"Gay marriage" is not an oxymoron, you just want to believe it is because you think that is somehow a logical argument in your favor. That argument just makes you look unnecessarily rigid in an attempt to score points. Christian fundamentalists have supported constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage and they would, without a doubt, pass such an amendment if they have had the power. They would do this to undermine the sovereignty of places like Washington DC (a den of iniquity, like Sodom) which, not only recognize same sex marriages, but allows them to be performed."Gay marriage and abortion would be outlawed in seconds"??? First of all, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron by the already established federal definition of marriage. It's sad that we even needed a federal definition of marriage, because it's one of those "duh" things that even kindergarteners could tell you, but one was finally officially provided by the Defense of Marriage Act that was signed into law by...a right-wing fundamentalist?? No! By Democrat President Bill Clinton! So, there is no possible way that a theoretical Evil Christian Party could "outlaw gay marriage" when there already IS NO SUCH THING TO OUTLAW.
Which is why Christian fundamentalists would try to simply change the Constitution. If they had the votes, they would pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion.As for abortion, the supreme court has a little something to say about the subject, which is why when the Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress, abortion was not outlawed, and even if such a bill had passed, it would still have likely been struck down almost immediately by the courts, and take several years for a monumental Roe vs Wade type decision to be reached.
I make no asinine assertions. I make no assertions at all. I'm coming right out and saying, Christian fundamentalists would do these things if they had the power. Christine O'Donnell is a member of that group.So, on those two subjects alone you prove either your complete ignorance, or just your insistence on using ridiculous assertions as rhetoric for the sake of argument. The sad thing is, that idiots believe your kind of assanine assertions and vote accordingly, continuing to make me wish we had election tests that people had to take to prove they have a bloomin clue about anything related to government before they're allowed to vote.
I've never read a post of yours that would make me believe you are any different than any random stereotypical Christian fundamentalist. Your final sentence serves as a good demonstration.Fine, continuing to be narrow-minded and failing to actually learn or engage someone in a discussion is certainly your right, but it's sad that you'd rather just make me a instead of actually discussing issues. It's possible we might actually agree on more than we disagree on, but we can't get to that because you'd rather just demonize groups and jump to conclusions about everything. If your kind of rhetoric represents "intellectual" then I am PROUD to be "anti-intellectual", though I'd term it as "Anti-pompous arrogant ignorant ass" instead.