Al Gore releases video endorsing gay marriage.
By on Jan 23rd, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Al Gore releases video endorsing gay marriage.
In a recent video for his Current TV network, former Vice President Al Gore offers “a forceful endorsement” of same-sex marriage, saying that “gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women — to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage.” “Shouldn’t we be promoting the kind of faithfulness and loyalty to ones partner regardless of sexual orientation?” added Gore. Watch it:
UPDATE: Evan Wolfson, founder of Freedom to Marry, praises Gore for getting “it right” and showing “what leadership really means.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
123 Responses to “Al Gore releases video endorsing gay marriage.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Yikes, TP has laid out an ample helping of troll manure here...
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:14 pmBadmoonrising ~ I was just about to cue the howling trolls HOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLLLLLLL
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:15 pmHere, trollie trollie trollie...
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:16 pmRut ro, he's taking a decisive stand. He's definately not running for office.
He'll never get the republican nomination now.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:17 pmWell, we know for sure that Al isn't running for President. No presidential candidate could ever take such a principled stance.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:18 pmcivil unions, fine and dandy... marriage? nope, sorry I don't buy into it.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:19 pmInstead of focusing on the trolls, how about we commend Gore for using his 'celebrity' status for acknowledging a social injustice in America?
Whichever Dem takes the election, Gore needs to be involved in the administration in some way. Ambassador.... something.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:19 pmHey, that means I get to marry my cat!!
HURRAH!!
Oh, wait. I had him neutered. Damn.
Never mind.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:19 pmAnd aside from the snarky silliness above, THANK YOU, AL!!!
You're da bomb!
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:20 pmWow. Good work by Al Gore, but I have to agree with raynman. That's the kiss of death for any potential presidential run.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:21 pmAl Gore: "It is part of Global Warming"...
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:21 pmcivil unions, fine and dandy… marriage? nope, sorry I don’t buy into it.
Comment by Fan of Man — January 23, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
Why? Why would the govt have any say regarding who can marry & who cannot? It sounds like you approve of the legality of the relationship, basically the marriage license, just not the word. Isn't marriage more of a religious joining? I don't understand what business it is of any heterosexual to determine whether gay people can marry or just have civil unions. Nor do I see why they'd care.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:22 pm#6 -
Good catch. It all depends on what defintion of marriage you're using. If some religion doesn't want to recognize a gay couple as married - fine, they don't have to. If a state merely calls a civil union 'marriage' according to the state laws, then I'm okay with the verbage.
Regardless, committed homosexual couples should have the same rights as everyone else does. Republicans should really support this. If they have MORE civil rights, it gives the GOP the ability to take them away.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:23 pmWhere's Daryll?
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:27 pmIn civilized parts of the world, marriage is a contract between two people which is recognized by the government. If the couple wishes to add a religious ceremony or sacrament to the marriage, no problem, but it should have no impact on whether or not the relationship is a "marriage."
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:27 pmso gay people can't get married because being gay is immoral? if morality is a requirement for marriage, why don't we take it away from immoral people who have abused the institution? certain televangelists and former teen pop stars come to mind....
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:27 pmI think it's great that Al Gore spoke out on this issue. I wish he'd speak out on telecom amnesty and the erosion of our civil rights, too. What a powerful voice we'd have if he'd condemn what Reid is trying to ram through.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:30 pmso gay people can’t get married because being gay is immoral? if morality is a requirement for marriage, why don’t we take it away from immoral people who have abused the institution? certain televangelists and former teen pop stars come to mind….
Comment by clb72
you open a whole can of worms for republicans when you frame it like that.....nice slant.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:31 pmTP has laid out an ample helping of troll manure here…
Comment by Badmoodman
pretty sure you mean troll BAIT...
the troolls themselves leave the manure with each comment...
play with them here all you want, it is inevitable with such a topic...
but wouldn't it be great if we could keep it "adult-like"???
let's see...
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:32 pmif morality is a requirement for marriage, why don’t we take it away from immoral people who have abused the institution? certain televangelists and former teen pop stars come to mind….
Comment by clb72 — January 23, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!
SHE SUPPORTS OUR PRESIDENT IN WHATEVER HE DOES! YOU POEPLE JUST LEAVE HER ALONE.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:34 pmmarriage? nope, sorry I don’t buy into it.
Comment by Fan of Man
for sure, i'd have trouble recommending marriage to ANYone...
but, i hear it's good for ya...
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:35 pmI think it’s great that Al Gore spoke out on this issue. I wish he’d speak out on telecom amnesty and the erosion of our civil rights, too. What a powerful voice we’d have if he’d condemn what Reid is trying to ram through.
Comment by lefttown
I think Al has deeply hurt feelings.......he was an honest and upright alternative for what America chose......shrub
America turned its back on him.....we honestly need to regain Als respect.....he owes us nothing....
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:35 pmWhichever Dem takes the election, Gore needs to be involved in the administration in some way. Ambassador…. something.
Comment by bobcat_grad — January 23, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
Sorry noone will, he'd easily outshine them all.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:38 pmLEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!
SHE SUPPORTS OUR PRESIDENT IN WHATEVER HE DOES! YOU POEPLE JUST LEAVE HER ALONE.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — January 23, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
Don't smear your mascara, ralph!
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:40 pm"Maybe there are a group of gay banditos...who, every night climb into a van and go from village to dell, from community to community. They wander, and as the sun is coming down, just setting over a suburban village, the gays drive in. And there in a cul-de-sac, there in the light of a house, you can see a young American family, sitting down for their evening meal. And those gays, those gays, put on their masks and their festive colored robes, and sneak slowly into the house...and begin to**** EACH OTHER IN THE ***! And another American family is destroyed."
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:41 pmcivil unions, fine and dandy… marriage? nope, sorry I don’t buy into it.
Comment by Fan of Man — January 23, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
Separate Negro schools, fine and dandy... Integration? Nope, sorry I don't buy into it.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:42 pmLike one wag said, if the gays and lesbians want to marry, more power to them. Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:42 pmAmerica turned its back on him…..we honestly need to regain Als respect…..he owes us nothing….
Comment by Fred — January 23, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
True, very true. Otherwise, who will save us all from Manbearpig?
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:43 pmIs th inconvenient doof about to come out of the closet?
Comment by BERT CONVY — January 23, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
Sorry, Bert, but he's way out of your league.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:44 pmLEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!
SHE SUPPORTS OUR PRESIDENT IN WHATEVER HE DOES! YOU POEPLE JUST LEAVE HER ALONE.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — January 23, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
Hey Ralph, is that you on YouTube?
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:45 pmTrue, very true. Otherwise, who will save us all from Manbearpig?
Comment by toasterhead — January 23, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
I thought Manbearpig was launched into another dimension . . . or maybe not. It's difficult to keep track.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:45 pmAnd those gays, those gays, put on their masks and their festive colored robes, and sneak slowly into the house…and begin to**** EACH OTHER IN THE ***! And another American family is destroyed.â€
Comment by Johnnie.Flea — January 23, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
Is that Lewis Black? Cause I can picture him screaming it.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:46 pmAnd another American family is destroyed.â€
Comment by Johnnie.Flea — January 23, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
You forgot to give Lewis Black the credit he deserves, he's brilliant.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:47 pmIs th inconvenient doof about to come out of the closet?
Comment by BERT CONVY — January 23, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
Why, is he crowding you in there?
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:48 pmIt truly is amazing what happens to some people when they get out of politics. They get to speak their mind and their conscience w/o the fear of destroying their careers.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:48 pmWe need Al Gore more than he needs us.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:50 pmI agree with Bobcat at 13.
In the course of human history, giving legal status to homosexual couples is extremely rare if not unheard of. Ancient Greece was very tolerant of homosexuality but never contemplated calling it marriage. Most societies in history have seen marriage as a vehicle for raising children. I mention this only because you don't have to think homosexuality is immoral in order to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals - it is a conservative position in the historic/traditional sense.
BUT - did I mention I agee with Bobcat at 13?
The thing I don't get is why now? Why is Gore even bringing this up? It just seems to be coming out of left field for him....I wonder if there is something afoot or did he just wake up this morning and say "By dingy-dongy, it is time the world know my feelings on gay marriage!" Seems odd.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:53 pmIs that Lewis Black? Cause I can picture him screaming it.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:53 pmYes, from the Warner Theater show in DC. The argument of gay marriage destroying traditional marriage is nothing but right wing jingoism with no basis in reality. 50% of marriages fail because marriage, quite frankly, takes a lot of work and compromise which doesn't necessarily satisfy the current social demands for instant gratification. 50% of marriages do not fail because John and James live together and have very good taste in draperies.
UPDATE: Evan Wolfson, founder of Freedom to Marry, praises Gore for getting “it right†and showing “what leadership really means.â€
God I wish this man would run for President. He would win in a landslide. I know that the global warming community really needs him, but right now, our country needs him more.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:56 pmcivil unions, fine and dandy… marriage? nope, sorry I don’t buy into it.
Comment by Fan of Man
Why, what is the difference?
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:56 pmIn the course of human history, giving legal status to homosexual couples is extremely rare if not unheard of. Ancient Greece was very tolerant of homosexuality but never contemplated calling it marriage. Most societies in history have seen marriage as a vehicle for raising children. I mention this only because you don’t have to think homosexuality is immoral in order to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals - it is a conservative position in the historic/traditional sense.
Comment by Keltoi — January 23, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
Actually, most societies have seen marriage as a contract relating to property rights. I've got a copy of a 19th Century English marriage contract that goes on at great length spelling out what property each participant brings to the marriage and defining who holds those rights in the relationship. Not a single word about children.
Additionally, this isn't Athens. It's several thousand years later and we no longer tolerate slavery. Cultures mature, hopefully, and what was common practice then (or even 150 years ago) is no longer true. In the 21st Century any number of marriages take place where there is no intention of ever having children. In most, however, some disposition of property is still important, as are issues to do with health care, legal rights to information, inheritance . . . none of which requires the presence of offspring.
Face it, Keltoi, your definition of marriage is badly out of date.
January 23rd, 2008 at 4:59 pmIn the course of human history, giving legal status to homosexual couples is extremely rare if not unheard of.
Comment by Keltoi — January 23, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
An in the course of human history, giving legal status to the ownership of human beings is exceedingly common.
The rest of your argument makes no more sense than this bit.
Most societies in history, in fact, have seen marriage as a property or status arrangement as much as anything.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:00 pm50% of marriages do not fail because John and James live together and have very good taste in draperies.
Comment by Johnnie.Flea — January 23, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
Never underestimate the power of window dressings.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:00 pmWhere’s Daryll?
Comment by Shayne
Shhh... we really don't need that nut here.
One thing I never understand is when the religious nuts start talking about the sanctity of marriage. Divorce between heterosexual couples and adultery are a much bigger threat to the sanctity of marriage than homosexuals marrying can ever be. If they really cared, they would be working to outlaw divorce and make adultery a felony with a jail sentence attached to it.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:00 pmgum, great minds, I guess.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:01 pmKeltoi is the typical conservative, lost in the fantastical past, where everything was clear and right, and only white landowners had rights.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:03 pmIn most, however, some disposition of property is still important, as are issues to do with health care, legal rights to information, inheritance . . . none of which requires the presence of offspring.
Face it, Keltoi, your definition of marriage is badly out of date.
Comment by gummitch — January 23, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
Yes, except that someone has to inheirit the property when you die, right?
But did I mention I agree with Bobcat at 13?
I just think you can't automatically assume anyone who opposes gay marriage is a Fundy bigot, that is all I am saying. NOT saying any of you were, but it has been known to happen.
Any thoughts on the timing or motivation?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:04 pmI think Al has deeply hurt feelings…….he was an honest and upright alternative for what America chose……shrub
America turned its back on him…..we honestly need to regain Als respect…..he owes us nothing….
Comment by Fred — January 23, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
wow... nicely put... sadly true...
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:06 pmWhy, what is the difference?
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 23, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
Thanks, bilbo -- I was just going to ask that.
I have to laugh whenever somebody endorses "civil unions, with all the rights and benefits of marriage" but won't endorse marriage for gays (yes, Hillary -- I'm talking about you).
Is it just the word "marriage" that has people hung up? I've heard the argument that "marriage" is a religious covenant, and for that reason should not be open to gays. If that's the case, then any marriage ceremony -- gay or straight -- that isn't presided over by clergy should rightly be called a civil union.
To me, the term "civil union" is just semantic BS, unless a state's definition of it differs from marriage in some way.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:06 pmThe thing I don’t get is why now? Why is Gore even bringing this up? It just seems to be coming out of left field for him….I wonder if there is something afoot or did he just wake up this morning and say “By dingy-dongy, it is time the world know my feelings on gay marriage!†Seems odd.
Comment by Keltoi
I can understand how, for a Republiscum like you, taking a principled stand on an issue would seem odd. Since the only reason why you you are here on this earth is to enrich yourself and your buddies, being a moral, compassionate and charing human being must be so far outside your frame of reference, you can't wrap your pea brain around it.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm35 - *highfiving* Shayne!
Beauty. ;o)
And honorable mention to you too, Ralph (#20)!!
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:12 pmWhere’s Daryll?
Comment by Shayne
Spoiling for a fight, ain't you? Well I could use someone to bash, I'm in the mood, but you're too nice.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:13 pmAny thoughts on the timing or motivation?
Comment by Keltoi
Of course a wingnut doesn't understand moral motivation, unless there's a big fat check attached.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:13 pmI just think you can’t automatically assume anyone who opposes gay marriage is a Fundy bigot, that is all I am saying. NOT saying any of you were, but it has been known to happen.
Any thoughts on the timing or motivation?
Comment by Keltoi — January 23, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
While I agree that one shouldn't automatically assume anything, the fact that someone opposes gay marriage arguably is a pretty strong indicator of pontential fundy-bigotness.
Let's face it, the issue of gay marriage, like abortion and flag-burning, is a fundy bigot magnet. The entire issue is designed to draw the fundy bigots out of their homes en masse and vote their holier-than-though consciences off.
Other than that, it's a non-issue. In terms of national priorities -- the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy, the environment, trade, jobs, health care -- its importance is asymptotically approaching zero. But it gets that "value voter"segment of the population riled up.
There is no economic or sociological rationale for opposing gay marriage. The ability of two men or two women to join in legal matrimony affects nobody but those two individuals and their families. It is purely a "moral" issue. Thus, it's highly likely that the opponent of gay marriage has a "moral" objection to homosexuality in general, a concept that's no less bigoted than a moral objection to black people or Italians or Jews.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 pmI can understand how, for a Republiscum like you, taking a principled stand on an issue would seem odd. Since the only reason why you you are here on this earth is to enrich yourself and your buddies, being a moral, compassionate and charing human being must be so far outside your frame of reference, you can’t wrap your pea brain around it.
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 23, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
You are such a doof sometimes Bilbo, as if you have any clue as to what I see my purpose on earth to be. I am a Public School Teacher, you nitwit! We are soooo famous for putting money above everything else...
Any ideas on why Al failed to mention this when he was running for President if he is so compassionate?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:18 pmI can understand how, for a Republiscum like you, taking a principled stand on an issue would seem odd.
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 23, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but I'm pretty sure Keltoi was saying he had no objection to gay marriage.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:20 pmAny ideas on why Al failed to mention this when he was running for President if he is so compassionate?
Comment by Keltoi — January 23, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
You mean... "any ideas on why Al failed to mention this when he was running for President EIGHT YEARS AGO?"
I don't know, K, maybe because it wasn't the right-wing wedge issue eight years ago that is now. Back then they were feeding off of a single blowjob pretty much exclusively.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:21 pmAny ideas on why Al failed to mention this when he was running for President if he is so compassionate?
Comment by Keltoi — January 23, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
It wasn't really an issue in 2000, was it? I thought the court cases that got the issue rolling came after 2000.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:22 pmmarriage = man + woman.
civil unions = man + man OR woman + woman.
end of story.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:24 pmYes, except that someone has to inheirit the property when you die, right?
Often that's your spouse, but I would guess you're referring to children. Lots of childless marriages out there, Keltoi.
I just think you can’t automatically assume anyone who opposes gay marriage is a Fundy bigot, that is all I am saying. NOT saying any of you were, but it has been known to happen.
My own experience is, unfortunately, that people objecting to gay marriage tend to be fundy bigots, sorry. I've yet to find anyone, yourself included, that can provide a rational argument against gay marriage. As noted by the llama and I, slavery has just as long a track record as marriage, if not longer, so "historically" doesn't really cut it.
Any thoughts on the timing or motivation?
Comment by Keltoi — January 23, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
I have no idea at all why he'd speak up now, but perhaps there are personal reasons. Friends? Family?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:24 pmmarriage = man + woman.
civil unions = man + man OR woman + woman.
end of story.
Comment by Fan of Man — January 23, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
So... what's the difference?
And why?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:25 pmmarriage = man + woman.
civil unions = man + man OR woman + woman.
end of story.
Comment by Fan of Man — January 23, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
Why?
You do realize there are parts of the world where
marriage = man + woman + woman + woman + woman
or even, in some cases
marriage = woman + man + man + man + man
Although, admittedly, polyandry is pretty rare. Polygyny, not so much. Check your Bible.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:26 pmI don't see why marriage is a constituition issue. Let it be state by state with a vote. Possibly goes to the issue that any/all spouses would then be eligible for the deceased spouse's Social Security. More payout less for the administration to borrow from the fat cow fund.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:27 pmI don’t know, K, maybe because it wasn’t the right-wing wedge issue eight years ago that is now. Back then they were feeding off of a single blowjob pretty much exclusively.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — January 23, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
And maybe eight years ago he (a) didn't have the same opinion or (b) didn't want to commit political suicide?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:27 pmPerhaps I’m reading it wrong, but I’m pretty sure Keltoi was saying he had no objection to gay marriage.
Comment by toasterhead — January 23, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
You weren't wrong, the very sight of my name posting in his Progressive Elysium drives Bilbo crazy.
It wasn't an issue in 2000, true. But really, WHY now? It has nothing to do with global warming....is Al branching out, is he trying to get the Dem nominees to address the issue...again, it seems strange. Al doesn't do things just because, he does things for reasons.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:28 pmComment by Fan of Man — January 23, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
End of story? How so? Can you draw this out a little for us? If the legal rights and responsibilities are the same why must the word for it differ? A whole slew of lame ass chain restaurants serve something that isn't even close to the thing known as a Caesar salad and get to use the same name. Why can things that are the same have the same name?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:28 pmEnd of story? How so? Can you draw this out a little for us? If the legal rights and responsibilities are the same why must the word for it differ? A whole slew of lame ass chain restaurants serve something that isn’t even close to the thing known as a Caesar salad and get to use the same name. Why can things that are the same have the same name?
Comment by dbadass — January 23, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
Caesar salad? You crack me up! That's got to be one of the more original contributions to this particular argument I've seen. Anchovies are destroying America!
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:30 pmSpoiling for a fight, ain’t you? Well I could use someone to bash, I’m in the mood, but you’re too nice.
Comment by doro — January 23, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
Well I assume if Daryll isn't on this thread he must be tied up. And when I say tied up I mean TIED UP.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:32 pmAlthough, admittedly, polyandry is pretty rare. Polygyny, not so much. Check your Bible.
Comment by gummitch — January 23, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
Unless of course you are a Jacana
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm#59, Toasterhead
"It wasn’t really an issue in 2000, was it? I thought the court cases that got the issue rolling came after 2000."
Actually, the issue really hit the political and national consciousness in 1993 after the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled in Baehr v. Lewin that the state must show a compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage.
Following that case, the US Congress in 1996 passed the Defense of Marrage Act which provided that no state or the federal government was required to recognize same-sex marriages. The act also defined marriage "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.â€
President Bill Clinton signed the bill in September, 1996 (six weeks or before Election Day).
Thus, Keltoi raises some valid questions -- Why didn't Vice President Gore take the position he takes today back when he was running for president in 2000? And what advice did he give President Clinton back in 1996 when Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:34 pmAny thoughts on the timing or motivation?
Comment by Keltoi — January 23, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
Any time somebody wants to speak up on an issue we'll have them call you first to make sure the timings OK with you, is that what you mean?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:34 pmWell I assume if Daryll isn’t on this thread he must be tied up. And when I say tied up I mean TIED UP.
Comment by Shayne — January 23, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
Perhaps he snuck a few Brazilian "converts" home after his last trip.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:36 pmThus, Keltoi raises some valid questions — Why didn’t Vice President Gore take the position he takes today back when he was running for president in 2000? And what advice did he give President Clinton back in 1996 when Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act?
Comment by Exley — January 23, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
It seems to me there are a lot of issues that Gore failed to raise eight or 12 years ago that he's raising today. Surely it's because he's a dirty hypocrite, not because he's learned anything new. We hates those who learn new things and change their minds, don't we?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:38 pmUnless of course you are a Jacana
Comment by dbadass — January 23, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
Heh. Had to look that one up. I thought maybe it was a culture I hadn't heard of before. Fascinating stuff.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:41 pmThus, Keltoi raises some valid questions — Why didn’t Vice President Gore take the position he takes today back when he was running for president in 2000? And what advice did he give President Clinton back in 1996 when Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act?
Comment by Exley — January 23, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
Thanks for the fact injection - I didn't realize it went back that far.
As for the change of heart over the last 12 years, good question. I would argue that public consciousness is somewhat different today. In 1996, Ellen DeGeneres was raising eyebrows by coming out on a primetime TV show. Today, the Queer Eye guys are getting their own spinoffs.
For that matter, climate change was just as important an issue in 1996 as it is now, but Gore wasn't touring the country giving Powerpoint presentations on it.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:46 pmComment by gummitch — January 23, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
John Alcock's Animal Behavior text (any addition) is a very good source for a thorough but understandable look at the ecology of mating systems. I would also recommend Geoffrey Miller's The Mating Mind: How sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:47 pmTo me, the term “civil union†is just semantic BS, unless a state’s definition of it differs from marriage in some way.
Comment by missmolly
We really should have two classes of "marriage". One is a religious marriage governed by all the laws and covenants of the church and the other should be civil marriage, governed by all the laws of the state. Then anyone who wanted to get married chooses the way they want to get married.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:47 pmthe difference is a man and a woman can MAKE a child..... on the other hand, you cant really do that with 2 of the same sexes.... just to reiterate, i have NO problem with whoever wants to sleep with whoever, i dont care.
It all boils down to what the definition of marriage is.
A MAN, AND A WOMAN.
mar·riage /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm–noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
the difference is a man and a woman can MAKE a child…..
Comment by Fan of Man — January 23, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
My wife and I have been unable to have children. (I knew going in that this was likely, given her medical history.) Does that mean we should not claim that we are married? Or should not have been married, since our union will produce no offspring?
What about couples who meet late in life? Should widows beyond child-bearing age be eligible only for a second-class form of marriage? After all, they fail to meet the "producing offspring" requirement just as surely as a gay couple fails to meet it.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:54 pmIt all boils down to what the definition of marriage is.
A MAN, AND A WOMAN.
Comment by Fan of Man — January 23, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
I tend to respect the Oxford English Dictionary, don't you?
"1. a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony.
The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex."
"e. With modifying word, as group, communal, etc.: a system understood to exist in some cultures, religious groups, etc., by which each of the men in a small community is regarded as married to each of the women. Cf. plural marriage n. at PLURAL adj. and n. Special uses."
We all tend to be blinkered by our own culture and assume that it is somehow universal or "natural" when humans have actually developed a lot of different solutions to similar issues. You've been raised with "marriage = man + woman" and have apparently never taken cultural anthropology courses, or you'd know that your definition is only one of many.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:54 pmComment by Fan of Man — January 23, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
Sorry but I still am not following you. Are you saying that the meaning of words are fixed and do not change through time. If so I demand that that pile of woody romaine stall bread and dried out chicken be called something else.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:54 pmPerhaps I’m reading it wrong, but I’m pretty sure Keltoi was saying he had no objection to gay marriage.
Comment by toasterhead — January 23, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
Would you or Keloti care to point to any post here where he says that he has no objection to gay marriage.
You weren’t wrong, the very sight of my name posting in his Progressive Elysium drives Bilbo crazy.
It wasn’t an issue in 2000, true. But really, WHY now? It has nothing to do with global warming….is Al branching out, is he trying to get the Dem nominees to address the issue…again, it seems strange. Al doesn’t do things just because, he does things for reasons.
Comment by Keltoi
No, the sight of your name doesn't drive me crazy, it just makes me want to vomit. You are such a Republiscum tool.
And how in the hell do you know that Al Gore doesn't do things just because...are you channeling him? Maybe something happened recently that made him start thinking long and hard about the subject.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:57 pmPerhaps he snuck a few Brazilian “converts†home after his last trip.
Comment by toasterhead — January 23, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
Oh, and he has his hands full?
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:57 pmSorry, dbadass, but according to the OED:
"1. attrib. Designating a salad typically consisting of cos lettuce, garlic, croutons, and anchovies, dressed with olive oil, lemon juice, raw or coddled egg, and parmesan cheese; esp. in Caesar salad. Also (occas.): designating this dressing used separately."
And I was amazed to find it listed.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:58 pmIf so I demand that that pile of woody romaine stall bread and dried out chicken be called something else.
Comment by dbadass — January 23, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
Do you come to bury, or praise that salad??
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:59 pmIt's OK, FoM can marry his test tube, cause it can make babies too!
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:00 pmComment by gummitch — January 23, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
Sorry? Why? That other crap isn't this. Try asking for anchovies and the coddled egg at Applebees. Again why can two toatally different things be allowed to be called the same thing but two things that are the same thing can not be. It makes no sense. How is a civil union different from a marriage? I will accept Locatelli in place of Parmesan though
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:02 pmIt all boils down to what the definition of marriage is.
A MAN, AND A WOMAN.
mar·riage /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
Comment by Fan of Man
So Fan, you do realize the reason why the dictionary lists more than one definition is that more than one definition can apply. Since #4 is defining homosexual marriage (without the benefit of the legal sanctions), I guess I don't get how you think this backs up your argument that a marriage is defined as only between a man and a woman.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:03 pmWhat the hell are you doing in Applebees?!!
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:03 pmAh, but which one is legal?
Marriage in a church - without a licence - is NOT legal. The religious bit is just fluffing, really, for the legal contract that marriage truly is: a contract between 2 adult humans, regardless of sex/gender.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm>>Would you or Keloti care to point to any post here where he says that he has no objection to gay marriage.
Did you read post 13 which I have now agreed with 3 times at least? Gay people who want to call themselves married can't be stopped from doing so and there are churches that will marry them. Relgious conservatives can't be forced to recognize those marriages and there are churches that will support them. It is semantic baloney so long as civil unions provide equal rights under the law.
>>No, the sight of your name doesn’t drive me crazy, it just makes me want to vomit. You are such a Republiscum tool.
Oh, thank goodness, I would hate to think a difference of opinion made you mentally irrational, just physically ill. You're cute.
>>And how in the hell do you know that Al Gore doesn’t do things just because…are you channeling him?
EEwwwww!
>>Maybe something happened recently that made him start thinking long and hard about the subject.
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 23, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
Okay, fine, the man who spent his entire life in politics has no political motivation here. It was just a come to gayness moment. It is possible, but Gore knows damn well everything he says is going to be broadcast in the media. If I am the only one who thinks there is more to this than meets the eye, fine. Since you guys are such fans, I thought you'd have some insight.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:20 pmComment by gummitch — January 23, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
It was strictly hypothetical. I used to have a connection that smuggled fresh anchovies in from Spain. So sweet and buttery. Too bad the less informed are only familar with those weird furry ones
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:23 pmOkay, fine, the man who spent his entire life in politics has no political motivation here. It was just a come to gayness moment. It is possible, but Gore knows damn well everything he says is going to be broadcast in the media. If I am the only one who thinks there is more to this than meets the eye, fine. Since you guys are such fans, I thought you’d have some insight.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 23, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
Some people actually did offer some insight, but you seem to be studiously ignoring it. Why is it difficult for you to accept that some people learn and grow and that their opinions, and their willingness to express those opinions, can change over time? If you're exactly the same person you were eight or 12 or 16 years ago, I feel sorry for you.
I can't believe you didn't bother to do a little searching on the issue yourself, especially since it seems to be a big issue for you.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:25 pmDid you read post 13 which I have now agreed with 3 times at least? Gay people who want to call themselves married can’t be stopped from doing so and there are churches that will marry them. Relgious conservatives can’t be forced to recognize those marriages and there are churches that will support them. It is semantic baloney so long as civil unions provide equal rights under the law. Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 23, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
No one CARES if you and YOUR FELLOW BIGOTS recognize ANYTHING, just STFU and let the LAW recognize it - OK, JUNIOR?
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:25 pmIt all boils down to what the definition of marriage is.
A MAN, AND A WOMAN.
Comment by Fan of Man — January 23, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
Unless you happen to belong to another minority/religious group, where it's a Man, and MULTIPLE WOMEN...
See, there have ALWAYS been LOTS of definitions for MARRIAGE - DUM BASS! The DEFINITION has traditionally been based on SOCIETAL/CULTURAL NORMS, and in particular, the NOTION that WOMEN ARE PROPERTY TO BE SOLD. THAT my dear CHILD is TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE! And just like SLAVERY - BEFORE IT - it has had to undergo some changes as we LEFT THE CAVES for the CITIES! So please, knuckledragger, if you can't LIVE IN THE CIVILIZED WORLD, then DO, PLEASE, LEAVE OUR CIVILIZED COUNTRY to those of us that WISH to be CIVILIZED?
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:28 pmIt was strictly hypothetical. I used to have a connection that smuggled fresh anchovies in from Spain. So sweet and buttery. Too bad the less informed are only familar with those weird furry ones
Comment by dbadass — January 23, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
Mmmmm, anchovies. Hell, I like them even when they're canned.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:32 pmComment by Keltoi at Night — January 23, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
We are talking about Al Gore and not Mitt Romney right?
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:33 pmOkay, fine, the man who spent his entire life in politics has no political motivation here. It was just a come to gayness moment. It is possible, but Gore knows damn well everything he says is going to be broadcast in the media. If I am the only one who thinks there is more to this than meets the eye, fine. Since you guys are such fans, I thought you’d have some insight.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 23, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
I'm curious, K, what do you think his political motivation is to speak about this issue at this time?
I can't find one.
He's not running for office, he doesn't seem to be supporting anyone in particular, and this doesn't seem to feed into any political cause he is known to champion.
The only two possibilities I can come up with are 1) he's the only Democrat who realizes that this wedge issue can actually be a winner for Democrats, or
2) he's looking to gin up some controversy and spike the viewership of Current.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:34 pmMmmmm, anchovies. Hell, I like them even when they’re canned.
Comment by gummitch — January 23, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
Me too, db, you better find that old connection. I make my salad with Egg Beaters because I was always afraid of making people sick with salmonella. It tastes the same as with coddled egg. The goofy restaurants make their imitations with mayo or something, it's disgusting. If I can figure out the Egg Beaters why can't they?
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:34 pmBeing new to this whole intolerance business, I was thoroughly confused the other day when confronted by a gay atheist illegal-alien anti-war abortionist who tried to solicit a contribution from me for stem cell research, characterized the surge as being to date a failure from the standpoint of its original political benchmarks, and asked me to sign a petition advocating universal health care to be funded in no small part by the elimination of corporate offshore tax loopholes and the taxation of all church-owned assets nationwide. He also inquired if I would be interested in accompanying him back to his place for a night of unbridled sexual escapades.
I am therefore badly in need of some advice as to which of these traits/positions I should be most outraged about, the order in which I should express said outrage, and exactly how much outrage I should apportion to each. Any and all answers will be gratefully received.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:35 pmComment by Shayne — January 23, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
They will have to pry the coddled egg from my cold dead hands. The human species has survived far greater potential insults to the immune system for millenia without being taken out by a less then thoroughly cooked ovum. Then again that was before we raised our food in a Henry Ford sort of way. There are some decent anchovies available but those Basgue ones where a joy unbounded. Can you make an aioli with egg beaters?
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:41 pmI can’t believe you didn’t bother to do a little searching on the issue yourself, especially since it seems to be a big issue for you.
Comment by gummitch — January 23, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
This is some guy I don't know; I was curious about your opinion, and if it is "he has evolved", okay. I just file it away under interesting, I will be curious if any of the Dem candidates get asked about it and what their response will be. I kinda doubt they are thanking him for this statement, which is interesting in itself.
It isn't a big issue to me, I don't care, I am interested in it from a political gamesmanship point of view.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:43 pmGore f'n rocks.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:43 pmI haven't tried, but it emulsifies the salad dressing pretty easily, of course I like it just sligthtly emulsified, but I think it might work. My husband's family only lets me come to dinner if I bring the Ceasar salad, and since they used to leave it out for a while it always made me a little nervous.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:44 pmI’m curious, K, what do you think his political motivation is to speak about this issue at this time?
I can’t find one.
He’s not running for office, he doesn’t seem to be supporting anyone in particular, and this doesn’t seem to feed into any political cause he is known to champion.
The only two possibilities I can come up with are 1) he’s the only Democrat who realizes that this wedge issue can actually be a winner for Democrats, or
2) he’s looking to gin up some controversy and spike the viewership of Current.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — January 23, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
Hah! Point two is precious.
No, really, I CAN"T figure his motivation. If you think this is a wedge issue that helps the Dems I disagree. Give it another generation and maybe, but not in the 08. Can you imagine Hillary having that hot potatoe in her lap, what with Don't Ask Don't Tell and DMA both being creatures of her husband? Is she going to run against Bill's legacy?
If anything, I think the extra-cynical inside-baseball take on Gore's announcement is to undermine the Clintons. Again, we'll see if this story gets any legs in the next few days.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:48 pmI too, love anchovies.
On a hook, fifty feet down at the bottom of the ocean.
Ling Cod love them too!
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:49 pmComment by RUCerious — January 23, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
I like bait too!
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:51 pmNo, really, I CANâ€T figure his motivation. If you think this is a wedge issue that helps the Dems I disagree. Give it another generation and maybe, but not in the 08. Can you imagine Hillary having that hot potatoe in her lap, what with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and DMA both being creatures of her husband? Is she going to run against Bill’s legacy?
If anything, I think the extra-cynical inside-baseball take on Gore’s announcement is to undermine the Clintons. Again, we’ll see if this story gets any legs in the next few days.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 23, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
Well, if you CAN'T figure his motivation, why assume that there is one? You're just an old cynic, aren't you?
And I didn't say that it was a wedge issue that "helps the Dems". I said it CAN be a winner for them. No one in power is willing to touch it, but I think it can be presented in a way that will reap electoral benefits for Democrats (and social benefits for Americans). I say this because I have not yet heard a single reasonable and solid reason for barring gay marriage. Every reason advanced by the Right can be destroyed effortlessly using their own standards. It only makes sense.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:57 pmMe too, db, you better find that old connection. I make my salad with Egg Beaters because I was always afraid of making people sick with salmonella. It tastes the same as with coddled egg. The goofy restaurants make their imitations with mayo or something, it’s disgusting. If I can figure out the Egg Beaters why can’t they?
Comment by Shayne — January 23, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
I make my own mayo from scratch. Raw egg. And no salmonella. Life is too short . . .
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:59 pm(GAGS), I'm Gay and I can't stand him, he is such a hypocrite who takes private jets and just makes money in his own interest instead of the enviroment.
Wanna talk about Gay marriage? Him and Al Sharpton should marry, it would be a match made in heaven.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:13 pmComment by WithUniquity
You're a complete liar.
Every gay person I know wants to be able to marry.
But go ahead and play the "closeted gay" which wingnuts seem to adore, as an excuse to knock Gore.
Such a total, BS, liar you are.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:30 pmI make my own mayo from scratch. Raw egg. And no salmonella. Life is too short . . .
Comment by gummitch — January 23, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
I prefer mine with extra Salmonella! I hope you are educating others. The state of US American cuisine is a dismal situation. Did you see the recent numbers on tuna and mercury. I have been trying to distance myself from it but it is so hard. I am too old to be concerned all that much about the mercury but I have moved away from the comsumption of almost all other high level heterotrophs
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:31 pmUm what I said had nothing to do with marrying, I do plan to marry when I find the right guy one day, but I personally don't like Al Gore, If I lied, what did I lie about?
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:07 pmAfter the disasters of our current candidates (and Congress), why don't we demand that the Democratic National Convention collectively grows a couple thousand pairs and puts forth the candidate that truly demonstrates (in so many ways, Iraq, climate change, FISA, gay marriage) "what leadership really means".
Feh on this 'vision' crapola, persiflage w/o action that we're seeing from the remaining candidates, how about we run the candidate willing to get up and actually take a stand?
DRAFT GORE!!!!!
Cheers,
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:26 pmFantastic news. Yay, Al!
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:45 pmSuch a pitty that when it came to his time to be a legitimate elected President, the USA had to go through a Coup...
January 24th, 2008 at 1:29 amSee, there have ALWAYS been LOTS of definitions for MARRIAGE - DUM BASS! The DEFINITION has traditionally been based on SOCIETAL/CULTURAL NORMS, and in particular, the NOTION that WOMEN ARE PROPERTY TO BE SOLD. THAT my dear CHILD is TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE! And just like SLAVERY - BEFORE IT - it has had to undergo some changes as we LEFT THE CAVES for the CITIES! So please, knuckledragger, if you can’t LIVE IN THE CIVILIZED WORLD, then DO, PLEASE, LEAVE OUR CIVILIZED COUNTRY to those of us that WISH to be CIVILIZED?
Comment by republicans hate facts — January 23, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
THANK YOU FOR SUCH A CLARITY IN SPIRIT AND IDEAS!!!!
January 24th, 2008 at 1:41 amI ALWAYS SAID THAT PEOPLE WHO WORRY TOO MUCH ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S SEXUALITY...
DURING THE GREEK AND ROMAN CIVILIZATION, HOMOSEXUALITY WAS NORMAL. IT BECAME A PROBLEM WHEN CHRISTIANITY TOOK OVER. EVEN THE ROMAN SOLDIERS HAD SAME SEX LOVERS. THEY CONQUERED THE CIVILIZED WORLD... PLUS, WITH THE WORLD OVER POPULATION PROBLEM, WOULDN'T YOU THINK THAT HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES WERE HELPING TO MINIMIZE THE PROBLEM???
HAVE A NICE DAY AND A HEALTHY AND PLEASENT SEXUAL LIFE, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE!
MUTUAL RESPECT=CIVILIZATION
...ONE MORE! ONE MORE! HERE IN AUSTRALIA I ONCE HEARD THE SAYING: 'DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFERRENT BLOKES!'
.
PRESERVE MARRIAGE
... OUTLAW DIVORCE
.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:23 am#
#
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ news/ article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59812
ELECTION 2008
94% of evangelicals rank abortion No. 1
Christians put issue ahead of personal debt, content of movies, TV, homosexual agenda
January 24th, 2008 at 10:44 am
See, there have ALWAYS been LOTS of definitions for MARRIAGE - DUM BASS! The DEFINITION has traditionally been based on SOCIETAL/CULTURAL NORMS, and in particular, the NOTION that WOMEN ARE PROPERTY TO BE SOLD. THAT my dear CHILD is TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE! And just like SLAVERY - BEFORE IT - it has had to undergo some changes as we LEFT THE CAVES for the CITIES! So please, knuckledragger, if you can’t LIVE IN THE CIVILIZED WORLD, then DO, PLEASE, LEAVE OUR CIVILIZED COUNTRY to those of us that WISH to be CIVILIZED?
Comment by republicans hate facts — January 23, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
Christ said there only one definition of marriage when he quotes from the book of Genesis.
Christ was a Jew. That’s why he quotes Genesis to answer questions about adultery – an inappropriate sexual behavior. He could have quoted the Law, but He was apparently interested in intent – God’s intent.
Of course, this quote is only important if one believes that Jesus Christs is the Son of God. If you don't believe this, that's your choice, but many people do believe this.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:14 amComment by bitblt — January 24, 2008
GET YOUR RELIGIOUS CRAP, ROLL IT VERY TIGHT AND...
January 24th, 2008 at 1:24 pmOf course, this quote is only important if one believes that Jesus Christs is the Son of God. If you don’t believe this, that’s your choice, but many people do believe this.
GOOD! NOT EVERYONE DOES, SO DO RESPECT OTHER PEOPLE'S CHOICE AND THEIR RIGHT FOR EQUALITY!
January 24th, 2008 at 1:29 pm#121 - "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Comment by bitblt — January 24, 2008 @ 11:14 am
So, Bitbit is calling for dvorce to be outlawed?
If Bitbit were so gung-ho about following Scripture, Bitbit would announce Bitbit's support for ensuring that divorce didn't happen. Or, Bitbit would at least say Bitbit stood for Crhist's version of divorce of one marriage-one divorce and no further marriages.
Until Bitbit can consistently follow New Testament Scripture, Bitbit has proven (once again) that Bitbit is another "pick & choose" 'c'hristian, and that Bitbit only follows the New Testament Scriptures that supports Bitbit's prejudice and ignore those New Testament Scriptures that are inconvenient to Bitbit's prejudices.
January 25th, 2008 at 7:02 am