Bush to back constitutional amendment banning...

[Strike 6,030]

Gay Marriage. Just when you think he can't do anything dumber he does

 

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/115...y_Marriage.html

[brinett9 0]

Would 100 ferrets on crack get more accomplished than today's Senate?

 

I'm serious. It's a legitimate question.

[parrot 790]

Would 100 ferrets on crack get more accomplished than today's Senate?

 

I'm serious. It's a legitimate question.

 

 

Show we one time ferrets ever pushed through a $200 million bridge to be built in the wilds of Alaska lib-boy.

[Snoopy1 0]

Would 100 ferrets on crack get more accomplished than today's Senate?

 

I'm serious. It's a legitimate question.

 

Domestic ferrets or wild-black footed ferrets?

[Jeff Garcia 8]

Gay Marriage. Just when you think he can't do anything dumber he does

 

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/115...y_Marriage.html

Why is it dumb? Gays can marry anyone that I am able to marry. Seems pretty equal to me.

[Bigtraine 35]

Why is it dumb? Gays can marry anyone that I am able to marry. Seems pretty equal to me.

 

What if there was a constitutional amendment banning the eating of meat? Would you have a problem with that, or would you agree with a vegetarian that it's ok because you can still "eat the same things they can"?

[Jeff Garcia 8]

What if there was a constitutional amendment banning the eating of meat? Would you have a problem with that, or would you agree with a vegetarian that it's ok because you can still "eat the same things they can"?

If the majority wanted it, I guess I wouldn't be eating meat anymore.

[Bigtraine 35]

If the majority wanted it, I guess I wouldn't be eating meat anymore.

 

So it's ok to limit the choices of people, as long as the majority agrees with your point of view? Glad to hear you were a big fan of concentration camps. What, you didn't say that? Well, the majority of Germans were supporting the Nazi party and they were killing a bunch of jews...but it's ok, because that's what the majority wanted!

 

Guess it's time to get rid of Bush and end the war in Iraq, that seems to be what the majority of people want too....

[Jeff Garcia 8]

So it's ok to limit the choices of people, as long as the majority agrees with your point of view? Glad to hear you were a big fan of concentration camps. What, you didn't say that? Well, the majority of Germans were supporting the Nazi party and they were killing a bunch of jews...but it's ok, because that's what the majority wanted!

 

Guess it's time to get rid of Bush and end the war in Iraq, that seems to be what the majority of people want too....

Well, the majority thing has worked well for us for over 200 years. Congress uses this method when they vote for things. We use this method when we vote for things. I'm not sure how else you would want to do things? Only people who make over $200,000 a year make decisions? It's called a democracy. I would be interested to know what you would rather have other than a vote on things? Maybe we can have a monarchy here, appoint a King, and than he can make all decisions. I am willing to guess that 99%+ of the German populace didn't know what was going on behind the scenes. I'm not quite sure why you brought up that analogy.

[parrot 790]

Well, the majority thing has worked well for us for over 200 years.

Time to brush up on your civics lessons.

[Jeff Garcia 8]

Time to brush up on your civics lessons.

Care to elaborate?

[Snoopy1 0]

Time to brush up on your civics lessons.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules or took a few liberties with our female party guests -- we did. But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the actions of a few sick, perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you ... isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!

[parrot 790]

Care to elaborate?

At no point during the last 200 years has the United States had a simple majority rule system. HTH.

[Bigtraine 35]

Well, the majority thing has worked well for us for over 200 years. Congress uses this method when they vote for things. We use this method when we vote for things. I'm not sure how else you would want to do things? Only people who make over $200,000 a year make decisions? It's called a democracy. I would be interested to know what you would rather have other than a vote on things? Maybe we can have a monarchy here, appoint a King, and than he can make all decisions. I am willing to guess that 99%+ of the German populace didn't know what was going on behind the scenes. I'm not quite sure why you brought up that analogy.

 

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. I'll type it slower this time for you. Your original point was that banning gay marriage is ok because everything is equal right now because anyone "can marry the same person you can". Wink wink, nudge nudge. Obviously that is not true. Oh sure, you can only marry women and gays can only marry women, so it must be equal. Except, of course, you want to marry women and gays don't. I pointed out an absurd example of banning eating meat, and that it would be equal for everyone - except, of course, it wouldn't because the vegetarians would have it way better off than the meat-eaters even though they technically have the same options of what to eat. A ban on gay marriage does not promote equal rights - it simply takes away an option from a group of people that would desire that option.

 

You cleverly responded to my analogy by claiming that you would be fine with a meat-eating ban as long as that's what the majority wanted, which is why I pointed out that a majprity decision is not always the best idea. Sometimes, the majority like to pick on the minority and when it is unjust, the majority needs to be told to fock off.

 

So telll me why you would want to ban an issue that is between consenting adults, that produces no victims, and does not affect anyone else? Only thing I can think of is a moral/religious reason. And when it doesn't affect you at all (other than possibly in the abstract), that is just you trying to force your views on others and take their rights and options away.

 

If you feel that way, fine. I don't agree with you, but at least you can be honest about why you feel the way you do. To hide and try and say it's "equal" right now is a load of crap.

 

I'm going home from work now so I won't be replying anymore tonight...

[TerrySilver 0]

of the millions of things that is affecting this country (war, taxes, employment, immigration, gas prices, etc., etc., etc. you catch my drift), they take time to vote on this insignificant non-issue? does same sex marriages really effect average joe? no, not at all.

 

i really wish they would do more constructive things at this time, because whether or not they ban same sex marriages, it doesnt effect me in any way, and i feel that this applies to almost everyone.

 

to me, the senate and prez wasting time on this issue at this time is like me living in a house where the roof is leaking, the foundation is falling apart, the plumbing is backed up, and the electric isnt working, but i'm too busy wasting my time worrying about which color curtains should go in the living room. it's about prioritizing what more important first, and same sex marriage shouldnt be on top of that list. shouldnt even be on that page.

[MDC 8,001]

Gay Marriage. Just when you think he can't do anything dumber he does

 

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/115...y_Marriage.html

 

Wow just in time for the Congressional elections, what a shock.

[Jeff Garcia 8]

At no point during the last 200 years has the United States had a simple majority rule system. HTH.

Again, care to elaborate? That nifty hth at the end of the sentence does nothing to elaborate on the issue either.

[Strike 6,030]

Again, care to elaborate? That nifty hth at the end of the sentence does nothing to elaborate on the issue either.

 

What's to elaborate on? He made a simple statement of fact. You're asking him to elaborate on something as basic as 2+2=4. How would someone elaborate on 2+2=4?

[Franknbeans 46]

of the millions of things that is affecting this country (war, taxes, employment, immigration, gas prices, etc., etc., etc. you catch my drift), they take time to vote on this insignificant non-issue? does same sex marriages really effect average joe? no, not at all.

 

i really wish they would do more constructive things at this time, because whether or not they ban same sex marriages, it doesnt effect me in any way, and i feel that this applies to almost everyone.

 

to me, the senate and prez wasting time on this issue at this time is like me living in a house where the roof is leaking, the foundation is falling apart, the plumbing is backed up, and the electric isnt working, but i'm too busy wasting my time worrying about which color curtains should go in the living room. it's about prioritizing what more important first, and same sex marriage shouldnt be on top of that list. shouldnt even be on that page.

it really speaks to how desperate the GOP has become

[surferskin 31]

Dubya

[Jeff Garcia 8]

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. I'll type it slower this time for you. Your original point was that banning gay marriage is ok because everything is equal right now because anyone "can marry the same person you can". Wink wink, nudge nudge. Obviously that is not true. Oh sure, you can only marry women and gays can only marry women, so it must be equal. Except, of course, you want to marry women and gays don't. I pointed out an absurd example of banning eating meat, and that it would be equal for everyone - except, of course, it wouldn't because the vegetarians would have it way better off than the meat-eaters even though they technically have the same options of what to eat. A ban on gay marriage does not promote equal rights - it simply takes away an option from a group of people that would desire that option.

 

You cleverly responded to my analogy by claiming that you would be fine with a meat-eating ban as long as that's what the majority wanted, which is why I pointed out that a majprity decision is not always the best idea. Sometimes, the majority like to pick on the minority and when it is unjust, the majority needs to be told to fock off.

 

So telll me why you would want to ban an issue that is between consenting adults, that produces no victims, and does not affect anyone else? Only thing I can think of is a moral/religious reason. And when it doesn't affect you at all (other than possibly in the abstract), that is just you trying to force your views on others and take their rights and options away.

 

If you feel that way, fine. I don't agree with you, but at least you can be honest about why you feel the way you do. To hide and try and say it's "equal" right now is a load of crap.

 

I'm going home from work now so I won't be replying anymore tonight...

 

How am I not being honest at how I feel. I don't want gay marriage. Marriage is for a man and a woman, it's been that way since the beginning of time. If they want to be together, call it something else. Give them all the rights that a married couple has, I could care less about that. But, marriage is a man and a woman.

 

 

What's to elaborate on? He made a simple statement of fact. You're asking him to elaborate on something as basic as 2+2=4. How would someone elaborate on 2+2=4?

I'm asking him for some examples of the minority ruling. Like he says there has never been a simple majority rule. Examples would be 2+2=4.

[MDC 8,001]

1. Bush and everyone else knows that there is zero chance of a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

2. The GOP is dusting this issue off for no reason other than to get social conservatives to the polls.

 

HTH!

[shovelheadt 72]

Well, the majority of Germans were supporting the Nazi party for fear of being dragged out of their homes at gunpoint and executed in the middle of the street.

 

Fixed

[surferskin 31]

1. Bush and everyone else knows that there is zero chance of a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

2. The GOP is dusting this issue off for no reason other than to get social conservatives to the polls.

 

HTH!

 

bush is just doing the right thing. God Bless, Dubya!

[hoytdwow 202]

The Constitution is for rights people have. Not for rights people don't have.

HTH

[Voltaire 5,505]

of the millions of things that is affecting this country (war, taxes, employment, immigration, gas prices, etc., etc., etc. you catch my drift), they take time to vote on this insignificant non-issue? does same sex marriages really effect average joe? no, not at all.

 

i really wish they would do more constructive things at this time, because whether or not they ban same sex marriages, it doesnt effect me in any way, and i feel that this applies to almost everyone.

 

to me, the senate and prez wasting time on this issue at this time is like me living in a house where the roof is leaking, the foundation is falling apart, the plumbing is backed up, and the electric isnt working, but i'm too busy wasting my time worrying about which color curtains should go in the living room. it's about prioritizing what more important first, and same sex marriage shouldnt be on top of that list. shouldnt even be on that page.

 

What I see it is that the demolition crew has stopped for lunch and hope they continue to do nothing.

[MDC 8,001]

bush is just doing the right thing.

 

Not according to "loony libs" like the Cato Institute, the National Review, Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Greenwald, etc. I think the GOP will keep Congress - honestly I thought they would've with or without the ban. But classical conservatives are increasingly fed up and the Bush admin. has done a lot to smear the Republican party.

[Bigtraine 35]

How am I not being honest

 

You tried to pass it off as if they have equal rights right now because they can "marry the same people you can". That is not true. You can marry whoever you want (assuming you are interested in marrying the opposite sex), they cannot.

 

I don't want gay marriage. Marriage is for a man and a woman, it's been that way since the beginning of time.

 

Beginning of time, eh? So, it I could find a society in history that allowed same-sex or multiple-partner marriages, you would change your mind?

[GobbleDog 1,012]

Give them all the rights that a married couple has, I could care less about that. But, marriage is a man and a woman.

 

You don't mind the state giving them the equal marriage rights as heteros - your only problem with it is the name that the state uses to refers to that union?

 

That seems nitpicky, but at least you're willing to agree that queer couples should be granted the same legal rights as heteros.

[surferskin 31]

are the people against the ban just worried they'll never meet that special woman and want to keep "all" their options open?

[MDC 8,001]

are the people against the ban just worried they'll never meet that special woman and want to keep "all" their options open?

 

Actually you're just a latent f@ggot who's overcompensating for your gay masturbation fantasies.

 

HTH!

[surferskin 31]

Actually you're just a latent f@ggot who's overcompensating for your gay masturbation fantasies.

 

HTH!

 

i'll tell that to my hot wife when we're shagg'n tonight.

[Bigtraine 35]

are the people against the ban just worried they'll never meet that special woman and want to keep "all" their options open?

 

Maybe some of them are. Probably about the same amount as the repressing closet-queens on the other side that are desperately trying to hide their gayness.

 

Or maybe, some people just have a problem with the government trying to legislate morality.

[MDC 8,001]

i'll tell that to my hot wife when we're shagg'n tonight.

 

"Straight," married to a hot woman, and for some reason threatened by gay marriage. You are so totally the kind of married dude who runs out to the convenience store for milk and ends up on his knees in the rest stop bathroom.

[surferskin 31]

"Straight," married to a hot woman, and for some reason threatened by gay marriage. You are so totally the kind of married dude who runs out to the convenience store for milk and ends up on his knees in the rest stop bathroom.

 

not threatened at all...but whats right is right. btw, are the libs still fighting for the rights of nambla?

[ZeroTolerance 584]

I'm asking him for some examples of the minority ruling. Like he says there has never been a simple majority rule. Examples would be 2+2=4.

 

A little thing called the 2000 election. Just for example.

[brinett9 0]

Or maybe, some people just have a problem with the government trying to legislate morality.

Or maybe they're sick of bible-thumpers insisting that homosexuality is immoral just because they don't like it.

[MDC 8,001]

not threatened at all...but whats right is right. btw, are the libs still fighting for the rights of nambla?

 

Seriously, people like you make me sick. It isn't that I disagree with you. I disagree with Fumbleweed all the time, for one example, but at least I can respect that his views are consistent and grounded in some kind of ideology. On the other hand, you're just a cheap partisan flunky and you're too stupid to even be a convincing one.

[surferskin 31]

Seriously, people like you make me sick. It isn't that I disagree with you. I disagree with Fumbleweed all the time, for one example, but at least I can respect that his views are consistent and grounded in some kind of ideology. On the other hand, you're just a cheap partisan flunky and you're too stupid to even be a convincing one.

 

yeah, you're not partisan at all.

[MDC 8,001]

yeah, you're not partisan at all.

 

There's a difference between having an ideology and being partisan. Fumbleweed has an ideology. I may not agree with his worldview (and usually don't), but if he were to vote GOP I'd trust that it's because those candidates more accurately represent his views on social issues. That is IMO an ideology. I get the sense that you just vote Republican because you're one of those guys who treat politics like you're rooting for a football team. You freely admit that Bush stands for nothing you voted for in 2000 and don't even bother to defend him - all you do is cry "bias" and brag about how your side "won."