XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.law-enforcement, alt.prisons   
   XPost: alt.revisionism, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.politics.immigration, alt.true-crime, alt.politics.guns   
   XPost: misc.survivalism, soc.culture.usa, alt.survival   
   From: kcrawford981@gmail.invalid   
      
   In article ,   
    BeamMeUpScotty   
     wrote:   
      
   > On 2/12/2015 12:06 AM, Rick O'Shea wrote:   
   > > On 2/11/2015 3:22 PM, ronaldoneal82@yahoo.com wrote:   
   > >> "It damages the institution of marriage."   
   > >>   
   > >> In your view...perhaps.  But I fail to see how.  Religious ceremony is   
   > >> not REQUIRED for a valid marriage.   
   >   
   > If a ships captain can marry people and a church can marry people....   
   > you didn't need government did you.   
   >   
   > So government overstepped the bounds of a private religious ceremony and   
   > now government is violating the Liberals sacred   
   > *separation of church and State*   
   >   
   > We might as well allow the Bible into schools and prayer and let the   
   > same government officials perform a Baptism and license Baptism and/or   
   > simply LICENSE your religion so government can register you and charge a   
   > fee and Baptize you into it or perform what ever reading you need from   
   > your Holy Book to be officially in your religion.   
   >   
   > That's what a marriage license does for the one ceremony.  Obviously in   
   > the name of efficiency we need to just license the religion instead of   
   > the Marriage and once you are licensed for that religion you can get any   
   > religious ceremony you need from the Government.  That's the ONLY way to   
   > make it all equal.....   
   >   
   > >   
   > > Religious ceremony DEFINED marriage and predated the involvement of the   
   > > state, you lamentable lying ass.   
   >   
   >   
   > In a survival situation do you want to join a religious run group or a   
   > dictator group or a Libertarian group that allows you freedom and a   
   > loosely attachment to the group with the freedom to live as you choose.   
      
   I don't like the choices, but a dictator will tell you what to do, a   
   libertarian won't care what you do. things will get done under the   
   dictator that can help the group, libertarians won't care about me.   
      
   the religious group may offend me, but it's likely to be a good short   
   term solution   
      
      
   >   
   > A Socialist group will lead to mediocrity and that leads to eventual   
   > failure by starvation and rationing.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)