Well, Duke, I’d say you need the remedial reading class more than the others. Unless you are just hazarding a WAG
What, just because you talked about “race dilution”? That’s what eugenics was all about, mate.
A “sacrament”? Marriage–by the state–a sacrament? Senator Frist is a hell of a surgeon I hear.
I have on occasion posted statements clearly identified as reportage of opinions other than my own – most recently, in direct response to Freyr’s direct question in his OP on why conservative Christians oppose gay marriage. IMHO, some people owe county an apology. OTOH, county, if I may offer advice, when doing that sort of thing, one needs to be really explicit – I saw your implied “that’s what they thing” but it was quite easy to miss. And may I ask what your own POV might be?
Polycarp
Sure, my politics are liberal to radical. I am a union official. I protested the Iraqi war. My church is “open and affirming.”
Thanks for “reading” my posts - I suspect I’ll go back to General Questions.
All of these things could easily be worked out without the governements involvement. I agree with masonite, we need to get the government out of marriage.
But keep the govt. in the bedroom???
So, Billy Frist is the guy who replaced Trent Lott so’s the GOP wouldn’t look like a bunch of backwards redneck bigots, right? :dubious:
The OP was posted at 4:04 PM EST. Your reply came at 4:59 PM. It is now 6:58 PM EST. Why don’t you give us a fucking minute before you blow a goddamned gasket? Some of us don’t live in front of a computer screen.
Senator Frist’s comments about “criminal activity” were stupid, uninformed, and generally asshatted.
While I share the view that these decisions ought not be made by the judiciary, and while I share the view that it might not be appropriate to term homosexual unions as “marriage,” I do believe that the civil benefits of marriage ought to be extended to homosexuals, and that it is wrong of Frist to oppose that.
There. Happy?
I suggest the good Senator wait a few years to see how Canada’s great new social experiment turns out, rather than insist on preventing potentially positive social changes from happening.
Cause he’s a republican senator run by the religious right.
I’m not pleased by his words, but unlike my opinion of you, I don’t expect him to rise above his baser self.
I have clearly slipped into an alternate universe. I need to go lie down with a cold cloth on my forehead.
For anyone that ever thought California was a liberal state, this constitutional amendment is law in California.
Pro 22 states, marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
When it passed (2000 I think), I was dumbfounded. This from the state to push for medical marijuana. I guess you don’t have to be a liberal to smoke pot.
gobear:
I’ve said many a time on this board that I think the government needs to get the hell out of the marriage business. Marriage is obviously a religious sacrament (see the gov’t minion’s comment way above) and is therefore not the business of the government.
Essentially, masonite, in his posting above, stated my exact position on the matter.
I think that a lot of homophobia comes from a primitive fear of any sex that doesn’t lead to reproduction. To fundamentalists of most stripes, the only purpose of marriage is pumping out little fundies, so gay marriage is naturally a scary thing to them.
I think he was probably referring to other crimes: prostitution, drug use, gambling, etc.
Which is fine by me. Anything that takes place between consenting adults in the privacy of a home should be condoned. They’re called victimless crimes for a reason.
Trust me, my marriage wasn’t a religious sacrament. In fact, it may have been unholy.
In regards the actual topic of discussion, I don’t see how gays getting married could possibly do more harm to the traditional institution of marriage than heterosexuals already have.
Is that so? What about this then?
The first part of the above sentence is stated as fact, but contains a clear indication of what you consider to be more, and what you consider of less, value. One does not “dilute” something by adding to it something that is of equal or greater value. That you consider homosexual marriage would “dilute” heterosexual marriage clearly indicates that you consider that the former is of less value. That is not a statement of fact but of your own beliefs.
And your comment is is not qualified by any suggestion that you are merely reporting the beliefs of others.
Not only is Frist a bigot he is a hypocrite.
Quote #1:
“I think matters such as sodomy should be addressed by the state legislatures… That’s where those decisions – with the local norms, the local mores – are being able to have their input in reflected”
Asked whether he supported an amendment that would ban gay marriage, Frist said Quote #2:
“I absolutely do, of course I do.”
– Ah, I see Mr. Frist; so the only “local norms” and “local mores” that matter are the ones that are homophobic. I guess States Rights are only important when they happen to fit your personal agenda.
This just in: Senator Frist’s high school English teacher has thrown herself in from of a Bookmobile in a sudden fit of despair…