Bush backs Gay Marraige Ban Amendment

[Proteus_MST]

This is the most ridiculous argument against gay marriages, I ever heard.
Why does this Senator think that gay marriages would lead to Incest?
Has he any Statistics where most gay people with children say, that they would love to marry their son?

[MrBaggins]

perhaps he's a closet NAMBLA member.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Joseph
In your dream.

Of course,
a lot of people around the world (inside as well as outside of America)
dream of a big Defeat for Bush in the coming Elections

[Guynemer]

Santorum is a mouth-breathing buffoon. He was the ****wit who came out in favor of anti-"sodomy" laws a few months ago, using the exact same argument he is using now.

I can't help but wonder if the good people of Pennsylvania are having buyer's remorse.

[Ned]

Originally posted by CiverDan
I think there are too separate debates going on here. One is about the meaning of the term "marriage", and its long-standing social and religious meaning that it imparts The other is about the family structure in general and how homosexuals should or should have a part is this.

Conservative groups, if they want to make a solid argument (I am not a conservative) should focus on these points. Give me data that tells me that children adopted by homosexual couples are more likely to be homosexual, have more troubles lives, etc., from countries where gay marriage is legal now and/or focus on the religious connection (even if marriage is technical not religious act) I really get turned off when I hear agruments like:

1. The "This will lead to incest" argument given above

2. Homosexual relationships are less stable - Well..I would find it less enticing to stay in a relationship also If I couldnt get married, raise children, or gain financial benifits from maintaing a relationship. 50 % of heterosexual relationshis do end in divorce, even given the above.

3. This will cause the collapse of civilation like it did to the Roman Empire. Were all Barbarians gay? ZZZzzzz

If the point of all this is to have gays claim the "right" to adopt and raise kids, then you will get 90% of the people against you.

Also your note suggests that it is society'ss duty to justify its current preference to raise kids in traditional families and to oppose divorce. Those who advocate radical change have the burden of proof by at least clear and convincing evidence.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Actually this amendment is unconstitutional.

That is impossible, Giancarlo. Amendments can't be unconstitutional, no matter WHAT!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Actually amendments can be unconstitutional and can be removed because of that.

You are the biggest moron in the history of the world, aren't you?

Can you name any amendment which has been removed for being 'unconstitutional'?

It wasn't technically removed, but remember the amendment on prohibition??

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


After thinking some time about it I wouldn´t say that it is neither Discrimination against Gender nor sexual Orientation.

You can marry someone, regardless of wether you are male or female, as long as the other person is of the opposite sex.

But there is also no discrimination in sexual orientation.
Regardless of wether you are Homo or Heterosexual you are allowed to marry, as long as you marry a Person of the opposite Sex (and after all there is no law that says, that you have to feel love or sexual desire for your partner to marry him/her)

So I would call it rather some form of Discrimination against the "homosexual lifestyle", as homosexual lifestyle involves living together with a partner of the same sex.

You seem to be an idiot.

The problem that we have, is not that we're denied getting married to someone of the opposite gender. Our problem is that we are not recognized when marrying someone of the same gender.

[Ming]

Originally posted by MrFun
You seem to be an idiot.

And you seem to be asking to be restricted.

If you can't discuss this topic without calling people morons and idiots... or other insults... don't bother, or you will get restricted.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The Templar


Haha! Wrong! There are 3 (now really 2) amendments that are unconstitutional:

(1) Ending the slave trade before 1808 (now obsolete)
(2) Depriving a state of equal representation in the Senate.
(3) Creating titles of nobility.

The costitution forbids these and amendments that would allow these.

I don't recall seeing that in the Constitution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Haha! Wrong! There are 3 (now really 2) amendments that are unconstitutional:

(1) Ending the slave trade before 1808 (now obsolete)
(2) Depriving a state of equal representation in the Senate.
(3) Creating titles of nobility.

The costitution forbids these and amendments that would allow these.

You are kidding right? Amendments can never be unconstitutional, since they are part of the Constitution. All they have to say is that they are repudiating earlier provisions of the Constitution (as was done with the 12th Amendment). Basically say we are striking those provisions and now are doing X. Since the amendment is later, it has precedence over earlier Constitutional provisions. Basically Article 5 has no real power to bind future governments.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It wasn't technically removed, but remember the amendment on prohibition??

Which had to be taken out of the Constitution by a SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT!

[Agathon]

Did anyone see that the head of the transexual vietnam veterans association asked Kerry if he would fund veterans hospitals to perform sexual reassignments.

And Bush thinks he faces politically difficult questions.

[Shi Huangdi]

"and conservatives, I thought you dopes didn't like the federal government telling you what to do... I guess you turn a blind eye to authoritarian crap like this"

Get it through your skull, Sava, conservatism != Libertarianism.

The most recent polls I have seen showed a majority in favour of such an amendment.

[Drake Tungsten]

I hope this amendment goes through; it would allow the country to come to a consensus on this issue at its own pace and then repeal the amendment at a later date. Certainly a better course of action than letting Massachusetts and San Francisco force a divisive change in social mores on the rest of the country.