Virginia is for Nazi Lovers

CJBurgandy · Post by **CJBurgandy** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 1:56 pm

Well I just got finished making Long Distant phone calls on my cell phone (cheaper than my studio phone). I was typing the post in my forum while I was talking to Tony Knowles and Don Young... This is what I posted in my forum:

well I just got off the phone with the offices of my sentors. Both of their secretaries made it very clear to me, there was nothing I could do to ever change their minds... they're going to vote Yes. Well I hope Princess Merkowskis relizes that she's lost the support of someone that was actually going to vote for her. I also talked to ex-governer Tony Knowles. he is against the admendment and has stated that Rep Don Young is also against it. Thank you Lord! I always knew I liked Don. Thank You Tony Knowles and good luck in running for office in 2004.

I'm going to try to find Don Young's number and confirm his view....

ok, just called. He says he doesn't get to vote on it, just the Senate is... Although he is not supportive of Gay Marriages, he's not against them either. He does not believe the government has a right to make an admendment stating who you can or can not marry. I wish I could hug him right now.

Happypeepeehead · Post by **Happypeepeehead** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 2:46 pm

Hmm... I thought Alaska was traditionally conservative on its issues. Good to know you had a governor (at one point) that's would have been against that amendment

CJBurgandy · Post by **CJBurgandy** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 3:53 pm

he was governer for a long time. But last year he didn't run because he wanted to run on the senate this year. Lisa Murkowski's father, Frank was our Senator until he shocked everyone by running for Governer. He won, which didn't surprise me since he was more known than the other person running. When he won, he appointed his daughter to finish his term, which pissed a lot of people off.

Cuteswan · Post by **Cuteswan** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 4:32 pm

Would it be better if government simply didn't get involved in marriage at all, or is there some legitimate interest in it for some reason? If it's the latter, then what is that core interest and why would it preclude same-sex marriage?

If it really is "for the children" then maybe it's time the other "social" conservatives think about all of the children raised by homosexuals and not stigmatize them... (I think the bible had some stuff about not punishing children for the sins [if some insist on calling it that] of the parents.)

Allowing same-sex marriage is not a "homosexual-friendly" position; it's the true family-friendly position.

Toawa · Post by **Toawa** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 4:38 pm

It does have some interests in marriage, as I pointed out in an earlier post; the biggest one is that man-woman couplings do have a tendency to produce LFTPs (Little Future Tax Payers). However, this is never brought up in any debates that I've heard yet.

Squidflakes · Post by **Squidflakes** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:13 am

Yet another reason the Church (the huge faceless entity, comprising dogmatic though) is against homosexual union, fewer LFTPs (Little Future Tithe Payers)

Malo · Post by **Malo** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 7:44 pm

squidflakes wrote:Yet another reason the Church (the huge faceless entity, comprising dogmatic though) is against homosexual union, fewer LFTPs (Little Future Tithe Payers)

I've never heard of a church using that as a reason for being against homosexuality. Valid religious arguments either for or against should come from scriptures (The Bible for Christians), not be read into them.

IMO, many people religiously opposed to homosexuality and homosexual unions do it because of a personal bias they support with their religion. People in favor do something similar: They exclude what they don't like. One Christian pastor I saw interviewed on TV made a comment like "I don't feel God would want us to exclude them." If everything is a matter of every individual's feelings, its time to flush religion down the toilet (IMO). In religious terms, he has a more powerful statement if he can say, based on his examination of the scriptures (word studies, different manuscripts) and the context they were written in (historical, cultural), that sexual orientation isn't an issue.

Not all Christians are opposed to homosexual marriage. Even conservative ones are okay with it. A piece of paper won't change what goes on in the bedroom. It will convey some rights, responsibilities, and benefits. It will also come with the negatives: Failed relationships, divorce, and dividing of property when marriages fail. If I recall properly, palimony was at least attempted years ago by one of Lou Liberace's lovers, so alimony could happen too.

Oh, and in case anyone out there thinks that "homosexual" and "Republican" don't go together, the Log Cabin Republicans are quite happy that the marriage amendment didn't go anywhere.

Happypeepeehead · Post by **Happypeepeehead** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 10:44 pm

Oh, I most certainly acknowledge that the stereo types of Republican/conservative/Christian = Anti homosexuality are false.

Back up to that anti marriage amendment, rather glad it didn't get off the ground on the senate floor. I don't know if the house is trying anything similar, though with how close it was lost does make one nervous, even if it was no where near the prerequisite 2/3.

Now if only the Senate would stop playing the ADD game and focus on things that needed to be done, LIKE A BUDGET!