I'm truly scared. It must be opposite day.

[Glassunion]

I was flipping channels on my XM in the car. I passed by some radio talk where they were discussing gay marriage.

It was a cordial discussion where all but one person in the discussion was supporting gay marriage. The one voice against it was being slammed by 3 others (including the show's host).

They explained it to the point where any reasonable person could not form an objection to gay marriage. The one idiot that was arguing against it, had to fall back on to the argument "what if someone wants to marry their dog?". He was laughed at to the point where he shut up. It was awesome.

That was until the show went to commercial. It was Fox news!?!? WTF?

What changed? The last time I saw anything on gay marriage on Fox they were against it.

[RandomThoughts]

1. Actually the 'marring dogs' arguement, probably unknowingly by that person

Is part of really old doctrine for some groups from the Old Testament.

It is the concept that dogs are Gentiles, you can see that mentioned in a few places, although really I see that as a misreading of the meaning, although it is possible many Gentiles of that time acted like the symbolized meaning for dogs, so did many people of other groups.


But anyways in some beliefs people are not suppose to marry outside of their own group. And since Gentiles were called dogs, not marrying dogs is the idea of marring inside ones own hereditary or spiritual group.


The New Testament speaks about people marrying only people that believe as they do, I think I remember that, but it also says a righteous person will lead to the righteousness of an entire family. But anyways the whole marrying dogs thing is really not understood by most people that make that argument.


I think government should not legislate what marriage is, it is between the individuals involved and their beliefs, and since it is a belief issue, if it can not be shown to be harmful in social context, it should be left to teachings outside of coercion if you believe it wrong.


This is not a support of that interp of the dog concept, on the contrary, I think many people of that time did not see the 'dogs' in there own group, nor those in outside groups that were more like them then many in there own group.

[Sebastian Doyle]

2. Well, considering the recent Prop H8 case was argued by Ted Olson and decided by a Republican judge.

....maybe FAUX thinks it's OK now to be gay and/or married. Or maybe - as it is with most bigotry - actually knowing and/or working with a gay person (Shep Smith, in their case) helped get them over their ignorance?

Ah fuck it's FAUX. I don't want to give them too much credit.