tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post1321241638117687182..comments2024-01-22T08:27:40.801-08:00Comments on project mayhem: Jason Chaffetz and friends have led me to the (R/L)ight (constantly being updated)the narratorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10774503436545764912noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post-89807045444350637942009-05-11T14:40:00.000-07:002009-05-11T14:40:00.000-07:00I think Jack should have instead pointing out the ...I think Jack should have instead pointing out the absurdity of questioning the literacy of an award-winning author.the narratorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10774503436545764912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post-54645366940030251412009-05-11T14:33:00.000-07:002009-05-11T14:33:00.000-07:00Jack - sorry you think an appeal to authority is v...Jack - sorry you think an appeal to authority is valid here. who his father-in-law is has NOTHING to do with his ability to read. even if you wanted to argue that offspring of highly-intellectual people have better odds of being highly-intellectual it STILL wouldn't apply here as he is only related to Hugh Nibley through marriage.<br /><br />could you please explain your rational behind such an absurd statement. could we take your same logic and assume that whoever marries one of obama's daughters knows what it's like to be president - after all he's the son-in-law of of barack obama!?!?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03405294892308889146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post-37760977732211603672009-05-11T14:14:00.000-07:002009-05-11T14:14:00.000-07:00@Alot - I couldn't bring myself to read your comm...@Alot - I couldn't bring myself to read your comment after you claimed that the son-in-law of Hugh Nibley cannot read.<br /><br />@Steve M. original or not, the joke is pretty good and people need to hear it. But bring on more!<br /><br />@Loyd This was enjoyable to follow and respond to. And knowing Chaffetz and his posts, I am sure there will be many more instances to join in on the hilarityJack W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08145238245760290309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post-24403720495789511532009-05-11T00:12:00.000-07:002009-05-11T00:12:00.000-07:00wow boyd - you don't know how to read do you? Let ...wow boyd - you don't know how to read do you? Let me rephrase that first sentence for you - I'll remove the comma portion so as not to confuse your obvious one idea at a time limit.<br /><br />The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love is the sole criterion for marriage.<br /><br />now we look at your last sentence: Marriage is about commitment, pure and simple.<br /><br />we now return to my comment only i'm going to ask that you try your hardest to understand. i'm going to reword some of it so that it address's what you said directly. if you get confused just take a deep breath and try again. maybe you should get some paper and take notes as you go:<br /><br />If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they <B>[are committed to]</B> one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to <B>[be committed to]</B> each other? ... But why is <B>[commitment]</B> between two people more worthy of state sanction than <B>[commitment]</B> between three, or five? ... If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.<br /><br />hope you got this far. so my question to you is this: would you sanction marriage between groups of people and/or siblings?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03405294892308889146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post-82474968934263406022009-05-08T18:17:00.000-07:002009-05-08T18:17:00.000-07:00If marriage is only about "fecundity," then why do...If marriage is only about "fecundity," then why do we allow people who cannot have children to marry? People who are infertile, past menopause, or simply choose not to have children marry every day. We don't make people pass a fertility test in order to get a marriage license. Chaos does not ensue when we allow marriage for people who cannot or chose not to have children. Marriage is about commitment, pure and simple.Boyd Petersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02509493479140723072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post-47429570781358446142009-05-07T10:49:00.000-07:002009-05-07T10:49:00.000-07:00This made my day.This made my day.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04764108270008056603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post-80767658927206105422009-05-06T19:20:00.000-07:002009-05-06T19:20:00.000-07:00a quick paragraph from a MUCH longer article:
The...a quick paragraph from a MUCH longer article:<br /><br />The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03405294892308889146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post-47108220192498428472009-05-06T15:56:00.000-07:002009-05-06T15:56:00.000-07:00My previous comment is retracted until I can think...My previous comment is retracted until I can think of a more original joke.Steve M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06261411264695719660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post-20468579687745862412009-05-06T12:06:00.000-07:002009-05-06T12:06:00.000-07:00Well played my friend.Well played my friend.TFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894040999876325300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post-56350120052957835602009-05-06T10:55:00.000-07:002009-05-06T10:55:00.000-07:00"We shouldn't let those kids think that they come ..."We shouldn't let those kids think that they come from a real family."<br /><br />Oh Loyd. Don't you know that there is no such thing as offspring from gay couples? They can't have kids. Apparently the Lord has blessed them to be able to avoid the scurge.Thomas Merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09101982677789676009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6063106.post-67841028960456506762009-05-06T10:35:00.000-07:002009-05-06T10:35:00.000-07:00I hope that you can see that for those of us that ...<I> I hope that you can see that for those of us that view gay-sex as a sin, it is a real moral battle.</I>If this is all about decreasing the amount of gay sex out there, then it seems like the most logical thing to do would be to let gays marry.Steve M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06261411264695719660noreply@blogger.com