This is hilarious! Umm...what century are we living in? The most humorous thing is the idea that unmarried folks can't practice safe sex like married folks can. Uh-huh.
No shit. And if you really want to get irritated, take a look at Carpe DM's and Buzz's 'inappropriate' comments on the blog, which I've flagged and remain, yet Matt, apparently their buddy, chooses to leave them. He's a jerk.
Yes, the letter IS strange. However, the writer makes a, perhaps subtle, assertion that people who aren't married don't have safe sex. This is insulting to homosexuals AND those who choose to forgo marriage. I chose to not marry until I was 33 and managed to not contract an STD. And, no, I wasn't a nun.
The letter's intent is all over the map - allowing everyone to go what ever direction they want.
I am going to go in this direction:
If he is advocating marriage and does not state who should be married, then he is for any type of marriage, and the law preventing such is as silly as those that require bikes to stop at stop signs?
His reasoning behind what causes STDs is soooooo verryyyy flawed.
"If he is advocating marriage and does not state who should be married, then he is for any type of marriage, and the law preventing such is as silly as those that require bikes to stop at stop signs?"
Upon rethinking this, no that isn't what he is saying. He is saying that fornication laws are not enforced, therefore, the law about bikes having to stop at stop signs shouldn't be either.
Who knows what he thinks about same-sex marriage, he doesn't say. But, I'd bet dollars to donuts that anyone who makes the assertion that unmarried sex, not merely sex, leads to the prevalence of STDs doesn't support same-sex marriage.
Probably so Vicky....but since he didn't say, and posting a comment in that way is going to bring out the comments from Carp, Gordon, and especially JTB :).
I will post it there if you want, I just did not want to appear to disagree with you or Ajai because you make good points.
Well, I think I made my point on that thread and Christa reinforced it as well.
You are free to disagree with anything I say, I surely don't agree with ANYONE on everything. Barefoot and I used to really get into it at times...still friends.
Oh, and COE, don't even go there (just kidding COE!).
Ha! That's funny...a pissing contest with a dribbler!
I've got to tell you, I tend to skip over Rich Kellum's posts. He was so rude when people were about to ban Barefoot ("I don't mind if he gets banned, blah, blah, blah") that I don't even read his posts.
Maybe I should check out the dribble factor.
Oh, and I don't think anyone here is going to be the 'topic police' as Johnny called it!
I think my goal is to not look at peoples' comments on the GT, but to just discuss them here...it is a hard thing to do. As a first step, I think I'll keep my viewing to the people who I know have something worthwhile to say, not necessarily in agreement with me, but not the cheeseball factor.
I also think I am done pushing the button after that whole experience yesterday. I don't see the point because Matt only responds to those he wants to.
This is hilarious! Umm...what century are we living in? The most humorous thing is the idea that unmarried folks can't practice safe sex like married folks can. Uh-huh.
ReplyDeleteGross. More of the heterosexual agenda being shoved in my face.
ReplyDeleteNo shit. And if you really want to get irritated, take a look at Carpe DM's and Buzz's 'inappropriate' comments on the blog, which I've flagged and remain, yet Matt, apparently their buddy, chooses to leave them. He's a jerk.
ReplyDeleteNot only is it the heterosexual agenda, it is the 'moral majority' agenda too, slamming those who choose to NOT marry, regardless of orientation.
ReplyDeleteCrap, I snapped and posted on this topic...something had to be said.
ReplyDeleteI guess I did not take it all that seriously.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I should have?
I mean, the letter is a bit strange.....
Yes, the letter IS strange. However, the writer makes a, perhaps subtle, assertion that people who aren't married don't have safe sex. This is insulting to homosexuals AND those who choose to forgo marriage. I chose to not marry until I was 33 and managed to not contract an STD. And, no, I wasn't a nun.
ReplyDeleteOkay...I read and re-read the letter.
ReplyDeleteThe letter's intent is all over the map - allowing everyone to go what ever direction they want.
I am going to go in this direction:
If he is advocating marriage and does not state who should be married, then he is for any type of marriage, and the law preventing such is as silly as those that require bikes to stop at stop signs?
His reasoning behind what causes STDs is soooooo verryyyy flawed.
'Crap, I snapped'
ReplyDeleteHappens to the best of us.
momofthree, good enough, I agree.
ReplyDeleteAjai, I laughed so hard at the shortened version of my quote you posted...it's like a little poem or something. Ha!
ReplyDelete"If he is advocating marriage and does not state who should be married, then he is for any type of marriage, and the law preventing such is as silly as those that require bikes to stop at stop signs?"
ReplyDeleteUpon rethinking this, no that isn't what he is saying. He is saying that fornication laws are not enforced, therefore, the law about bikes having to stop at stop signs shouldn't be either.
Who knows what he thinks about same-sex marriage, he doesn't say. But, I'd bet dollars to donuts that anyone who makes the assertion that unmarried sex, not merely sex, leads to the prevalence of STDs doesn't support same-sex marriage.
Any takers?
Probably so Vicky....but since he didn't say, and posting a comment in that way is going to bring out the comments from Carp, Gordon, and especially JTB :).
ReplyDeleteI will post it there if you want, I just did not want to appear to disagree with you or Ajai because you make good points.
Vicky - This may be off topic, but is Rich Kellum a little *touched*
ReplyDeleteWhen I have to address him, I feel as though I'm having a pissing match with someone that has is cathed....he dribbles.
(posted that on the wrong thread in this blog.)
momofthree,
ReplyDeleteWell, I think I made my point on that thread and Christa reinforced it as well.
You are free to disagree with anything I say, I surely don't agree with ANYONE on everything. Barefoot and I used to really get into it at times...still friends.
Oh, and COE, don't even go there (just kidding COE!).
Ha! That's funny...a pissing contest with a dribbler!
ReplyDeleteI've got to tell you, I tend to skip over Rich Kellum's posts. He was so rude when people were about to ban Barefoot ("I don't mind if he gets banned, blah, blah, blah") that I don't even read his posts.
Maybe I should check out the dribble factor.
Oh, and I don't think anyone here is going to be the 'topic police' as Johnny called it!
Yeah - Check out the Sweethome Principal's Policy on Cell Phone Usage a couple days back.
ReplyDeleteHe says things because he CAN (obviously), not because he SHOULD.
I think my goal is to not look at peoples' comments on the GT, but to just discuss them here...it is a hard thing to do. As a first step, I think I'll keep my viewing to the people who I know have something worthwhile to say, not necessarily in agreement with me, but not the cheeseball factor.
ReplyDeleteI also think I am done pushing the button after that whole experience yesterday. I don't see the point because Matt only responds to those he wants to.
Let them wallow in their own mud, I say!
Where would I go with "it"?
ReplyDeleteHuh?
ReplyDelete"It"?
The only thing that's coming to mind is a Stephen King book or the Adams Family.
"Oh, and COE, don't even go there (just kidding COE!)"
ReplyDeleteWhere would I go, and why?
That's the problem with writing vs. speaking...the intonation is all lost.
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant was: Don't even get me started on disagreeing with COE...don't go there!
:)
Still friends? :)
ReplyDelete