Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Native Son on January 22, 2013 at 9:52am

Cisco,

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.

Permalink Reply by Cisco Carson on January 22, 2013 at 3:44pm

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.

Permalink Reply by Cisco Carson on January 22, 2013 at 6:47pm

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!

Permalink Reply by Adrian Miranda on January 22, 2013 at 8:23pm

I believe that is the point of this discussion thread. 

Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on January 22, 2013 at 8:39pm

That's not the core of the argument.  Its just the conclusion.  Not terribly well-stated, but close enough.

Who's been dishonest?

JB

Permalink Reply by Cisco Carson on January 22, 2013 at 9:56pm

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?"

Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on January 22, 2013 at 10:56pm

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.

JB

Permalink Reply by Cisco Carson on January 22, 2013 at 11:36pm

Trying this again Jack? It's tired sweety. Your argument is because straight people so fucked marriage, gays shouldnt have marriage?

Permalink Reply by Daniel on January 23, 2013 at 9:37am

Jack, are you saying that your concern is more about Webster, and less about legally condoning sin?

Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on January 23, 2013 at 11:22am

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.

 

JB

Permalink Reply by Daniel on January 23, 2013 at 12:27pm

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.

Permalink Reply by Jack Bauer on January 23, 2013 at 12:32pm

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.

 

JB

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• 21
• …
• 52
• Next ›
• Page