Bush Shuns Calls to Legalize Gay Marriage

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ramo
Let's say that I'm in 1960 and I say that interracial marriages should stay prohibited because it has been that way for a long time in Texas. Is there nothing wrong with this assertion?

Marriage the way it is today has been around thousands of years and the building block of civilization. Interricial marriage is not different from any other marriage then say the skin color of the people involve. Man marrying anther man is way different.

[Ramo]

I and many people like me think that it is morally wrong for anyone to have sex outside marriage and that it should only be between a man and woman. But I dont go forcing others to accept this view. Everyone should have equal rights and if gays really want marriage, I think that civil unions are the best way to go. HOw does civil unions make you feel inferior? Why must gays feel the need that everyone accept their way of life?

1. I'm not gay so it wouldn't make me feel inferior.
2. I'm not forcing you to accept my view; I just want the state to treat gay people equally. Like it's Constitutionally proscribed.

Racism is illigal.

So is discrimination based on sexual orientation. You might want to take another look at the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

I am just trying to reach a compromise. Many people view marriage between a man and woman and think that men marrying each other is wrong. But gays want to marry each other. So it make everyone happy give gays civil unions.

Ok, so this 1960 character says, I think interracial marriages are immoral and that I don't approve of black people being uppity, but I'm willing to compromise. We can call their unions "civil unions," as long as they leave the good Christian tradition of marraige alone.

[Ramo]

Marriage the way it is today has been around thousands of years and the building block of civilization.

Marriage thousands of years ago is totally different from marriage today. It was generally about pumping out kids, not about love, etc. Does that mean we should prohibit love-marriages.

Interricial marriage is not different from any other marriage then say the skin color of the people involve. Man marrying anther man is way different.

Why?

[Jack_www]

Marriage as it is now is not discriminating anyone. Why? Because everyone wheater you are black, or white or gay can marry someone of opposite sex, and no one can marry someone of same sex. It is pretty simple to me to understand. And interracial marriage thing has nothing to do with this.

[Ramo]

Marriage as it is now is not discriminating anyone. Why? Because everyone wheater you are black, or white or gay can marry someone of opposite sex, and no one can marry someone of same sex.

By this critera, marriage in 1960 in Texas didn't discrimate against anyone. Because everyone whether you are black or white or gay can marry someone of the same race or different sex, and no one can marry someone of another race or same sex.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Ramo


Marriage thousands of years ago is totally different from marriage today. It was generally about pumping out kids, not about love, etc. Does that mean we should prohibit love-marriages.

And many people that marry today do it because they want to raise a family. Yes some people who marry dont have kids, but most people who marry do or at least try to have kids. Marriage has been about also raise Children where they have both a father and mother to become productive members of society. When all things are equal it is better for a child to have both a father and mother.

[Ramo]

And many people that marry today do it because they want to raise a family. Yes some people who marry dont have kids, but most people who marry do or at least try to have kids.

Once again, so in the name of tradition does that mean we should prohibit heterosexual marriages based purely on love, and don't plan to have kids/are barren or impotent?

Marriage has been about also raise Children where they have both a father and mother to become productive members of society.

But Christianity has only existed for two thousand years. So this has nothing to do with the building blocks of civilization. And besides, there's another Constitutional Amendment you're forgetting - the first.

When all things are equal it is better for a child to have both a father and mother.

Bald assertion. Why is a father and mother any better than a father and father or mother and mother?

[Jack_www]

Because their are things that you learn from both parents (father and mother) that is lost when you have two fathers or two mothers. Even single parents can raise good kids and are good parents and I am sure that two men or women can do a good job but it is not the same.

[Ramo]

What precisely are these things that are lost? And are you saying that there no things that you can learn from a man-man or woman-woman relationship that you can't learn from a heterosexual relationship?

[faded glory]

Good, darn poop stabbers/ bean flickers.


hehe...



No really, I feel Gay marriage is bad. Marriage is a religous celebration. I believe its up to the religous entities individually to make the decision themselves.

Now on the other hand. Im not opposed to state-sponsered Union's that have the exact same benefits. Not just for Homosexuals, etc... But for Athiest/all. Should be easy to get and just like any other wedding.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by faded glory
No really, I feel Gay marriage is bad. Marriage is a religous celebration. I believe its up to the religous entities individually to make the decision themselves.

What about religious organizations that want to marry gays? The American Episcopal church is set to adopt a gay marriage rite. They are even poised to elect the first gay bishop.

Religious institutions aren't monolithic, and many congregations welcome gay members and want to celebrate their relationships.

The state should treat all couples equally--call them whatever they wish, but call them all the same thing and grant them all equal status and rights.

[faded glory]

"What about religious organizations that want to marry gays? The American Episcopal church is set to adopt a gay marriage rite. They are even poised to elect the first gay bishop.
"

Fine with me. Lets settle this damn issue once and for all and get it done. Your side will eventually win. The longer its dragged out the more it hurts us anyway. One day Catholics will have to go the same route as the episcopals.


"The state should treat all couples equally--call them whatever they wish, but call them all the same thing and grant them all equal status and rights."


Yup no quarrel here. I agree mostly.


"Religious institutions aren't monolithic, and many congregations welcome gay members and want to celebrate their relationships"

Good. Then if there church allows, they should be able to get married. If not, thats were the whole state-union comes in if say the church doesnt allow for homosexual marriages. The state has a responsibility to step in and say "Ok you've been living together, etc....how would you like these partner perks? And a 20% discount on your AAA membership? Plus a one time 5$ Sam's Club membership Card"

[faded glory]

Man this forum is serouisly dead.

Everybody give a big thanks to Ming for banning 90% of the posters in off topic !

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What about religious organizations that want to marry gays? The American Episcopal church is set to adopt a gay marriage rite. They are even poised to elect the first gay bishop.

Sorry, the Catholic Church already beat them to it

[Ming]

Originally posted by faded glory
Man this forum is serouisly dead.

Everybody give a big thanks to Ming for banning 90% of the posters in off topic !

No more than 1% of the active posters are banned at any given time... I just nail the jerks like you when you break the rules