I won’t speak to the quality of Frist’s ass, but as to the quantity, it seems to me Frist is on the slim side, so his ass may not be all that ample.
Take it out for dinner and tell it how nice it looks?
This is simply astonishing. Not the opportunistic grandstanding, not the fact that he’s kissing up to religious conservatives, that’s all totally predictable. It’s just the shameless transparency of it that makes my eyes bug out. Kinda like this :eek:
I completely missed the irony implicit here until Mexican Legendary Hero Whose Name I Can’t Spell (;)) quoted this –
States rights advocates (there are still a few) would assert that it is the business of the individual states to decide things like what acts should be criminal and who is entitled to marry and what the state speed limit should be – that it is the height of arrogance for “Washington” to dictate a one-size-fits-all policy to the states.
So, of course, we need to have a law that imposes the mores of Frist’s support base on every other state, and protected from SCOTUS review by being inserted into the Constitution itself.
I know some sincere Christians from Tennessee – and I have a strong feeling that if they think this through, they’ll be offended. The good Senator cannot even practice internal consistency.
spooje: right on. This may be an unpopular sentiment, but: (takes a breath) the “sanctity of marriage” is brazen hypocricy in each state that allows no-fault divorce. Let’s all stop for a moment and ponder that Newt G. served divorce papers on his wife when she was in the hospital being treated for cancer. The gays couldn’t have destroyed the sanctity of marriage; the republicans beat them to it! 
the above remarks are somewhat generalized for humorous effect.
gobear, in this case, it was more like I wasn’t actually surprised. Disgusted, but not surprised, sadly.
I originally was going to post that not only did I think that a constitutional amendment was stupid beyond words, but also that I thought that gay marriages/unions should be legal. That was before I read your first post chastising people for not decrying Frist if they thought that you shouldn’t dance on Thurmond’s grave. Then I read your post above and start to think “gobear’s lost it”. Go back and read the Thurmond thread and point out where Tars “sided” with Thurmond. You and others got called for being a jerk in the other thread and you’re continuing it here. As it’s been explained to you “I’m happy he’s dead” is something you expect a petulant 7-year-old to say, not a grown man who wants to be treated with dignity. Has it crossed your mind that there are dopers who didn’t like Thurmond and his politics but also don’t like people acting like crassholes as well? And that maybe these people aren’t siding with a homophobe at all?
So what? Does that mean that since you didn’t like gobear’s comportment towards Thurmond’s death that you’re changing your mind on gay marriage? Are you saying your convictions are so shallow that you’re willing to denigrate the rights of the other millions of gay people in the U.S. because of one poster’s words? Why the disclaimer? Why not just say what you wanted about First’s position and ignore gobear’s post?
Why is it that so many folks chastise outraged gay people with commments like “you’re alienating people who might otherwise agree”? Why should the behavior of a few set your mind against the rest? Why is your agreement not based on your notions of right and wrong instead of a carrot to prod some outspoken members of a group to fall in line with your accepted mores?
“They got together and passed this Defence of Marriage Act, where two gay men who’ve been together for 25 years can’t get married, but a guy can still get drunk in Vegas and marry a hooker at the Elvis chapel! The sanctity of marriage is saved!” - Lea Delaria
Homebrew-I think it’s more of a case of alienating those who are on the fence, or those who have yet to be convinced. That’s all.
Marriage in the eyes of the law is a legal contract. Right now, explicitly or not, marriage is usually defined by states as a legal union between a man and a woman. It’s already obvious that marriage is permitted by the state for purposes other than to better spawn droves of screaming children, otherwise marriage for infertile men and post-menopausal women would be illegal as well.
The gay community is small and I’m willing to bet that permitting gay marriages will have a statistically insignificant effect on the affairs of state, but right now the gay community is being highly persistent on the issue. If you were a smart redneck-ass bigoted sonofabitch, you’d redraw the lines right now so that those clever homosexuals can’t open the door to all sorts of deviant sexual behavior by… ahem… probing… the limits of the law.
Say you’re a chump like Rick Santorum and you honestly fear that people are going to start fucking dogs once the definition of marriage is sufficiently eroded. There is a simple solution: have your state redefine “marriage” as “a legal union between two consenting adults.” There you go. No group marriages, no pedophilia, no people scrogging their cockapoos. And the angles quit getting tested in court.
Everyone wins–except the dog-fuckers, of course, and the people who apparently can’t make it through the day without worring what the guys across the street are doing with their last shreds of privacy.
Homphobes regard gay people as societal garbage; why should I be expected to be sad at their passing? Why am I supposed to refrain from posting and respect the memory of (a point you people seem unable to grasp) someone who hated me and mine when he was alive?
Essentially, you are demanding that the victims of prejudice obey rules that you do not expect the bigots to obey. Bigots are free to attack us in any way they please, like the crap Frist is supporting of writing Christian fundamentalist beliefs into law, but we may not react, we may not be angry, we must adhere to a completely passive standard of behavior. Don’t tell me that you don’t favor the Frists of this world when you tie our hands behind our backs like this.
The rights and wrongs of the gay marriage issue have nothing to do with my posting style. Human rights are not bestowed on just the people you like. I would certainly stand up for Bill Frist’s rights if they were being compromised; what a pity that he won’t reciprocate.
Second, refusing to be sad at Strom’s death is not dancing on his grave. But even if it were, it’s very revealing that my disrespect for his death disturbs you far more than his disrespect for my life.
Third, my rights are not yours to bestow or take away.. You’re not my master, you’re not some form of noblity who gets to tell the peasants what to do. I’m a citizen of this country, the same as you, and I demand the same level of rights that you enjoy, including marriage.
Homebrew, I should’ve said “I originally was just going to post…”. Gobear’s postings haven’t changed my mind about gay marriage or Frist’s stupid proposed amendment. I’ll still stand up for gay rights, I just don’t want to be standing near someone acting like an obnoxious jerk when I do it. Claiming that because I don’t cheer Thurmond’s death or like it when others do so that I must be siding with a homophobe is insulting.
On preview I see:
Well, yeah- that’s why they’re “bigots”. You’re saying that because you’ve been wronged, that allows you to act like a bigot?
My respon to this is best expressed by a quotation from Dr. Martin Luther King, found in Courtland Milloy’s June 29th Washington Post column that commented on white reactions to societal progress for black people:
For “white” and “Negro,” read “hetero” and “gay”.
And how am I acting like a bigot? Who did I discriminate against? When did I support the elimination of heterosexual marriage? When did I advocate unequal treatment that favored gay people over heterosexuals?
If you are calling me a bigot because I do not weep for Strom Thurmond, then I suggest you do the same for those who did not weep for Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, or William L. Pierce.
In fact, I notice in this thread, Woo-hoo! A celebrity death we can all feel good about!, none of you sanctimonious hypocrites posted any diatribes about how we should not dishonor the memory of the author of “The Turner Diaries.”
My feelings about Strom and his kind are best echoed by a quote from Fenris in that thread:
I can see your point and that makes sense.
BTW, I am SO not saying that gay rights have come “far enough.” I mean, you gotta keep working on these people.
gobear:
The above paragraph struck me right between the eyes, so to speak.
As a white middle-class and middle- aged hetrosexual woman,
I realized that the rights that I take for granted-the right to love whomever I please, the right to live with whomever I love and the right to have the state legally recognize our union are denied to gobear and his partner.
That’s just wrong.
Period.
If I had spent the majority of my adult life seeking simple humane recognition of our union and reading again and again that men like Thurmond were using their political power to deny me my rights, I think that I would be somewhat gleeful to read of their demise as well.
It’s easy to say “But he did some good things” or “It’s just wrong to celebrate anyone’s death” when you been afforded all the rights and protections under that law that your gay or black brothers and sisters have had to fight for on a daily basis.
I doubt that many of gobear’s detractors would’ve adopted the same forbearing attitude if Thurmond’s legacy of intolerence had been directed at them and their partners.
AAAAAUGH!!! That does it! I’m changing my name!
Because Frist is an asshole, and I expected such moronic behavior from him. The folks cackling over Thurmond’s death are Dopers, and I expect better from them.
Actually, I’m rather disgusted over Frist’s remarks, but it’s just more of the same disgust I feel over the usual conservative intolerant homophobic glurge.
Might I suggest “El Santo”?