Bush Declares Homosexual Marraige Wrong!
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
Separation of church and state anyone?
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?
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?!
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another," - Bush.
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?
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
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.
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...
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Don´t know where to start
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.
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.
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?