View Full Version : Frist Steps in it Again!
1stFlight
06-30-03, 02:03 PM
Right after the Supreme Court gave their ruling on Sodomy laws. Sen Frist (R. TN) puts his foot in his mouth with...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/29/frist.gay.marriage.ap/index.html
Anyone want to stamp BIGOT on his forehead??
Of course I'm still wondering why the government feels it needs to impose it's version of "morality" on it's citizens
The Baron
06-30-03, 02:07 PM
The religious right never ceases to amaze me.
Does marriage between two men or two women somehow affect you in any way, shape, or form? What's that? No? Then WHY DO YOU WANT TO BAN IT?!!
vampireuk
06-30-03, 02:11 PM
*brands the word "BIGGOT" onto his forehead*
digitalwanderer
06-30-03, 02:12 PM
To be added to the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Yeah, like that amendment has a snowball's chance in hell of making it! :rolleyes:
It's just some grandstanding to make the bible-thumpers happy and to help rally the liberals against him. ;)
vampireuk
06-30-03, 02:12 PM
Since when has sex been illegal anyway?
2fast4u
06-30-03, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by vampireuk
Since when has sex been illegal anyway?
interestingly enough, prostitution is legal where i live.
anyway, i dont think this guy has a point at all. all he wants to do is push thru his own "moral" and opinion. you cannot ammend to the constitution that indeed not all people are equal. that doesnt make any godamn sense. :mad:
seriously, that would mean the united states would openly discriminate gays in its very constitution. who would want that?
bigot!
digitalwanderer
06-30-03, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by 2fast4u
seriously, that would mean the united states would openly discriminate gays in its very constitution. who would want that?
bigot!
Hey, you answered your own question! :lol: ;)
2fast4u
06-30-03, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Hey, you answered your own question! :lol: ;)
i like rhetorical qs ;)
He is not a biggot. He was, on the first so called flap restating what the ruling meant. You guys really need to get of your high horse and listen to what he said and I meant the full quote not a left wing nut whos husband works for democrats. :rolleyes: PATHETIC.
So this is what you guys are saying. If a person disagrees with the gay life style then they are a biggot. Fine then I'm a biggot. I dare you to come and brand that on my fore head!
BTW I support this bill but not in the way he is going about it. The bill should only define marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. If homosexuals want to get hitched fine. It just will not be state sanctioned.
It's funny that marriage has been the union of one man and one woman for thousands of years but now we who hold to this definition are biggots. :rolleyes:
mar·riage: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
Indeed, Buttsechs=teh noes!111111111
Funny how the left is quick to label others as bigots, yet they go out of the way to support affirmative discrimination!
2fast4u
06-30-03, 03:44 PM
i based my statement on that article, actually i didnt even know who the hell that guy is before i read it .. and its cnn so dont complain :p
udawg, the classical picture of marriage is hopelessly outdated. you cant keep it up anymore, its discrimination and nothing else.
marriage is nothing but a legal relationship between two people. and im not talking about the emotional value so dont get started on that. so why shouldnt gays have the same right as straight people do, it doesnt bring _any_ disadvantage to straight people.
Originally posted by 2fast4u
i based my statement on that article, actually i didnt even know who the hell that guy is before i read it .. and its cnn so dont complain :p
udawg, the classical picture of marriage is hopelessly outdated. you cant keep it up anymore, its discrimination and nothing else.
marriage is nothing but a legal relationship between two people. and im not talking about the emotional value so dont get started on that. so why shouldnt gays have the same right as straight people do, it doesnt bring _any_ disadvantage to straight people.
I realize you don't have our media.
Marriage is outdated only because you say so. Millions disagree with your point of view.
Marriage is more than a legal relationship. All of western society is based on it. You are introducing a complete change in western society, one in which will further decay morality.
You say it is discreimination. Well duh! It dsicriminates that one man and one woman are a marriage. :rolleyes: LOL! couldn't help the play on words. :p
You say it doesn't brin any disadvantage to straigh people. You are right but the blurring of the lines of what a marriage is by erasing the definition disadvantages all of society in the future. As soon as the family fails then so does society.....and people wonder why things are worse now morally. :rolleyes:
1stFlight
06-30-03, 03:53 PM
Disagreeing is fine
Creating a legal bias against it however is not.
Replace gay with <insert race of choice> and then how do his comments sound....
If your church wants to be biased fine, no law makes anyone go to church, however there is NO place for religion in government. And since you can be married by the State as well as a Church, there is no reason not to recognize ALL marriages. It's always been about love more than anything else.
And for hundreds of years many people women were treated as borderline slaves, according to you that should be fine cause hey, it's tradition...
Traditions change man.
Originally posted by UDawg71
He is not a biggot. He was, on the first so called flap restating what the ruling meant. You guys really need to get of your high horse and listen to what he said and I meant the full quote not a left wing nut whos husband works for democrats. :rolleyes: PATHETIC.
So this is what you guys are saying. If a person disagrees with the gay life style then they are a biggot. Fine then I'm a biggot. I dare you to come and brand that on my fore head!
BTW I support this bill but not in the way he is going about it. The bill should only define marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. If homosexuals want to get hitched fine. It just will not be state sanctioned.
It's funny that marriage has been the union of one man and one woman for thousands of years but now we who hold to this definition are biggots. :rolleyes:
2fast4u
06-30-03, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by UDawg71
Marriage is outdated only because you say so. Millions disagree with your point of view.
and millions will share it.
Marriage is more than a legal relationship. All of western society is based on it. You are introducing a complete change in western society, one in which will further decay morality.
how so? being gay isnt immoral. and about complete change in western society, it is not. "classical" marriage can friendly co-exist with gay marriages. i dont see any problems here. most people use that reason to cover up their intolerance.
I did not use reason to cover up my intolerance of gay marriages. I used reason to say why I am against gay marriages. I did not hide my intolerance, it is plain that I am intolerant of this. I am 100% against this.
No one is saying homosexuals can not get married. You can go and have all the ceramonies you want. It just wont be recognized by the state.
Marriage is much more than merely a commitment to love one another. It entitles financial responsibility, as well as authorized financial benefits. It is the institution that provides automatic legal protection for the spouse, including medical visitation, inheritance of a deceased spouse's property, as well as pension and other rights. Our society has become so accustom to what they believe is “normal” by their traditions and religious beliefs. Too many people believe that same-sex marriage is not “normal” The simple fact is that banning same-sex marriage IS discrimination. Marriage is the basic human right that should not be denied to anyone.
Originally posted by b00bie
Marriage is much more than merely a commitment to love one another. It entitles financial responsibility, as well as authorized financial benefits. It is the institution that provides automatic legal protection for the spouse, including medical visitation, inheritance of a deceased spouse's property, as well as pension and other rights. Our society has become so accustom to what they believe is “normal” by their traditions and religious beliefs. Too many people believe that same-sex marriage is not “normal” The simple fact is that banning same-sex marriage IS discrimination. Marriage is the basic human right that should not be denied to anyone.
Marriage is not a basic humn right.
I believe how peole set up their finances and to whom they go to incase of death or other situation is up to the couple who are commited to each other. I also belive that it is wrong to keep a gay partner from medical visitation. This still has nothing to do with marriage.
2fast4u
06-30-03, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by UDawg71
It just wont be recognized by the state.
and you still havent stated why it should not. whats the damn difference?
Originally posted by UDawg71
Marriage is not a basic humn right.
I believe how peole set up their finances and to whom they go to incase of death or other situation is up to the couple who are commited to each other. I also belive that it is wrong to keep a gay partner from medical visitation. This still has nothing to do with marriage.
Well, UDawg, what do you see as the reason for two people to marry each other? And what is it about gay people that does not fit that description?
And don't tell me that it's just because it's been said that it's a "legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. "
I did. It is a special union between a man and a woman. It is the best, most effective way to arrange a society, Homosexual marriages are not. First off there isn't any chance of producing children. In a traditional marriage there is a good chance to produce children. Second a child with a man and a woman as a parent are the most effective way to raise children. Just as devorce tears apart societies so will homosexual marriages.
I just stated some reasons and studies prove what I have said about a man and woman raising children. If you don't agree then fine.
2fast4u
06-30-03, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by UDawg71
I did. It is a special union between a man and a woman. It is the best, most effective way to arrange a society, Homosexual marriages are not. First off there isn't any chance of producing children. In a traditional marriage there is a good chance to produce children.
well where is the downside? its not like there will be only homosexual marriages. homesexuals didnt produce children in the first place so no loss here. now theres still the major number of *straight* couples hopefully producing children. where is your problem?
I already stated it. You don't agree, so I don't see any reason to keep debating. I presented my side and you yours. We just disagree.
2fast4u
06-30-03, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by UDawg71
I already stated it. You don't agree, so I don't see any reason to keep debating. I presented my side and you yours. We just disagree.
not exactly. im asking you specifically about your points because i cant understand them.
Originally posted by UDawg71
I already stated it. You don't agree, so I don't see any reason to keep debating. I presented my side and you yours. We just disagree.
I agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just don't see this connection that you make between gay marriages and how they tear apart our society...
There are other countries which made them legal... so are you basing this on some facts? Or is it just your opinion?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.