McCain Aide Coming Out For Gay Marriage
CNN senior Congressional correspondent Dana Bash writes that Steve Schmidt, a key architect of John McCain's presidential campaign, is giving a speech today to the Log Cabin Republicans to urge religious conservative Republicans to drop their opposition to gay marriage:
"There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same-sex marriage," Schmidt will say, according to speech excerpts obtained by CNN. "I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one's liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage."Schmidt makes both policy and political arguments for a Republican embrace of same-sex marriage.
On the policy front, Schmidt likens the fight for gay rights to civil rights and women's rights, and he admonishes conservatives who argue for the protection of the unborn as a God-given right, but against protections for same-sex couples.
"It cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un American or threatens the rights of others," he says in the speech. "On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence -- liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
"That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force," Schmidt will say.
Politically, he will say that becoming more open and accepting is critical to reversing an alarming trend for Republicans -- a shrinking coalition. He will note that Republicans should be especially concerned that McCain got crushed by Barack Obama among voters under 30, who are generally more accepting of gay couples and at odds with the GOP.
"Some Republicans believe the period of self-examination within the party necessitated by the loss of our majority status is mostly a question of whether the party should become more moderate or conservative. I think that's a false choice. We need to grow our coalition, but as I said, that's hard to do if we lose some votes while gaining others," says Schmidt.
The Republicans lose fiscal conservative/social libertarians like me on a number of grounds: the fact that they aren't really for small government or fiscal conservatism, and their religious nuttery -- like their stance against gay marriage. Don't believe in gay marriage? Don't be a man who marries your boyfriend. But, don't deny it to others who seek the tax breaks and benefits allowed to others who marry because they do it in the Church-supported manner.
The Libertarians have a major chance in the next election, thanks to the bungling of the Democrats and Republicans for far too long. Don't blow it yet again, asshats, okay?
There really is no fair argument against it while there are legal benefits to marriage. Discrimination is being treated differently and as long as homosexual couples are not given the same benefits, it's discrimination.
What does make me sick is my looney tunes Governor using this issue to distract from his "I want to lay off 9,000 State workers now the consequences be damned!" temper tantrum. What makes me even sicker than that is that it seems to have worked. Suddenly no one's talking about his fight with the unions.
T's Grammy at April 17, 2009 10:15 AM
> There really is no fair argument
> against it while there are legal
> benefits to marriage.
The confusion in your wording betokens the failures in your reasoning.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 17, 2009 10:26 AM
Are you trying to win us over by sheer repetitiveness? I just can't go here again, other than to note that there are plenty of libertarians and non-religious people who are not on the gay-marriage bandwagon.
momof3 at April 17, 2009 11:10 AM
T's Grammy,
I oppose gay marriage (and support civil unions and gay adoption), but I acknowledge that reasonable minds can differ on the issue.
It disturbs me greatly, however, when proponents of gay marriage deny that anyone could reasonably hold an opposing viewpoint, and so any opponent is necessarily a "hater" and a "bigot." This automatically reduces any discussion to a personal and very negative level, and actually encourages an "equal and opposite reaction." In the same vein, calling someone who opposes gay marriage on moral grounds a "religious nutter" is nothing more than hostile, anti-religious bigotry.
Marriage is a social institution which has been, and which I believe should remain, reserved for the only model of relationship which is capable of producing children who will be reared by the man and woman who created them. It does not dishonor homosexual relationships -- or any other relationship -- to note that they can never produce such children. Because of this socially-important distinction, I think it is reasonable to deny "marriage" to gay relationships, multi-partner relationships, blood relationships, etc.
I understand that you disagree with my reasoning, but does merely pointing this out make me a hater and a bigot?
Jay R at April 17, 2009 11:24 AM
Usually because they'd rather do away with marrige alltogether momof3
lujlp at April 17, 2009 11:29 AM
Because of this socially-important distinction, I think it is reasonable to deny "marriage" to gay relationships, multi-partner relationships, blood relationships, etc.
If you're basing your argument on reproductive capacity, then it seems reasonable to allow marriage to apply to multi-partner relationships and blood relationships.
MonicaP at April 17, 2009 12:33 PM
Actually I think a libertarian would say that the gov't shouldn't be giving out benefits to married couples. In fact, a libertarian argument would be that gov't shouldn't even be in the business of recognizing marriage. If private institutions wish to discriminate, then that is their right.
Charles at April 17, 2009 1:24 PM
Does marriage come with tax breaks? Kids do, but I think for tax purposes, we just add our salaries together and subtract our deductions. There's no special marriage deduction. If we didn't both work, that would change things, I suppose. But I don't think there's any tax break for marriage per se. Either way, we somehow succeeded owing the great State of California about 6000 more than we paid it this year. Ouch.
Cheezburg at April 17, 2009 1:24 PM
"Reproductive capacity".
It's amazing, jaw-dropping, stunning, confounding and inexplicable that terms like that are how modern women talk about motherhood.
'For the most reasonable deployment of this reproductive capacity, perhaps we should....'
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 17, 2009 1:28 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/17/mccain_aide_com.html#comment-1643817">comment from CharlesActually I think a libertarian would say that the gov't shouldn't be giving out benefits to married couples. In fact, a libertarian argument would be that gov't shouldn't even be in the business of recognizing marriage. If private institutions wish to discriminate, then that is their right.
Charles, I've written many times before that I'm against "marriage privileging," but since benefits for heteros are unlikely to be rolled back I think we should also provide benefits for homos.
Amy Alkon at April 17, 2009 1:35 PM
Crid, giving birth to a child and being a mother are two different things, which is why I make the distinction here. We hope one leads to the other, but that's not always the case. And I'm not going to attach sentimentality to what is at its core a social science discussion.
MonicaP at April 17, 2009 1:41 PM
"If you're basing your argument on reproductive capacity, then it seems reasonable to allow marriage to apply to multi-partner relationships and blood relationships."
MonicaP, I agree that, following the same argument, marriage should be more readily acceptable for these other "alternative" relationships. However, notwithstanding "reproductive capacity" there are still important distinctions.
As for blood relationships, society and children have an interest in avoiding inbreeding and its consequences (note, however, that first cousins can marry in some states, but cannot under incest laws in other states).
As for multi-party relationships, there will always be one or more "parents" who are not genetically related to the child.
So, I would still draw the line at one woman and one unrelated man.
I hope no one takes this to mean that I hate groups of people and people who are blood relatives!
Jay R at April 17, 2009 1:52 PM
Bravo, Charles. There is little reason for government in child rearing.
liz at April 17, 2009 2:06 PM
Marriage is a social institution which has been, and which I believe should remain, reserved for the only model of relationship which is capable of producing children who will be reared by the man and woman who created them.
So, you're opposed to gay couples "rearing" children?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
You must be British.
If you base marriage solely on reproductive capacity then you eliminate it for over-fifty women, men with vasectomies, women with tubal ligations, and sterile people. Does that mean anyone wishing to get married should be forced to submit to a full physical? I'm not sure I want the government poking around down there and publishing the results.
There are benefits to society that accrue from aspects of marriage not related to having and raising children; not the least of which include stability, mutual financial and emotional support, and employment for divorce lawyers.
People who are married have an additional stake in the affairs (no pun intended) of their local community.
Single people can pick up and move at almost any time; to follow a loved one to another state, take a new job, or just because they threw a dart at a map. Married people have to get the other person to agree to a move. By definition, most married couples got married out of a desire to settle down for a while.
It could be argued that allowing gay people to get married encourages them to have a similar stake in their community.
Conan the Grammarian at April 17, 2009 2:13 PM
"It could be argued that allowing gay people to get married encourages them to have a similar stake in their community."
I agree, Conan. I still don't think this carries the argument, however.
"If you base marriage solely on reproductive capacity then you eliminate it for over-fifty women, men with vasectomies, women with tubal ligations, and sterile people."
Wrong. Marriage is allowed for a "model" of relationship, notwithstanding the actual reproductive capacity of the particular individuals. Government has already determined that it will not intrude to this level if the general requirement is met. Hardly an argument to extend the institution to other models.
Jay R at April 17, 2009 2:21 PM
So in other words JayR reproducive capacity is code for xdink and pussy only.
It doesnt have anything to do with reproductive capacity really
lujlp at April 17, 2009 3:22 PM
The whole gay marriage thing is a wedge used by both left and right to keep everyone divided. Let them get married, they can't possibly stuff it up worse than we have.
Porky at April 17, 2009 3:45 PM
Please do the following when addressing this issue:
Rid yourself of the mistaken idea that being gay is a choice. It's not. And there is no mechanism for denying rights based on gender here other than personal whim.
Then, realize that churches cannot be forced to perform services, nor can they be forced to admit people. Though there has been significant noise on this issue, people simply do not stay members of a church whose membership shuns them.
Finally: the State has the obligation, not just the power, to track heredity for the purpose of inheritance and other legal issues. This concept is eons old. Your son is required to fight for the tribe. Don't be confused by "modern" custom; if we reverted to anarchy we'd be right there.
There are two ways to look down this road: if a declared partnership exists, maybe it should have benefits, and maybe marriage has more than it should - although tax law didn't favor filing married (vs. "Head of household") until recently.
Figure out what rights are to be conveyed, state them, and proceed from there.
Radwaste at April 17, 2009 4:32 PM
"Rid yourself of the mistaken idea that being gay is a choice. It's not. And there is no mechanism for denying rights based on gender here other than personal whim."
Did I miss some landmark study announcing this? I'm sure genetics plays a part, but so do other things. If you were gay or straight period from birth, there would be no college experimentation, no people who have had committed monogamous relationships with both men and women in their past, no people divorcing an opposite gender partner to be gay, no battered women going lesbian, etc etc.
How would Bi work with that scenario, anyway? One copy of the "gay" gene and one of the straight? Please don't announce as fact things that science has not solved.
momof3 at April 17, 2009 7:01 PM
In that case momof3 please tell us of the moment you decided to be straight and suppress your attraction to other women
lujlp at April 17, 2009 7:09 PM
Also you ever consider that perhaps it really isnt experementing or 'switching sides' but a refusal to deny who they are any longer?
lujlp at April 17, 2009 7:11 PM
> but since benefits for heteros are
> unlikely to be rolled back I think
> we should also provide benefits
> for homos.
In other words: If you're going to beat your wife anyway, use a length of garden hose instead of a bicycle chain... It's more ethical!
Amy, either you're really not as distressed by straight marriage as you so famously pretend to be, or your support of gay marriage isn't reliably reasoned. (Maybe both!)
And again—
> we should also provide benefits
> for homos.
Why? "Benefits" are not trivial things in an economy like ours, even though it stands head and shoulders over the rest of the world in creating value. Because the IRS takes that value (aka "benefits") from people at gunpoint... including simple, hardworking value creators. (In fact, especially from those people!) What's in it for them? What good comes from patting gays on the back for living together? A well-tended heterosexual household –the source of human life, for fuck's sake– is the foundation of civilization. What are gays bringing to the table that you think deserves compensation?
> giving birth to a child and
> being a mother are two
> different things
I just turned 50. I spent an embarrasingly high number of hours in the last decade listening to Loveline, a radio talk show about sex and drugs for teenagers. (The Carolla years, circa '98-'05, can be heard on streams here and here.)
About ten thousand times on this show –and probably within the personal experience of everyone reading this comment– a teenage girl would worry her listeners with the tragedy of her unplanned pregnancy. But hearing the suggestion that she should abort the child or give it up for adoption, she would almost always say that she couldn't do that... No matter how impoverised, or oblivious, or plainly incompetent the young woman was as she approached parenthood, it just wasn't in her heart to give up the baby.
You hear a few thousand tales like that, and you begin to suspect that most of these pregnancies aren't as accidental as they seem. And it's certain that "giving birth and being a mother" are a lot closer to being the same thing than you're suggesting.
Monica, I got nothing against you, but don't kid a kidder. You don't need to "attach sentimentality" to these patterns... The human heart grinds as it chooses.
And I don't know (or care) how old you are. But I'm pretty sure that within two, maybe three or (at most) four generations looking backward, your feminine forebears would have been appalled at your description of these matters as "a social science discussion". Knowing how to properly love and care for a child has always been a big topic among civilized people.
I can't imagine anything you'd have learned in any "science" class that would so completely discount your great-grandmother's insights about child-rearing. And, if she was worth a bucket of warm spit, she'd almost certainly have believed that children need a loving mother and a loving father.
(This is partially speculation on my part. If you think your ancestors felt otherwise, we'd love to read excerpts from their diaries.)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 18, 2009 4:11 AM
"In that case momof3 please tell us of the moment you decided to be straight and suppress your attraction to other women"
Hey, some women are hot. And they're soft and can be fun to play with. So, I'd say right about college graduation, to answer your question. And it would never have occurred to me to marry one, regardless. It being a marginalized relationship where one intentionally takes oneself out of the mainstream, and out of making society's future. YOu've got the right to do it, but why should society reward it?
How does hopping back and forth, many times, become refusal to continue to deny what one really is? The bi comment was sarcasm, by the way, even if a valid question to the "born that way" argument. I don't think any of it is as simple as having a gene or not, and I don't think they need to marry. I can't understand the intense need for society to slap a bill of approval on their method of getting off. It's just not that important.
momof3 at April 18, 2009 6:46 AM
Evrybody wants acceptence. And you see homosexuallity in every mamillian species where you have large groups living in close proximity, is natures population control
lujlp at April 18, 2009 7:11 AM
>>What are gays bringing to the table that
>>you think deserves compensation?
And what do the straight meth addicts who pumped out half a dozen genitically and mentally flawed babies contibute
lujlp at April 18, 2009 8:58 AM
¿Relevence? What the hell are you trying to say? Of course, Loogy... Everyone's totally cool with pregnant meth addicts.
You're spellings make these moments even more psychedelic. They're like the dayglo paint on a VW microbus.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 18, 2009 9:38 AM
And what do the straight meth addicts who pumped out half a dozen genitically and mentally flawed babies contibute
They give the Dead Milkmen someone to take to the zoo.
Relevence...You're spellings make these moments even more psychedelic.
I was going to give you a hard time about this, but then Safari pointed out "genitically" and that VW microbus drove by.
Genetically flawed or genitally flawed?
Conan the Grammarian at April 18, 2009 10:47 AM
>Genetically flawed or genitally flawed?
Conan,
Does it have to be "or"?
Jay R at April 18, 2009 3:31 PM
> I was going to give you a hard
> time about this
Fucker.... You try doing this first thing in the morning without eyeglasses.
Besides, Loojy plays in his own league. I meen leeg.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 18, 2009 4:46 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/04/17/mccain_aide_com.html#comment-1643950">comment from Crid [cridcridatgmail]Besides, Loojy plays in his own league. I meen leeg
Hah - just great, Crid.
Amy Alkon at April 18, 2009 7:29 PM
"Did I miss some landmark study announcing this?"
No. You missed an ordinary link, and endless opportunity to study this yourself.
So, start.
Radwaste at April 18, 2009 7:33 PM
Conan's joke still hurts]
Deee-yam
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 18, 2009 7:39 PM
> Did I miss some landmark study
> announcing this?
Also, tell us again why anybody cares.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 18, 2009 7:40 PM
Please I would have used at least 3 e's
lujlp at April 18, 2009 7:50 PM
I still wish you'd tighten up your skillz. People would take you more seriously.
And again, will someone tell us again why it's important whether homosexuality is from nature or nurture? People fight about that all the time in here and I don't know why.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 19, 2009 1:10 AM
"And again, will someone tell us again why it's important whether homosexuality is from nature or nurture? People fight about that all the time in here and I don't know why."
Doesn't matter, except the proGM people like to say "but they're maaaade that way! They can't help it! You're discriminating!" Like it's fact when it's not, relevent or no.
momof3 at April 19, 2009 7:48 AM
"Like it's fact when it's not, relevent or no."
Well, momof3, see here just why you're completely wrong.
You seem to be resistant to learning about this. It takes a bit of reading, but I know you don't want to remain ignorant.
The multiple links revealed by mine show conclusively that gender is not a binary value, with actual case studies spanning the globe.
Since rights do not depend on the gender of an individual, this means that you cannot legitimately claim a right for yourself to the exclusion of others because of gender, however it is determined.
Radwaste at April 19, 2009 8:55 AM
M3's right.
> You seem to be resistant to
> learning about this
And you seem resistant to explaining it in your own words, and the link doesn't help.
> gender is not a binary value, with
> actual case studies spanning the
> globe.
Anyone recognize this aphorism? I'm pulling it out of soggy memory: While no man can select the precise moment that day yields to night, the two are sufficiently different to be readily distinguished.
> Since rights do not depend on
> the gender of an individual
Says who? It wasn't the burden of registering teenage girls that brought an end to conscription.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 19, 2009 10:00 AM
What the links show, boys and girls, is that outward appearances are only part of the story.
Where the logic - and your learning - should kick in, but isn't, is that thousands of Americans are born without gender each year, and thousands more are around the world - a totally natural product of genetic diversity. Genetic material never replicates itself perfectly.
It's no aphorism. This phenomenon is independent of our personal opinion, as is the fact that there is no Constitutional "test" to determine what your rights are based on what you look like. Get cut, get a prosthetic organ, it doesn't care.
And so the attempt to restrict rights to a subset of the public is simply not supported by the Constitution. If your wishes stand in opposition to that, perhaps because of religious upbringing, that's your lookout.
Oh, maybe you're waiting for a "landmark study". Do some damn looking around, yourself. The information is already out there. The link is a start. Don't stop learning about this because you have the urge to squawk at me.
Ooh, teenage girls vs. Selective Service! Excellent example of the Two Wrongs fallacy.
Bottom line: people are born who are neither boy nor girl. This absence of mechanical features should give you a clue about the rest of the biological hash that is genetics - and introduce to to the radical concept of gray, where before you only knew black or white.
Radwaste at April 19, 2009 3:00 PM
If people have time to worry about whose doing who, they have to much time on their hands.
I like what Denis Miller said, "Just be glad people are getting off SOMEHOW, because if they're doing that, they're not out OFFING people."
Robert at April 19, 2009 3:08 PM
> Genetic material never
> replicates itself perfectly.
[Emphasis in original.] [And powerful emphasis it is!]
But who in this message stack ever said otherwise?
> there is no Constitutional "test"
> to determine what your rights
> are based on what you look like
First, your quotation marks smell bad. Who are you quoting?
Second, who said anything about looks?
Third, who says the United States Constitution is the world's sole source of decency?
(I'm starting to think you're a poorly-disguised liberal. Maybe you want to believe government is the righteous Big Daddy on this planet, such that if we just make things right with policy, nothing can go wrong.)
Fourth, what does this have to do with whether homosexuality is nature or nurture?
Fifth, and again, what does that have to do with anything, anyway? Why do we care?
> Oh, maybe you're waiting for
> a "landmark study".
You're welcome to imaginatively speculate about other people's beliefs about topics not under discussion (Brian's doing that a lot, too). But your use of quotation marks is dirty pool. I never said anything about landmark studies, because the thing they'd have proved or discounted isn't important to me.
> example of the Two Wrongs
> fallacy.
I wouldn't bother with fallacious argument. You're the one who arguing that every human being is an identical little dew drop with identical challenges and responsibilities. You've got a lot of proving to do....
> This absence of mechanical features
??
> should give you a clue about the
> rest of the biological hash that
> is genetics -
And what this means about homosexuals is...????
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 19, 2009 7:58 PM
Luke Ford has an interesting thought from Prager, which he calls "How Come None Of The Great Moral Leaders Were For Same-Sex Marriage?"
| [I]sn't there an arrogance in
| saying that all those who lived
| before me were immoral on this
| issue? There's no other example
| of this. My Judaism was wrong,
| every rabbi, every prophet, my
| Protestantism was wrong, every
| Pope was wrong, Jesus was wrong,
| Jesus didn't call for undoing
| male-female marriage, all the
| secular thinkers were wrong, the
| age of Enlightenment was not
| enlightened enough....
This comports nicely with a point I've made here every time the topic of gay marriage comes up: It has no proud intellectual heritage, no list of champions reaching out through history.
Personally, I think that's one reason that people like it. This generation flatters itself by imagining it came up with this on its own. So much of the decency in the world was installed by earlier generations, from the Magna Carta through Montgomery, without any contribution from people in our years. People get tired of feeling grateful, and want to believe themselves of the same moral stature as those who've actually had to do some heavy lifting.
On the other hand, heavy lifting in moral matters is a lot of work. You have to think clearly, you have to speak persuasively, and sometimes there are actual risks involved. Most people who support gay marriage are only into it because they want the thrill of calling somebody a "bigot".
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 19, 2009 8:33 PM
Nice thing about crid is he's an equal opportunity 'bitchslapper'
lujlp at April 19, 2009 8:50 PM
Here's a coincidence. At the same moment I was posting that comment, Reynolds was making the identical point on his blog, three time zones away:
| [...] I favor gay marriage. But it
| seems to me that in this — as in
| other areas — those pushing the
| “bigotry” meme are in fact more
| interested in calling others bigots
| than in accomplishing anything.
|
| Posted at 11:32 pm by Glenn Reynolds
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 19, 2009 8:51 PM
This comports nicely with a point I've made here every time the topic of gay marriage comes up: It has no proud intellectual heritage, no list of champions reaching out through history.
Personally, I think that's one reason that people like it. This generation flatters itself by imagining it came up with this on its own.
Posted by: Crid
Sorry couldnt resist - So one the one hand no one else championed gay marrige in history, and on the other people in this generation only "imagined" comming up with it.
So if not one in the past came up with the idea and no one in the present came up with the idea, where did it come from?
One other thing, given the only tradition 'traditional' marriage has going for it is its constant change, there havent really been any champions throught history that havent been, at one time or another, ridiculed for their particular view of what marriage ought to be.
And while I have no doubt that many supporters are in it for the cause de jour I dobt the majoity of them are.
But I wonder how many of those opposed to the idea have a better reason then their flawed self contradictory mythology - one which by the way demands they kill homosexuals
lujlp at April 19, 2009 9:01 PM
> So if not one in the past came up
> with the idea and no one in the
> present came up with the idea
Did I say that?
> where did it come from?
Tressider does that sometimes too, and it pisses me off. You're attempting to ignore the point of the argument, and are willing to pretend to be stupid, if that's what it takes. There's no reason to argue with you.
The point –repeated with simplicity for slow learner Loojy– is that this isn't a social movement with a rich history. You can't name a champion from each of the last few decades, and certainly not from each of the last few centuries. Supporters pretend it's just an inexplicable spasm of righteousness that's rippling through the populace with the speed (and conviction) of a hit song from Brittney... As if everyone who lived before MTV was a cave man.
> given the only tradition
> 'traditional' marriage has
> going for it is its constant
> change
No such thing is given. (If I understand what you're trying to say, and that's never certain.)
Family composition's wiggled around somewhat through the centuries, as people struggled to find food and survive. But I think the needs of children –my only dog in this fight– are not dynamic.
> one which by the way demands
> they kill homosexuals
Loojy, that's just stupid. And tremendously rude. That's just a horrible thing for you to say, and you ought to go fuck yourself. It's dumb and childish and mean. Go ahead, retreat into a childish nightmare where there's a nasty monster under your bed with a knife and everyone who disagrees with you wants to kill you.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 19, 2009 10:03 PM
It is stupid I agree, but I fail to see how its rude or childish or mean of me to point out the truth.
lujlp at April 20, 2009 1:55 AM
Being accused of wanting to murder people makes me twitchy
cridcrid@gmail.com at April 20, 2009 6:41 AM
Never said you wanted to, only that the bible, the foundation of christianity commands you to
lujlp at April 20, 2009 6:57 AM
Oh, don't take it back. You are the perfect, gleaming, crystal example of this need to call other people bigots.
Everyone likes to think that there's no way a society could make a regressive move; that if a whole bunch of people decide that gay marriage is the thing to do, then there must be something noble about it. Kinda like how everybody thought that if you had a bundle of mortgages, they must be a worthwhile investment...
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 20, 2009 7:54 AM
And for the love of Christ, if it's 'stupid you agree', then why do you say it?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 20, 2009 7:58 AM
I wont take it back crid, the bible commands the execution of homosexuals - technically only the homosexuals who have sex though
And just because I think it is a stupid edict, why does that preculde me from mentioning it?
Also you just used the lords name in vain - and are therfore going to hell
lujlp at April 20, 2009 8:22 AM
Loojy-- I'M NOT CHRISTIAN. I don't give a fuck. Raddy & Brian were doing that all weekend too. What's the deal?'"Are all you guys sharing meds?
Crid at April 20, 2009 9:46 AM
I didnt thionk you were, at least until you said I said you wanted to kill people based on bible scriptue.
This misunderstanding is your fault
I said the majority of those opposing gay marrige did so based on a mythology which also commanded them to kill
You said you didnt like me accusing you of wanting to commit murder
You see where I'd assume you were a christian from that leading statment?
lujlp at April 20, 2009 10:12 AM
Why use the tax code as an argument for gay marriage? Got a problem with taxes? Fix the tax code. Then deal with the gay marriage issue head on.
Brett at April 20, 2009 9:00 PM
> deal with the gay marriage
> issue head on.
My favorite technique.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 20, 2009 10:49 PM
Maybe straight up would've been better. Naahhh!
Brett at April 20, 2009 11:05 PM
Leave a comment