I wrote this in relation to the UK, but seeing as it's an issue in the US too you can all still comment and give your opinions.
Give your opinions on the issue and on the document itself. Please make all criticism constructive. Regardless of your stance in this debate, be respectful to others. Feel free to challenge their viewpoints but in a gentlemanly way AND BE KIND.
I know there'll be a few mistakes here and there so I'll do my best to fix 'em.
I'd figured that Daniel's post was partly ironic/sarcastic. Not familiar with his context, so to speak, I was at a loss to determine which part was the serious bit.
Thus my question on your take.
I don't know anything about Daniel, so I thought you might have an informed opinion on his dual, dueling proposals.
I'm not surprised there are sodomy laws extant in 14 states. Legislatures are too busy trying to regulate the bats used high school baseball games or whether a local school district may discontinue JROTC in high school to get around to revising a lot of obsolete laws.
Cheers to Daniel. He stepped into the fray knowing he'd get his toes burnt and still did it out of conviction with what he knew was right.
Every argument, whether it's; "My Church says it's wrong," or "It's what the definition of marriage has always been" etc. The whole core of whatever argument is presented (think about it, let it lull in your mind) is Marriage is given to me because I am a straight man and marriage should be denied you because you are not a straight man. Just come out and say it. Be fuck'n honest!
I believe that is the point of this discussion thread.
That's not the core of the argument. Its just the conclusion. Not terribly well-stated, but close enough.
Who's been dishonest?
I give you the floor Jack. Tell me, Why isn't the reason I have marriage is because I'm not straight?
You're a real cunt Jack, What good advice do you give other places? Read the bathroom stall writing? Read the "The Best of Dear Abby" or "Penthouse Forum?"
Drunk posting again? That reads like you translated it from English to Chinese, and back to English again.
Asked and answered. I've been clear enough. I don't care who you sleep with, so lose the persecution complex. It isn't my business ... it just isn't a marriage. That isn't a condemnation, just the definition of the term. There are lots of straight shack-ups that aren't marriages either.
I don't need 'the floor', and wouldn't ask your permission if I did.
Trying this again Jack? It's tired sweety. Your argument is because straight people so fucked marriage, gays shouldnt have marriage?
Jack, are you saying that your concern is more about Webster, and less about legally condoning sin?
Marriage is an extra-legal institution. I do not believe the government creates a marriage, defines a marriage, or can change meaning of the term. Government recognizes marriages for the purposes of taxation, property, probate, visitation, etc. Those are ancillary issues, at best.
Plenty of sins are already legally condoned. Including homosexuality. I find no need to outlaw sin. Live and let live. Judging or punishing somebody else's sin isn't my problem anyway.
Words mean things. A gay relationship can be all kinds of things ... just not a marriage.
Jack, so you would be OK with government recognizing gay marriage if we redefine it by law to be on par with straight marriage? Because we can redefine it if we want to. Words evolve all the time.
Not sure how you got that from this ...
I do not believe the government creates a marriage, defines a marriage, or can change meaning of the term.
I'd accept 'civil unions' ... basically a package of tax breaks, hospital visitation rights, probate, etc. Peripheral legalities is the extent of the government's authority in the matter.