Bush Declares Homosexual Marraige Wrong!

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...age/index.html



I don't really know where to begin. Read all the quotes, they're enough to make you sick to your stomach. If this man is re-elected, I'm moving to another country. Preferably one very far away.
«13456789

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 174
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    My personal belief is that if two people (of age) love each other, what right do others have to say they cannot get married, live together, enjoy the same rights, etc.?



    I don't care what other people do with their private lives, and I don't know why the government should care either. Seriously, if two people want to get married, whether they be straight, gay, transgendered, etc., they should have that right and the government should not try and interfere.
  • Reply 2 of 174
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Fran441





    I don't care what other people do with their private lives, and I don't know why the government should care either. Seriously, if two people want to get married, whether they be straight, gay, transgendered, etc., they should have that right and the government should not try and interfere.




    I agree. But I suspect there are issues such as spousal benefits when you file your income tax. That's where the government probably feels it needs to take a stance.
  • Reply 3 of 174
    Except Bush's stance is on the side of this religious dogma he is spouting out. Not everyone in this country is a Catholic, so why should we all have to abide by what the Catholic church says?



    Separation of church and state anyone?
  • Reply 4 of 174
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by LoCash

    Except Bush's stance is on the side of this religious dogma he is spouting out. Not everyone in this country is a Catholic, so why should we all have to abide by what the Catholic church says?



    Separation of church and state anyone?




    Yeah, what else is new about that fool of a president we have?
  • Reply 5 of 174
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Evangelical Baptists and others don't exactly like the idea either, nevermind Catholics. I agree about separation of church and state though. Why wouldn't civil unions be allowed among homosexuals, with all the responsibilities and whatnot to go along? Seems like the more responsible thing to do.



    Anyway, I love how Bush wraps his opinion with that, "but we do not judge" stuff:



    Bush: I do not think homosexual unions are right. But we should be tolerant of gays. After all, we are all sinners, it is not out place to judge. (OK, so I made him sound more eloquent than usual)



    Gays: Well, he's got a point th--- hey wait a minute! What's with all this "sinner" business?!
  • Reply 6 of 174
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    "important for society to welcome each individual," - Bush



    "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another," - Bush.
  • Reply 7 of 174
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    "important for society to welcome each individual," - Bush



    "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another," - Bush.






    " " - scott



    excellent point scott. errr, you did make point, didn't you?
  • Reply 8 of 174
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    I do believe in civil unions that confer all the legal rights of marriage but I don't believe in calling it marriage. Marriage as an institution seems to have originally come from religion. Likewise marriages have been performed by the state and many nation-states were originally religious in nature.



    So in my opinion they ought just allow civil unions that confer all the same benefits of marriage. To me that would pretty much end the debate. I could imagine the same uproar if they called your taxes a state tithe and called the IRS agents confiscatory priests.



    Likewise I would allow both homosexual and heterosexual folks to choose civil unions in place of marriage. To the state they would be the same and there wouldn't be all the issues loaded into the word marriage.



    Nick
  • Reply 9 of 174
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    Bush might as well adopt an official US religion.
  • Reply 10 of 174
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    What trumpetman says.



    Bush is right that Marriage is a sacrament, so leave it as such. I don't see any need to specify details of religious rites in the Constitution. I also don't see why the sacrament of Marriage should be confused with the secular, civil institution of marriage. So we should start calling the latter "civil union" and be done with it.
  • Reply 11 of 174
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another," - Bush.



    I've got a problem with this quote on two counts. One, Bush believes marriage is between a man and a woman. *He* believes. Ok, I have a problem with that.



    Second, he *thinks* was should codify that. Well, there should be no thinking, be decisive about it, but I find it wrong to codify it based upon one man's belief.



    Anybody ever watch babylon 5? I've been watching it again lately, and I'm trying real hard not to see a parallel between Bush and Clarke...
  • Reply 12 of 174
    trick falltrick fall Posts: 1,271member
    I just figure this is a diversionary tactic from an administration that excels at manipulating the media. Didn't the dumbass also take responsibility for those dubious state of the union words today.
  • Reply 13 of 174
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trick fall

    I just figure this is a diversionary tactic from an administration that excels at manipulating the media. Didn't the dumbass also take responsibility for those dubious state of the union words today.



    He also dodged the hell out of the question. It pissed me off when no one followed up on it. He says "I take personal responsibilty for everything I say" and then he goes on to talk about how there were 12 resolutions passed saying that Saddam is a bastard. What does that have to do with lying to the country? Nothing.



    Anyway, on topic: Bush is an idiot. But he's got his principles, at least. He didn't shy away from taking a stance. Sure, he's wrong, but at least he didn't waffle. I don't know what's worse: being a complete blathering idiot (Bush) or waffling so much you could be a short order cook at IHOP (nearly all other mainstream politicians). What a nice choice we've got with our 2 party system.
  • Reply 14 of 174
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Towel

    Bush is right that Marriage is a sacrament, so leave it as such. I don't see any need to specify details of religious rites in the Constitution. I also don't see why the sacrament of Marriage should be confused with the secular, civil institution of marriage. So we should start calling the latter "civil union" and be done with it.



    Then basically your argument is that only religions that agree with yours can use the word marriage, and you want your religious conviction to become state policy. While you have no opposition to a religion calling a male/female union marriage, you want to make it state policy that no religion can place a male/male union on equal standing within their religion. That, my friend, is state control of religion.



    As for civil unions for same sew couples, there is no rational argument against it.
  • Reply 15 of 174
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    one thing i have always believed in is that marriage should not automatically get you tax benefits. period. if that were the case, then government would have absolutely no reason to get involved in the union of two people in the first place.



    i have to admit, this will get some serious religious fundamentalists to fight even harder to keep him in office. and living in a small town in the deep south, i can say that they don't seem to need much encouragement to do so. \
  • Reply 16 of 174
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Bush said, "Hey Adam, want another reason not to vote for me in 2004?"
  • Reply 17 of 174
    objra10objra10 Posts: 679member
    LoCash

    Quote:

    I've got a problem with this quote on two counts. One, Bush believes marriage is between a man and a woman. *He* believes. Ok, I have a problem with that.



    Second, he *thinks* was should codify that. Well, there should be no thinking, be decisive about it, but I find it wrong to codify it based upon one man's belief.



    Why? You do know of course that it takes an act of congress and ratification by three-fourths of the legislatures of the states to amend the Constitution. It's not like this is something he can just wake up and do right? Why are you taking it out on him?



    If it happens, it will be because the people elected to do such things (pass laws) will have done so - not because the President of the United States expressed his personal opinion which happens to stem from his deep personal conviction of faith.



    Last time I checked, the President wasn't exempt from the First Amendment - he can still share his religious beliefs just like anyone else.



    By the way, you have no constitutional protection to be sheltered from hearing other people's beliefs.



    By the way are you gay? You seem pretty attached to the matter and it appears you have a personal perspective that leans towards a bias. It's none of my opinion and I'm being serious, not intending to insult..... just calling it like I see it.
  • Reply 18 of 174
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by OBJRA10

    Why? You do know of course that it takes an act of congress and ratification by three-fourths of the legislatures of the states to amend the Constitution. It's not like this is something he can just wake up and do right? Why are you taking it out on him?



    If it happens, it will be because the people elected to do such things (pass laws) will have done so - not because the President of the United States expressed his personal opinion which happens to stem from his deep personal conviction of faith.




    Obviously because he's pressing the issue. He's why it was a headline today. Were your objections here serious? Serioulsy.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by OBJRA10

    Last time I checked, the President wasn't exempt from the First Amendment - he can still share his religious beliefs just like anyone else.



    Stating your beliefs is one thing. Pressing for legislation of said beliefs is another.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by OBJRA10

    By the way, you have no constitutional protection to be sheltered from hearing other people's beliefs.



    Stating your beliefs is one thing. Pressing for legislation of said beliefs is another.
  • Reply 19 of 174
    People get married because they want to get children, at least that was the original idea behind the concept of marriage. So that the children and everyone else knows who are their parents, so that when the parents die, it's clear who gets the heir...



    The goverments all over the world allow married people to pay less taxes because they get and raise children that later on will pay taxes...



    So, why should homosexuals get the same rights? They don't get children and they don't raise them, so why should the pay lower taxes? When they die they won't have children who get their heir, so it's absolutely unnecessary for them to be married. I don't see the need.



    Nightcrawler
  • Reply 20 of 174
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Welcome to AI. I hope you will enjoy the freindly crowd here And now for your post:



    Don´t know where to start



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Nightcrawler

    People get married because they want to get children, at least that was the original idea behind the concept of marriage. So that the children and everyone else knows who are their parents, so that when the parents die, it's clear who gets the heir.



    1) Please qualify that argument. 2) Even if it is right then, as you say yourself, it was the function of marriage in the past. Of all the people that I know that have married in the last 20 years none of those married because they wanted to have children.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Nightcrawler

    The goverments all over the world allow married people to pay less taxes because they get and raise children that later on will pay taxes.



    Incredibly how much bullshit one line can contain. The goverments all over the world doesn´t let married people pay less taxes (you DO know what the word "the" make that sentence say, right?). And how on earth do you know that those that do do it because the children of those people will pay taxes later? And finally (I know a lot of people here doesn´t believe it but): PEOPLE DOESN`T HAVE TO BE MARRIED TO HAVE CHILDREN AND RAISE THEM. They doesn´t even have to be straight.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Nightcrawler

    So, why should homosexuals get the same rights? They don't get children and they don't raise them, so why should the pay lower taxes? When they die they won't have children who get their heir, so it's absolutely unnecessary for them to be married. I don't see the need.



    Gay couple: We want to get married.

    Big Brother: Well I don´t see the need for that. Application denied.



    I have a solution. Give gay couples the right to adobt. Then there is a "reason" for them to get married. Satisfied?
Sign In or Register to comment.