so tender and juicy that you could hardly blame them.

:3DSMILE:

:LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:

BAW HA HA HA!!! I hate when milk comes out my nose! :3DSMILE::LOL::LOL::LOL:

Over in the parts of the middle east, religion and government support polygamy. What seems immoral for us is moral and correct to them. I'm sure the guys over there are not happy having educated women, who can drive, not have to cover their faces and can think. And we encourage educating women in Iraq and Afghanistan. The next thing you know, we'll mess up the polygamy thing for them and they'll want to blow things up.

I think one wife is enough trouble. I don't need the government to have a law against polygamy. I'd stop at one even if the law allowed more. :LOL:

I had heard a few years ago in Iran that they raised the legal age for women to marry from 9 to 12 years old. Now that is still way to young.

You do know that we have legal brothels here in the USA in Nevada. I can't see one run by a family. I highly doubt that the workers there let their family and friends know what they do for a living, so a family brothel is probably a little too wierd. :rolleyes:

Being from a good Irish family, I have over 60 cousins on my dad's side of the family. With so many cousins, well, ..., one of my cousins is a lesbian. I also had a friend in high school and college who was in the closet and claimed to have a "girlfriend" that I had never met. Well it turns out I met him years later, and the "girlfriend" was really a "boyfriend". So I know a couple of gay people. I don't really care that they are gay and have not changed my opinion of who they are just because I found out about them after knowing them for many years.

The Middle East? After centuries of conditioning, it is now a genetic fact, they will still want to blow us up regardless of what we do. :JEKYLHYDE

I hear ya, it would take a special "group" of women to want me indulge the effort. But then again those Texas guys seemed to be happy with it... by their example I guess it takes a lot of money. ;)

Relatively speaking, 12 might be too old to indoctrinate behavior. :eek: It certainly would help keep 'em in line.

I guess you weren't aware of Madame Jeanette Maier. Family run brothels are old news.

Wow, you know 2 gay couples? amazing. Before you criticize people's complaint of legalizing gay marriages, may I suggest you attend a San Francisco Gay Pride Parade (it looks like the scene from the movie Ten Commandments when Charlton Heston came down from Mount Sinai) or take your family to one of the gay days at Disneyland. The fanatic/exception to the rule argument means little when their commonplace public display is forced down my throat. If I grabbed my wife like that in public, I would be arrested.

Why should they concern themselves with a piece of paper? California already has law which protects their "union". Pay more in taxes? Could it be a desire to demoralize a Christian belief system? It certainly devalues a representative covenant between God and the union of man and wife.

Actually I don't know if my friend or cousin participate in things like that. I have not seen my friend in a bunch of years now, and only see my cousin at the occassional family reunion or funeral lately. I suppose that they might act like goof balls in public, but they act like normal people when I have seen them.

The closest that I have come to seeing something like you mention was
back in the mid-1980's I remember being in Philadelphia and was walking downtown and went past a theater that was hosting a gay film festival. My friends and I were on the other side of the street. I don't remember what the gay folk were doing, but there were a bunch of bikers around behind police and police tape threatening the people going to the theater. I'm glad I was on the other side of the street. The bikers were scary, that's what I remember.

Why would anybody want to have the same rights and freedoms as someone else? Why should you concern yourself with them having a piece of paper?

I don't mean this as an insult, but your religion sounds like it is on unstable ground if it is threatened by two people you don't know living their lives in the way they want.

Steve

Typical post Steve. Attack what you think is my religion. I must apologize if I have offended your homosexual lifestyle. Assumptions here, assumptions there.

This should be a different thread.

Maybe in your legal wisdom you can help educate me, What current rights and freedoms are/were impinged without a marriage certificate?

Have you read any of my other posts?

I couldn't careless about the "certificate", it is just an example of how our government is no longer for the people by the people. Not that it ever should have been.

If you are willing to accept this decision, then ultimate legislative power lies in appointed (not elected), Lifetime (only revocable by impeachment, which I don't think has ever been done), SC judges. This resembles a dictatorship.

I don't see any discussion of unconstitutional collection of prop-erty and in-come tachs-ez?
I don't see any discussion of unconstitutional impingement of rights to bear arms?
I don't see any action ...........

The power in the law, is flawed.

Oh crud, that black van has parked back out in front of my house.

Feel free to respond, but I will be going back under my rock.

I guess I tend to think of think of the government record of "marriage" to be something separate from the religion record of "marriage".

Although in my case, the wedding ceremony covered both government and religion at once. They can be separate.

For my maternal grandparents, they were married by a judge first and then years later married in the Catholic Church (my grandmother was Catholic and my grandfather was Lutheran). The government record existed long before the religious record. For me the government record has to do with taxes, healthcare, responsibility for children, wills, etc. While the religious record has to do with church paperwork, religious folk and deity (or deities).

Another couple that I know of have 1 government and 2 religious records (with both Baptist and Jewish ceremonies involved, one directly after the other).

The people you mentioned in Texas practicing polygamy seem to have my same perception of the separation of church and state. They have 1 legal government record of marriage and multiple religious records of marriage. In the eyes of their god, they have multiple real marriages. And in the eyes of the government they have 1 official marriage and several single mothers living at the same address that can collect food stamps. From the government standpoint that does put the official government recognized wife in a position of power in the family structure.

You had mentioned that gay couples having some sort of government certificate already in CA. I think I have heard of that as domestic partnership or something. I don't really see much difference between that and a record of marriage, but there probably is some legal difference. And where there might be some advantages and/or disadvantages of one versus the other. I think it is probably better to make the two equal to make sure we are not discriminating in some way. On the other hand if domestic partnership has some advantage, perhaps I could switch to that being the government record of my religious marriage (unless the government prohibits heterosexual domestic partnership). :JEKYLHYDE

J.T. Toad,

I think I see your point. Maybe we are getting off topic.

Getting back on topic.

Actually I think the situation with the courts may make sense when it comes to check and balances and personal freedoms. Perhaps the judges are trying to protect individual freedom here that our founding fathers fought for.

After all, someone could probably get a referendum on a vote in California to deport all of the gay population to some state like say West Virginia or such. The popular vote on that could approve such a measure, but is that really fair? Maybe we need the judges to protect individual freedoms from the majority. :)

The other day I was listening to my favorite talk radio show, Mike Savage.
He reported that the gay lobby has asked the courts to dis-allow the constitutional amendment vote so that the gay marriage law cannot be overturned by the voters of the State of Ca.
Any comments or corrections on the subject?

The Voters!, the one and only tool that decides the direction of this country is ever so slowly being taken away. Although! more people are paying attention today because everyone is affected by oil and, their paying close attention to what their law makers are doing. Hope something good results.