Bush Pushes for Gay Marriage Amendment

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-24 10:26pm

I see that American is proudly marching into the 17th century.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-24 11:35pm

Bush vs Clinton fiscal nonsense split to a new thread.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-02-24 11:36pm

Um ... yeah ... kinda by me too.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-24 11:38pm

Durandal wrote:Um ... yeah ... kinda by me too.

Great minds think alike

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-02-24 11:42pm

Hehehe, yes, quite.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-24 11:42pm

Ummm...you guys seemed to have dumped some messages in the split...

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-02-24 11:43pm

The Kernel wrote:Ummm...you guys seemed to have dumped some messages in the split...

Mike's split got 4 posts, I think. Mine was 3 pages. I win.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-02-25 12:01am

Sorry this is spam-ish, but that really deserves a LOL!

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-02-25 12:11am

Laughing at my jokes in my forum is not spam-ish.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-25 12:24am

Durandal wrote: Mike's split got 4 posts, I think. Mine was 3 pages. I win.

Does this mean you get his adminship?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-02-25 12:35am

The Kernel wrote:
Durandal wrote:Mike's split got 4 posts, I think. Mine was 3 pages. I win.
Does this mean you get his adminship?

I'm not su– why, yes. Yes it does.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-25 12:37am

This is the part where Durandal turns into Galvatron and says "I hold that which you most fear!" And then the rumbling starts ...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-25 01:14am

If you haven't heard already, George W. Bush considers marriage to be a sacred institution.

Read this and see how many times this fact comes up.

Gunshy · Post by **Gunshy** » 2004-02-25 01:16am

If marriage is a sacred institution, I look forward to the constitutional ammendment banning adultry.

God I love the Daily Show

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-25 01:18am

Apparently, "sacred" in Bush-ese means "keep the goddamned gays out of it".

Tell me, does this mean he would prefer that gays be sexually promiscuous and run around half-naked in the street? He apparently doesn't want gays to act like heterosexuals since that would trample on some kind of "sacred" institution, so what does he want them to do?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-02-25 01:21am

Darth Wong wrote:Apparently, "sacred" in Bush-ese means "keep the goddamned gays out of it".

Tell me, does this mean he would prefer that gays be sexually promiscuous and run around half-naked in the street? He apparently doesn't want gays to act like heterosexuals since that would trample on some kind of "sacred" institution, so what does he want them to do?

After interaction with this kind of Christian in the past, the answer is 'burst into hellfire and suffer for eternity'.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-02-25 01:22am

Darth Wong wrote:Apparently, "sacred" in Bush-ese means "keep the goddamned gays out of it".

Tell me, does this mean he would prefer that gays be sexually promiscuous and run around half-naked in the street? He apparently doesn't want gays to act like heterosexuals since that would trample on some kind of "sacred" institution, so what does he want them to do?

Die, disappear, convert, become extinct. The usual...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-25 01:26am

Interestingly enough, the Biblical case for banning gay marriage isn't particularly strong. Jesus, as far as I'm aware, never said a word about homosexuality.

What is particularly strong, however, is the Biblical case for banning divorce, which Jesus quite emphatically stated was not to be permitted. Wonder why they've chosen to be so selective.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-25 01:29am

Darth Wong wrote:Apparently, "sacred" in Bush-ese means "keep the goddamned gays out of it".

Tell me, does this mean he would prefer that gays be sexually promiscuous and run around half-naked in the street? He apparently doesn't want gays to act like heterosexuals since that would trample on some kind of "sacred" institution, so what does he want them to do?

Apparently he believes states should be free to develop legal arrangements for homosexuals, whatever the hell that means.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-25 01:30am

Do you guys realize that despite the wide swath of different people and political views on this board, I have yet to see a single person argue in favor of banning gay marriage? When is the last time anyone can remember a hot political topic that we all agreed on?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-25 01:32am

The Kernel wrote:Do you guys realize that despite the wide swath of different people and political views on this board, I have yet to see a single person argue in favor of banning gay marriage? When is the last time anyone can remember a hot political topic that we all agreed on?

Because it's fucking ridiculous. Banning gay marriage is bad enough, dragging the Constitution into it just sends me into a blind rage.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-25 01:35am

Joe wrote:
The Kernel wrote:Do you guys realize that despite the wide swath of different people and political views on this board, I have yet to see a single person argue in favor of banning gay marriage? When is the last time anyone can remember a hot political topic that we all agreed on?
Because it's fucking ridiculous. Banning gay marriage is bad enough, dragging the Constitution into it just sends me into a blind rage.

That's my point, no one has a rational argument for it because there is no rational argument for it! And yet, aparently more then half the country agrees with it. It doesn't give me much hope for the current state of mankind...

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-25 01:38am

Joe wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Apparently, "sacred" in Bush-ese means "keep the goddamned gays out of it".

Tell me, does this mean he would prefer that gays be sexually promiscuous and run around half-naked in the street? He apparently doesn't want gays to act like heterosexuals since that would trample on some kind of "sacred" institution, so what does he want them to do?
Apparently he believes states should be free to develop legal arrangements for homosexuals, whatever the hell that means.

But marriage IS a legal arrangment...

Do you guys realize that despite the wide swath of different people and political views on this board, I have yet to see a single person argue in favor of banning gay marriage? When is the last time anyone can remember a hot political topic that we all agreed on?

most arguments that take place here are fiscal issues, or foreign policy issues. Sometimes you will gt a debate on personal liberties or legal semantics, but even the most stounch fiscal conservatives in this board are scial liberals/libertarians.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-02-25 01:41am

Joe wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Apparently, "sacred" in Bush-ese means "keep the goddamned gays out of it".

Tell me, does this mean he would prefer that gays be sexually promiscuous and run around half-naked in the street? He apparently doesn't want gays to act like heterosexuals since that would trample on some kind of "sacred" institution, so what does he want them to do?
Apparently he believes states should be free to develop legal arrangements for homosexuals, whatever the hell that means.

"Legal arrangements" probably means something like "Choose to incarcerate them or 'rehabilitate' them, depending on the liberalness of your state." And it's only because he loves them SOOO much and doesn't want them going to hell.

So when's he officially coming after atheists?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-02-25 01:42am

The Kernel wrote:
Joe wrote:
The Kernel wrote:Do you guys realize that despite the wide swath of different people and political views on this board, I have yet to see a single person argue in favor of banning gay marriage? When is the last time anyone can remember a hot political topic that we all agreed on?
Because it's fucking ridiculous. Banning gay marriage is bad enough, dragging the Constitution into it just sends me into a blind rage.
That's my point, no one has a rational argument for it because there is no rational argument for it! And yet, aparently more then half the country agrees with it. It doesn't give me much hope for the current state of mankind...

Why do you think I would almost advocate a bitschlapping and crucification machine... A giant robotic mechanism that brings stupid people up on a converyer belt, bitchslapps them, then uses 3 pneumatic nailuns to pin them to the Great wall of China by their wrists and feet... it can even alternate them alng the wall heads facing up, or down to maximize the number you can fit on the wall... like a can of sardines(Idea goes to Russell Davis... I cant take credit for it)

*slap slap KACHUNK*