Bush Urges Congress to Pass Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage

[Flip McWho]

The state also has no obligation to provide benefits associated with marriage.

Yes it does if there is a clear case of discrimination. The state is supposed to be non-discriminatory no?

However, I do not see how gay people have their rights infringed upon when they are permitted to enter into contracts with one another, just as anyone else.

They are not allowed to enter into the contract of marriage are they? In only some places are they allowed civil unions, which amount to varying degrees of the same thing as marriage.

That is hardly an argument saying that gay marriage is bad because it is detrimental to marriage, rather that marriage is best between one man and one woman. The reason why they ought to be treated differently is because of the benefits in which marriage provides to society, when it is confined to one man and one woman.

Does that make sense? I'm talking about things like stability and children

Why is marriage best between one man and one woman? Why are the benefits given to society only applicable between a heterosexual couple?

There is no proof that homosexuals cannot form a stable loving/intimate relationship akin to marriage in heterosexuals.
The right to raise children is another matter that is different from the right to marry. A married couple does not necessarily have to have children to fulfill its role as a marriage.

[Flip McWho]

Thank you. So the state has no more right to change the definition to allow sodomites to marry. If the state has this right, then they also have the right to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

Umm yes the state does. It has the right to amend the definition in light of acting against discrimination. They also have the right to limit the definition, but there is no reason that is not religious to deny gays this right.

I don't know if you are familiar with the Massachusetts ruling, where a Catholic charity had to stop providing adoptions because they refused to allow gay couples to adopt. Who is to say that all the Catholic charities will not be shut down by the state simply because they choose not to ordain openly gay men or recognise gay marriage?

Well that's wrong, the catholic church has the right to adopt the children out to whoever they see fit, they are in charge of that particular operation afterall. They shouldn't be shut down, but there should be secular alternatives as well.

Need, yes. Provide, no.

How many heterosexual marriages are stable? How many end up in divorce? Being a hetero doesn't make you automatically prone to having a stable relationship. Stable relationships are worked at by both people in the relationship, I don't appreciate how you cheapen relationships by saying only heterosexuals are prone to stable ones.

There is no reason that a homosexual couple cannot provide stability.

Unless you're talking about having both a male and female role model for children, but then marriage isn't necessarily about having children. Thats a separate (albeit connected) sphere too marriage.

So the gender of the participants is irrelevant to marriage?

Yes, because to do otherwise is discrimination.

What other union gets kids MtG? Any other combination of 2 people?

Since when has marriage been a prerequisite for having children? It is if your a catholic but I know many people who have had children in a relationship where they aren't married. Marriage does not necessarily deliver children, and nor does it need too. You're showing your catholic faith in this position.

Do that, and you have a fair compromise.

That is a fair comprimise alrighty. Marriage is no longer really a religious function. The state looks after the transfer of rights and responsibilities that is bestowed upon marriage. The state cannot discriminate without good reason (like why incestual marriages and underage marriages are not allowed).

would now have to go down and have a civil union ceremony performed.

Na signing the marriage register amounts to the same thing.

[Zevico]

Need, yes. Provide, no.

I'm sorry, but what do you mean by that? I find it very hard to think of you as a tolerant person after you made that statement. Are you implying that homosexual relationships are inherently less stable than heterosexual ones? On what basis are you saying this? I accept your argument that the state is "awarding" marriage to those it finds it beneficial to do so--if I have understood correctly (forgive me it's late). But without proving that homosexual civil unions or marriages are something harmful to society lor homosexuals, or at the very least provide no benefits to society or homosexuals, on what basis are you making this claim? And even if it is true, surely the societal stigma against such relationships is a factor against its development?
My assumptions are:
- Homosexual men or women can raise a child as well as heterosexuals (at least until this is disproven). This is because parents tend not to bring their sexual lives into their children's lives (we're all pretty uncomfortable with that, and I don't tihnk it changes if you switch teams).
- Homosexual men or women should be allowed the same other rights--such as the right to be seen as family, or given al property in the case of death of a partner. Civil unionis a good way to provide this without much hassle.

I don't know if you are familiar with the Massachusetts ruling, where a Catholic charity had to stop providing adoptions because they refused to allow gay couples to adopt. Who is to say that all the Catholic charities will not be shut down by the state simply because they choose not to ordain openly gay men or recognise gay marriage?

Pragamtically speaking I see what you mean. After all, they're still helping these kids live potentially good lives. Bu in terms of principle don't you find this repugnant? What reason do you have to think that homosexual couples cannot raise a child as well as a single parent, for example?
Ultimately it seems to me that sexual attraction is a strange way to judge people. There are many heterosexuals are psychollogically ubalanced, whose relationships are unstable and who cannot, as a result, live in stable relationships. If we are to speak of stability as a factor in a relationship and whether the state should "award" marriage on that basis then a good deal of humanity should simply be crossed off the list as simply incapable of doing so--or at least trying and failing with multiple partners before finding the right one. Whereas I am sure that some homosexuals are quite capable of living in stable relationships with their partners. If you want to judge on the basis of stability and cannot prove that homosexual relationships are inherently far less stable then I cannot see why I should support your argument. And seeing as we have no figures for homosexual civil unions as yet, we cannot make compare between homosexual and heterosexual marriages. If we were to look at marriage and divorce figures over a period of, say, 200 or more years, in a country in which homosexuality was openly tolerated, which showed stability rates for homosexual relationships were far worse--then, and only then could I see your argument as reasonable. But until then, what proof do you have of a strong, credible nature?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

No it's not. Here's the win-win semantic compromise. Let "civil unions" apply to any union, gay or straight, that is sanctioned only by the state. Let "marriage" apply to any union, gay or straight, that's sanctioned by a church.

Further, let civil unions be the only contracts recognized by law; people are free to get married, but they still have to be united in civil union, and rights will be extended to them only based on the civil documents (the analogy here would be to baptismal certificates versus birth certificates).

Do that, and you have a fair compromise.

A position I've advocated a number of times.

-Arrian

[Sava]

We should protect the sanctity of America and have a constitutional amendment banning these religious fundies.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Bush continues to find ways to make me downgrade his performance. I may have to revise my earlier estimates of him not being the worst president in my lifetime.

Yep, now only Carter and Johnson are worse. He passed Nixon.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Bush continues to find ways to make me downgrade his performance. I may have to revise my earlier estimates of him not being the worst president in my lifetime.

Yep, now only Carter and Johnson are worse. He passed Nixon.

Out of curiosity, why is Pres. Carter in with those guys. I place him more on par with Pres. Ford.


Nixon, Johnson, and Bush are all jerks who knowingly let their arrogance (and sometimes criminal activities) lead America down the wrong path.

Pres. Carter, like President Ford, is a kind and decent human being who lacked the talent to be effective.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Do you actually think that actively taking rights away from gays

I know of no plans to do anything of the sort. It's this sort of dishonest demagoguery that contributes to the increasingly bitter and divisive debate on issues like this and frustrates people who would prefer to look examine these issues in a logical and reasonable manner.

Why did you quote me, then remove the part in brackets where I consider the issue in more reasonable terms as, "(Or at least, preventing them from obtaining more rights in the future)", that puts forward the POV that no rights are really being removed? It's pretty ironic to see you do that and condemn dishonesty in the same breath.

1. I don't support an amendment to ban gay marriage. I actually voted against such an amendment in Nebraska, which is more than a lot of the people engaging in hyperbolic fits here can say.

So you don't support this amendment after all? Glad to hear.

2. I don't see how an amendment that essentially protects the status quo from alteration constitutes "mucking around with a social institution". It would, in fact, seem to be the exact opposite...

Well, the number of references to marriage currently in the consitution is what, zero? Putting something in a straight-jacket is mucking around with it, whether it's a person or a legal concept.

3. There's no need to be condemning anybody. It's completely possible to disagree with someone on an issue without resorting to condemnation and demonization. That's something I wish both sides in this debate and countless others would remember.

I think you might want to think a little before wading into threads saying things like, "Frankly, I find the linking of the push for gay marriage with the civil rights struggle of the '60s to be offensive.", then. Unless you wish to add yet another layer of semantics to your post and argue that finding something offensive and condemning it are two completely different things.

Also, when you say, "Too many people seem intent on trying to force gay marriage on a population that isn't sure if it wants it or not.", I would just like to reassure you that the gay agenda does not include rounding up straights and forcing them to get married to their own gender at gunpoint P.S. just kidding with you, I know you are in no way homophobic or a paranoid loon.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Out of curiosity, why is Pres. Carter in with those guys. I place him more on par with Pres. Ford.


Nixon, Johnson, and Bush are all jerks who knowingly let their arrogance (and sometimes criminal activities) lead America down the wrong path.

Pres. Carter, like President Ford, is a kind and decent human being who lacked the talent to be effective.

Johnson deserves credit for his domestic agenda... civil rights, etc... Ford at least left office having helped improve things slightly. Also, I think he was under enormous pressure, what with Watergate. There was a lot going on at the time and the entire country was fixated on Watergate. Some might not agree with me, but I think he made the right call in pardoning Nixon... though, I know full well that at the time, it was looked at as a the VP sticking up for his guy. But I think Ford did it because he needed to remove Nixon as an issue so that he could focus on everything else going on at the time.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think Johnson or Ford were particularly bad presidents. Johnson and most everyone else (the people around him), made the mistake of getting involved in Vietnam... but that was a military blunder of immense proportions... underestimating the effectiveness of guerilla tactics. I think his intentions were good, but he wasn't psychic. In the end, he bowed out. I think he probably came to realize that Vietnam was a mistake...

I think that one of history's great losses was the death of Robert Kennedy. I believe he would have been a great president. JFK's legacy is what it is because of his assassination, but I think Bobby would have been great... better perhaps. A lot of good people were killed during those years.



Nixon was a more evil man than Bush... no question. But I think Bush's presidency is going to be far worse for America in the long term.

[SlowwHand]

Carter did nothing until after he was president. Nada.
AFTER, he's been the greatest ex-prez in history.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Carter did nothing until after he was president. Nada.
AFTER, he's been the greatest ex-prez in history.

*cough*Camp David Accords*cough

Carter brokered the most significant peace agreement of any president, ever. It doesn't entirely make up for the economy, Iran, and the corrupt yahoos in his administration, but it was and is really, really big. Certainly, on January 21, 2009, Bush will be hard-pressed to point to any positive accomplishment of his two terms that was even remotely as significant.

[Odin]

It's so f*cking predictable, when election day nears the Right will always pull this sh*t, "Vote for us, to keep those Satan-worshiping, Godless Libruls away!!!"

Gays and Atheists are to today what Blacks were to the 50's.

[Odin]

Oh, and Ben is officially a biggot.

[Odin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Are Oregon, New Hampshire, and Minnesota red states now?

We have a growing infection of Yuppies in the suburbs and exurbs near the Twin cities. they are the f*ckers who turned the MN Republican party from very moderate to being in the hands of the Theo-Cons and the Tax-Payers (more like Tax-Evaders) League.

[Gatekeeper]

FWIW, four moderate GOP state legislators went down in defeat in South Dakota's primary tonight. Predictably, they were ousted by fire-breathing, pro-life, one-dimensional characters who might make it easier for Democrats to gain a few seats in the S.D. House/Senate in November.

Piss-poor voter turnout, too. Very poor.

Gatekeeper