Hey, maybe it’s just that Christie is sexy and he knows it.
More great ideas from the Derpublicans: state legislator Todd Russ introduces HB 1125, which would require clerics (christian or jewish, no mullahs) to perform all marriages.
Because, you know, there are no religious gays, and there are no ministers or rabbis that would ever marry gays. This would fix everything.
It looks like we won’t have Presidential Candidate Chris Christie to kick around much longer, as 96% of likely Iowa Caucus voters don’t like him. A terrible loss for this thread, but he’s still governor.
Someone should tell Huckabee that those women at Fox news probably don’t just use those words, but they actually do those things. Picture it, Governor.
Then watch as his head explodes.
Pics, or it didn’t happen.
Well Constitutional rights are all very well and good so long as they are just words printed on paper. But when people attempt to put them to use in the REAL world, well, that’s when they become … problematical.
I thought it was widely understood that the reason all the female Faux News babblers wear skirts is that it makes it more convenient when Roger Ailes wants to fist them.
Sean Hannity prefers chiffon.
Mike Huckabee and others who believe being gay is a lifestyle choice.
Very interesting point of view, that. Especially if you think about it, and I mean, follow it through to its logical conclusions.
It means that all gay people, everywhere, actually are just as straight as you or me. They are in fact attracted to members of the opposite sex. But one day, out of the clear blue sky, or derp derp derp childhood psychological trauma derp derp theory derp, decide you know what? I’m a guy, but I’d just loooooove to suck on a penis today.
They had that thought, and did not have the natural reaction that a straight guy would have which is “Penis in my mouth? Nope.”
So, he’s essentially saying everyone in the whole wide word is bisexual and can switch between which gender they interact with sexually, on a whim. Just like that, by deciding to.
That’s very interesting to me, because it’s so absurd, but what are the implications of that?
Does it mean, therefore, that penis is actually so awesome, even straight guys would love it, if they just gave it a quick go as an experiment? Like, even gay-bashing homophobes with like 19 children, if they were to just calm down for a moment, and tried a penis on for size just once, why, they’d go absolutely, pardon the expression, head over heels?
That’s very interesting to me. It’s a point of view that astounds me. Every person who thinks being gay is really a choice like that, is essentially saying that the only reason they’re not gay today is because they’re resisting the overwhelming urge to do it.
And gay peoples out there are actually all tempters and temptresses, holding the same-sex cock and vagina and dangling it in front of our faces like rich and tasty dessert items that we know we shouldn’t partake of, but would totally enjoy if we did.
VERY interesting universe they live in. Quite interesting indeed. I guess it really is the forbidden fruit, it’s just so delicious it will turn you gay if you tried it once.
I’ll pass, but okay. Neat belief system you got there.
Indeed.
My default assumption for anyone who thinks being gay is a “choice” or a “lifestyle” is that they are probably either closeted, or denying their own sexuality.
I figure that THEY actually think about gay sex all the time, so they think EVERYone does.
Yep. I am a completely straight dude. I have an incredibly broad spectrum of attraction to the female form.
Guys? Not to any measurable level. I can appreciate male beauty, and remain unmoved by it.
But I have a significant number of gay (both genders) friends. I love them and I am passionate about defending them and their rights. I have zero interest in switching sides and they understand that.
“Doth protest too much” was never more apt then when applied to the virulent anti-gays.
Well, a lot of people are naturally bisexual and ethically heterosexual. That’s not exactly a new idea.
(Post shortened a lot)
You left out how Jesus keeps the gay away, There but for the grace indeed.
Really? Do you have a cite for that? I’m truly curious as I’ve never heard that at all.
They CAN be stripped of their ecclesiastical authority, you know.
Or are you one of those counter-antidisestablishmentarianism lowlifes who’ve been causing so much trouble lately?
That would bust a hornets’ nest of 1A issues. The state would have to certify marriage-qualified clerics, meaning establishment of a religious endorsement. It is just incomprehensible that they would think this could work, and given the expense this could incur in litigation and the fact that it is so blatantly unconstitutional, any legislator that votes for this, or any other obviously untenable legislation, ought to be personally liable for a share of all the legal expenses after it gets shot down.
HEY! Watch out now - soon you will be insulting the great state of Derplahoma for our actions. This is a new year and we’re tired of being 4th/5th/6th in craven ideas. We proudly piss away expenses on legislation/litigation that is utterly, unredeemably unconstitutional. I’m actually in Hawaii now but I still have some remaining taxes to pay there so I can bitch. See Kern, Sally and Cockroft, Idiot several posts back. AND they are just getting warmed up for the new legislative session.
This might be the thread winner.
All right, say that thrice while touching your nose and hopping on one foot, we’ll drop the drunk in public charge.
Actually, this sounds like the stupid liberal idea of the day. One interpretation: all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, have the right to get married in the church of their choice. Therefore, it behooves the federal government to dictate theological policy* to churches to ensure all Americans can duly exercise those rights.
Not something one would expect to come out of Oklahoma.
- No, they don’t.
** oooooh, bad idea.