T1B

Just play the gay marriage card:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060603/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Are we back in 2004 again?

This quote is freaking classic.

"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," Bush said in his Saturday radio address. "Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society."

Talk about a fucking strawman. There is nothing about either gay marriage or civil unions that damages the institution of marriage any more than Elizabeth Taylor and Mickey Rooney already have.

Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society,"

Didn't Siegfried and Roy say this, too?

And please to be explaining this bit o pretzel logic:

As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity," he said.

A debate about banning gay marriage and he speaks of TOLERANCE?

I never cease to be astounded at the amount of bullshit he can spew.

Why do you hate marriage?

Hmm...shall we amend the Constitution to officially designate a group of Americans (people who are pursuing life, liberty, and happiness) as inferior, and take away some of their civil liberty?

Sounds like a great idea, Karl. At least, right before a difficult election, it does.

Mikey wrote:Why do you hate marriage?

I don't hate it anymore than the 40 to 50 percent of people who so respect the so called "sanctity" of marriage that they end up getting divorced. Also, divorce rates among conservative Christians are significantly higher than for other faith groups as well as for Atheists and Agnostics. It's not quite the holy ground it's being made out to be.

So spare me the platitudes. This is nothing more than a weak attempt to push his own fanatic religious agenda on the american public as a whole. Fuck him. He'll fail.

Don't worry. Come November, whether it be gay marriage, fake terror threats or the latest Willie Horton, I have no reason to doubt why America shouldn't fall for the old "banana in the tailpipe" trick all over again.

Works every time.

Goddamnit.

This is nothing more than a weak attempt to push his own fanatic religious agenda on the american public as a whole.

Or, more immediately, to divert attention from immigration reform, the War in Iraq, the unraveling situation in Afghanistan, you name it.

A few words about gay marriage, some clucking from the New Media, and they're off to the races.

mvscal wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:Hmm...shall we amend the Constitution to officially designate a group of Americans (people who are pursuing life, liberty, and happiness) as inferior, and take away some of their civil liberty?

Since when did marriage become a "civil liberty"?

Since the State of Massachusetts declared it so. But those who would purport to favor "states rights" can't stand to see states decide this issue.

What always cracks me up about this debate is the fact that some refer to a one man-one woman marriage as the "Biblical" definition of marriage. Apparently, they didn't read the same Bible I did.

Terry, I often wonder if these zealots have ever read a bible, other than one of their own devising.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Since the State of Massachusetts declared it so.

You mean the same morons who send a murderer to the US Senate every six years declared it so?



Yeah, OK. Whatever.

So, you're not for states rights?

mvscal wrote:I'm just happy to see them working on harmless fluff like gay marriage and flag burning rather than truly fucking up the country with bullshit . . .

So you're saying that you don't trust your own party to govern? Thanks for being honest.

mvscal wrote:I'm just happy to see them working on harmless fluff like gay marriage and flag burning rather than truly fucking up the country with bullshit like the Senate immigration bill.

It's looking highly doubtful anything on immigration will be passed this year, exept for direct security measures (more fences, etc.).

mvscal wrote:I couldn't care less about this issue.

I'm just happy to see them working on harmless fluff like gay marriage and flag burning rather than truly fucking up the country with bullshit like the Senate immigration bill.

The local congressman (a GOP guy) placed letters in the local newspapers asking for our support for the flag-burning amendment.

Idjit.

An obvious dodge of real issues, not to mention an incredibly stupid idea that diminishes the importance of the Constitution (same goes for the gay marriage ban...)

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:An obvious dodge of real issues, not to mention an incredibly stupid idea that diminishes the importance of the Constitution (same goes for the gay marriage ban...)

Rack.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

mvscal wrote:I couldn't care less about this issue.

I'm just happy to see them working on harmless fluff like gay marriage and flag burning rather than truly fucking up the country with bullshit like the Senate immigration bill.

The local congressman (a GOP guy) placed letters in the local newspapers asking for our support for the flag-burning amendment.

Idjit.

An obvious dodge of real issues, not to mention an incredibly stupid idea that diminishes the importance of the Constitution (same goes for the gay marriage ban...)

Who's your Congressman, Reynolds or Kuhl? Mine's Reynolds.

Both are idiots.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

mvscal wrote:I couldn't care less about this issue.

I'm just happy to see them working on harmless fluff like gay marriage and flag burning rather than truly fucking up the country with bullshit like the Senate immigration bill.

The local congressman (a GOP guy) placed letters in the local newspapers asking for our support for the flag-burning amendment.

Idjit.

An obvious dodge of real issues, not to mention an incredibly stupid idea that diminishes the importance of the Constitution (same goes for the gay marriage ban...)

Who's your Congressman, Reynolds or Kuhl? Mine's Reynolds.

Both are idiots.

I'm still trying to figure out how Kuhl got elected. I guess he must have taken his shotgun to his campaign stops.

BSmack wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: The local congressman (a GOP guy) placed letters in the local newspapers asking for our support for the flag-burning amendment.

Idjit.

An obvious dodge of real issues, not to mention an incredibly stupid idea that diminishes the importance of the Constitution (same goes for the gay marriage ban...)

Who's your Congressman, Reynolds or Kuhl? Mine's Reynolds.

Both are idiots.

I'm still trying to figure out how Kuhl got elected. I guess he must have taken his shotgun to his campaign stops.

Me too, especially after the DWI. But that's a heavily Republican district, as is mine.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Who's your Congressman, Reynolds or Kuhl?

Reynolds.

A typical double-chinned balding pasty-white guy government a-hole who leaves a trail of slime wherever he goes. Met the guy once. A real grade-A scumbag who oozes disingenuous "charm." He looked at me like an alien when I told him I was a Libertarian.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Reynolds.

A typical double-chinned balding pasty-white guy government a-hole who leaves a trail of slime wherever he goes.

This has gotta be sig material, or at least dangerously close to it.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: He looked at me like an alien when I told him I was a Libertarian.

Were you wearing a tri-corn hat?

Challenge him to a duel - if he consents you should be able to shoot him without fear of legal reprecution.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:What always cracks me up about this debate is the fact that some refer to a one man-one woman marriage as the "Biblical" definition of marriage. Apparently, they didn't read the same Bible I did.

You just didn't understand the Bible that you read.