1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

It must be an election year because ...

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Oz, Jun 5, 2006.

  1. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    ... Rove told Bush to play the ban on same-sex marriages card again. Nevermind that Hollywood has done more to destroy the sanctity of marriage than anyone else.

    This is so 2004.


  2. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    I say we start a pool on a "new terror threat alert" and an increase in the threat level.

    You know it's coming. I'll take Oct. 1.

    That's close enough to the elections to still be remembered and it'll give the Republicans time to adequately play off of it.
  3. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    But no alerts within two weeks of the election because, you know, they want to make voters -- like the so-called security moms -- feel safe when going to the ballot box.
  4. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    I expect a summerlong series of terror alerts...obviously around 4th of July and Sept. 11 as well as one sometime in August and another in October within a month of the elections.

    I understand you might even be able to get a discount on the four-terror alert summer series ticket package.
  5. trounced

    trounced Active Member

    I suppose it was just fine when Clinton signed the first bill in September 1996 just before that midterm election? By the way, I am not in favor of a constitutional amendment.
  6. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member


    I got Oct. 1 as the over-under on Cheney resigning.

    And I'm sticking to it.
  7. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    Actually, no, it wasn't fine then either by me.
  8. Twoback

    Twoback Active Member

    What is more threatening to the institute of marriage:
    A) The possibility of gay men being allowed to marry other gay men;
    B) The possibility of gay women benig allowed to marry other gay women:
    C) Divorce.

    Let me know when we've got a constitutional amendment planned for banning divorce.
  9. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    Save the rhetoric for another time and answer this question: How does legalizing gay unions cut marriage from its cultural roots? The concept of marriage still stems from those roots (supposedly ... I guess cavemen and cavewomen didn't get married) whether it's morphed into something else.
    I believe, at one point, people considered racially (or religiously) mixed marriages to be immoral and cutting marriage from their cultural and natural roots, too.
  10. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    Twoback, sounds like we finally agree on something. Divorces are much more detrimental ... I should know, my parents divorced.
  11. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    So how many spouses did Newt Gingrich have? Tim Hutchinson? Jack Ryan?

    Spinning it around ... What about Karl Rove? Condi Rice? Ken Mehlman?
  12. tyler durden 71351

    tyler durden 71351 Active Member

    Look, all gay marriage means to me is that I'll have to buy a couple of more wedding presents in my lifetime.
    One former co-worker has been married three times, and she's under 40. Each time, she married men she knew for less than a month. I skipped her last wedding because I just couldn't support the idea of her marrying another man she didn't know - especially because she has a young daughter.
    Another former co-worker has been in a relationship with another man for at least 5 years. They own a home and really look out after each other. (The former co-worker used to party a lot and he's got some health problems. This guy got him calmed down.) If these guys got married and I wasn't invited, I would be a little offended.
    Which of these folks do you think does more harm to the whole idea of the sanctity of marriage?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page