Senator Frist wants Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage

Link

I’ve been trying to understand this type of argument, and I just don’t get it. How would gays getting married take away from the value of heterosexual marriages?

Also:

If by “criminal activity” you mean two adults in the privacy of their own homes that want to express their love in a physical manner, and “condoned” as meaning not dragging them away to jail and making them criminals because of it, then I guess Frist is dead on.

It doesn’t. Canada aready said so. Frist is talking out of his ample and ugly ass.

It’ll make God punish us by having more airplanes crash into buildings.

I’m guessing this asshole doesn’t believe there should be a separation between church and state.

Eh, this constitutional amendment has been bandied around basically every year. I remain unconvinced that it’ll go through- amending the constitution is ridiculously difficult for a reason.

Don’t sweat it. They’re just posturing for the Troglodyte Right. Frist knows damn good and well his chances of gettig such an amendment through and then passed by the required number of states is pretty thin. But they want to get their message across that they are all that restrains the Whore of Babylon from buying out Starbucks. “Dogs and cats…living together…”

I don’t think the good Senator understands that the ruling means that it is no longer criminal activity.

Yeah, marraige is a sacrament. A sacrament of the Christian Church (and other bodies), not of the U.S. Government!

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: the gummint needs to get out of the business of marriage altogether. Let the churches sort it out and make their own rules.

I haven’t yet figured out how the civil benefits and responsibilities of marriage can be preserved, or if they should … but for the U.S. Government to assume the role of “blessing” what is a religious ceremony strikes me as ridiculous. The State ought to have no interest in the matter.

The state is involved as there are issue such as insurance, retirement benefits, estate taxes and a plethora of other issues surrounding “marriage”

As far as affecting hetrosexual marriages - allowing homosexual marriage would dilute the value of hetrosexual marriages (in numbers) and many consider the heterosexual family to be one of the foundations of our country.

That said - I’m from Tennessee and the only positive thing about Frist is that he is from Tennessee, so our govenrment money isn’t as likely to be taken away.

I agree with masonite. Maybe there should be state unions totally separate from marriage, with all the legal benefits of marriage. What we call marriage now becomes a non-legal ceremony, and the fundys can restrict whoevever they want from it (in their own church).

Of course, the fundys would want to restrict gays from the state union too, probably, but they’d have less support I hope.

Yeah, and miscegenation dilutes the value of ‘pure’ white families, and many consider the white family to be the blah-de-blah… Many people have their heads jammed up their ass… what about it?

So why am I not surprised that the oh-so-indignant moralists who were shocked, SHOCKED, at the unbecoming levity in re Strom Thurmond’s death have not bothered to post their disgust at Senator Frist’s desire to have “Christian sacraments” adopted into law?

Yeah, I know. It’s too bad they’re already as involved as they are. I think we should seek to decrease the involvement. I don’t know how that goal can be achieved, though.

Huh? What’s the current right-wing estimate of percentage of homos in society – 1/10 of 1%, something like that? (Just joking – say it’s 2%.) Heterosexual marriage is serioulsy threatened by this dilution? Hell, even if half the marriages 100 years from now are non-hetero, I don’t see how heteros are harmed.

I thought it was the Constitution, and all that. Hetero families are the basic social unit, sure. I don’t see that our system of government falls apart if it expands the definitions a bit. After all, single people, widows/widowers, childless people, etc. all have the same rights and responsibilities as your foundational heterosexual family, and always have had, and the Republic has managed to trudge along without requiring everybody to marry the opposite sex and reproduce. But as I said, I think the gummint should get out of the business of defining social relationships as much as possible.

Well, I was talking about marriage and families but if you want to talk about sex, well thanks to the new decision of the SCOTUS you are free (If you want to) to jam your head up someone’s ass.

And it can be the ass of the same or different sex and the ass of the same or different race (It is your option).
And yes, miscegenation does dilute a race.

Dear, you are an undiluted moron. Oops, I think your sheets are dry, so you can get dressed now.

Marriage can be religionless, as performed by JOPs and Humanist officiants all over North America.

I like the options that people have now. They can have a non-religious marriage ceremony (as described above), or they can have a religious one, and both require a marriage license. The issue is whether a marriage license can be isued to a same-sex couple. No one (who is sane) is asking to have same-sex couples married in the Catholic Church. In Canada, SS couples are now free to get licenses, but if you wanna get married just to the right of that plaster statue of Our Lady, you’re SOL, because John Paul II ain’t down with the sodomites. However, if you want to get married by the Reverand Luna Lupin of the First Unitarian Church of Scarberia, mazel tov. The system ain’t broke. Don’t fix it.

Nothing I have posted indicates in any way what my personal feelings or politics lean toward. All I have posted are statement’s of fact and reporting of general belief’s of others (not necessarily my own)

Certain people on this thread should take some sort of remedial reading class to make such discernments before calling people (especially me) names and talking about heads and asses.

Fuck you dear.

The marriage license is merely a way for the State to track, tax, and keep tabs on its citizens. Why should I need the State’s permission to marry, whether it’s to a nice Catholic girl at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, or to my dungeonmaster in a naked ceremony in the woods performed by a sorcerer?

It’s not the State’s business!

(Except it is, in re insurance, taxation, etc… for now.)

Well, judging from what I’ve seen here, I’d say your personal feelings and politics lean towards eugenics.

Oh my god-because you just KNOW that all these horrid homosexuals are just going to ruin our Christian nation!

-[sub]hint to the morons-SARCASM!!![/sub]