Bush urges gay marriage ban enshrined in Constitution

Status
Not open for further replies.
Star Power said:
050423_IraqBodies_vl.standard.jpg



GWB: ".... I must protect the sanctity of marriage!"
Click to expand...

And abolish abortion. Lord knows you can't go around killing people for no reason.
 
malek4980 said:
And the 21st disagrees with the 18th.

The government did take away people's right to own slaves.
Click to expand...

You could argue that, although I think that most would argue that

the right not to be a slave >>>>>>>>>>>> the right to own one

(not arguing that you're advocating slavery, though)
 
mamacint said:
You could argue that, although I think that most would argue that

the right not to be a slave >>>>>>>>>>>> the right to own one

(not arguing that you're advocating slavery, though)
Click to expand...
I don't know, I'm on the fence on this issue.

Obviously the right to be human supersedes the right to own other humans, which could never justifiably be called a right anyhow.
 
malek4980 said:
I don't know, I'm on the fence on this issue.

Obviously the right to be human supersedes the right to own other humans, which could never justifiably be called a right anyhow.
Click to expand...

Ummm, er, umm

Exactly what the **** are you on the fence about?

just asking?

edit: on second reading, perhaps my sarcasm detector is on the fritz...please tell me it is?
 
Lost Fragment said:
Civil war already plz. It's been too long since the last one.
Click to expand...
Violence solves everything. If there was a civil war, my money would be on the side that has more guns, militia members, military personnel and farmland.
I know you were only kidding

mamacint said:
Ummm, er, umm

Exactly what the **** are you on the fence about?

just asking?
Click to expand...
shanemacgowanap.jpg
 
Lost Fragment said:
Civil war already plz. It's been too long since the last one.
Click to expand...
between who? TEH GAYZ and TEH STR8s?

straights would win. just play philadelphia and brokeback mountain in a double header at a drive in show and then bomb it.

anyways, yeah. it'd never leave the house, let alone senate. at least not before 2008.
 
Ghost said:
The problem with calling it gay marriage is that a lot of people (incorrectly) assume that its a religious thing, and not a legal thing.

Legally, i totally agree that anyone should be able to marry anyone else (though no children please).

Religiously, if a religion says being gay is 'wrong', then they are intollerant and its their problem, you cant force those relgions to change their point of view, only educate people into seeing that they are misguided. I dont see why any gay person would want to be part of a religion that dictates that their sexuality is 'wrong' anyway (though many apparently are).

So i agree with the poster that the solution is to seperate the religious and legal acts of marriage into two clearly defined acts, stop all the confusion and seperate the 'no ****ing way' camp into the homophobic tossers and the people who simply think gay marriage is firmly against their religious beliefs (Theres probably only a slight distinction between the two groups, but i believe it is a distinction).
Click to expand...
I try to explain the whole legal vs religious aspect of the marriage debate to people, but you just run into the same retards who think America was founded as a Christian nation.
 
Y2Kevbug11 said:
OH YEAH What about this new propaganda movie with Al Gore in it it's an attempt to get his irrational supporters out omg al gore is propaganda master111

Global warming is a non issue and we must stop the gays from marrying, did you think that maybe God is angry at the gays and he's heating up the earth.

you damn liberals are so out of touch with heartland values
Click to expand...


I agree with you. I must confess I was always "out of touch" with hateful redneck logic.
 
I don't approve obviously, but this was a no-brainer move from Bush. Express support for an issue that the fly-over Red States are behind, even though it won't pass, and present the image of being concerned about "moral values", whether he is or not. Just a bunch of lame posturing that doesn't mean a whole lot in the end.
 
Part of the problem we're having here is that "marriage" is both a religious rite (actually a sacrament according to Christians) and a state-approved legal status.

In my mind this is an issue of church and state becoming intertwined. Religious folks think that they want more church in their state, but this what happens when the two get mixed up -- the state finds ways to apply the law to folks that some religions aren't too keen on.
 
kablooey said:
I don't approve obviously, but this was a no-brainer move from Bush. Express support for an issue that the fly-over Red States are behind, even though it won't pass, and present the image of being concerned about "moral values", whether he is or not. Just a bunch of lame posturing that doesn't mean a whole lot in the end.
Click to expand...
Which is why it would be stupid for people against gay marriage (IIRC a majority of the US) to suddenly bolt-up and support Bush (whose support is in the low-to-mid 30s) or anyone else signing-on here, when the issue only comes out at election time and in feeble, meaningless non-efforts like this one.
 
Dan said:
I try to explain the whole legal vs religious aspect of the marriage debate to people, but you just run into the same retards who think America was founded as a Christian nation.
Click to expand...
tell them it was also founded by white people, too, but we somehow have found a way to include women and minorities into the citizenry.

it wasn't founded as a christian nation though. it was founded by christians specifically not to be a christian nation. ugh. this annoys me.
 
fortified_concept said:
I see what you did there. Since we already know that people against gay marriage are idiots, you claim that only idiots would fall for Bush's trick. Hense every one of them. Nice.
Click to expand...
Huh? Are you trying to tell me you're against gay marriage?

fortified_concept said:
And please don't offend americans. How do you know the majority is against gay marriage. Have you seen a poll or something?
Click to expand...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/24/national/main601828.shtml

THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

In a CBS News poll conducted immediately after President Bush endorsed a constitutional ban on gay marriage, 59% of Americans said they would favor an amendment to the Constitution that would "allow marriage only between a man and a woman," up slightly from 55% last December.

In a separate question that asked if they would support a constitutional amendment that would "allow marriage only between a man and a women and outlaw marriages between people of the same sex," support declines, but 51% would still support such an amendment.

When a question is asked without reference to a possible constitutional amendment, even more oppose legalizing gay marriage. Sixty-two percent of Americans oppose a law that would allow homosexual couples to marry and obtain the same legal rights as other married couples; just 30% favor gay marriage.

The public seems to have become even less receptive toward gay marriage in the past seven months. Although a majority has always opposed gay marriage, last July, 40% said they would favor allowing homosexual couples to legally marry, as did 34% in December. That figure is now 30%.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in more recent polling on this issue, as well as polling on global attitudes towards the same, if anyone has them.
 
the chew said:
Don't call it a marriage, call it some union or whatever.
Click to expand...
Call it what you want, but if it's got the same rights as a marriage, people will consider it a marriage. If it doesn't, it's inferior.

Ghost said:
So i agree with the poster that the solution is to seperate the religious and legal acts of marriage into two clearly defined acts, stop all the confusion and seperate the 'no ****ing way' camp into the homophobic tossers and the people who simply think gay marriage is firmly against their religious beliefs (Theres probably only a slight distinction between the two groups, but i believe it is a distinction).
Click to expand...
Agreed. I sometimes compare it to the fact that I'm legally a reverend through the Universal Life Church, but that doesn't mean any actual religious person would accept me as anything important.
 
Just to play the Devil's advocate, here is a fun scenario:

Two grown men love each other and want to get married.

They are biological brothers born to the same parents

Should they be allowed to marry and should society support their marriage?

Why or why not?
 
Link648099 said:
Just to play the Devil's advocate, here is a fun scenario:

Two grown men love each other and want to get married.

They are biological brothers born to the same parents

Should they be allowed to marry and should society support their marriage?

Why or why not?
Click to expand...

No, because that's incest.
 
Wafflecopter said:
No, because that's incest.
Click to expand...

And whats wrong with that? Not like that can have kids or anything. They are two consenting adult men. Why should they be denied the right to marry simply because they are related?
 
APF said:
Huh? Are you trying to tell me you're against gay marriage?


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/24/national/main601828.shtml



I'd be interested in more recent polling on this issue, as well as polling on global attitudes towards the same, if anyone has them.
Click to expand...

No I was saying that anyone who's against gay marriage is a ****ing idiot. And yes I'm generalizing and I honestly do it on purpose. As for the poll every american who has some brains should be kinda ashamed of his country his fellow countrymen who voted against and their "heartland values".
 
Link648099 said:
And whats wrong with that? Not like that can have kids or anything. They are two consenting adult men. Why should they be denied the right to marry simply because they are related?
Click to expand...

Should we allow immortal people to shoot eachother even if they won't die?







...
 
Link648099 said:
And whats wrong with that? Not like that can have kids or anything. They are two consenting adult men. Why should they be denied the right to marry simply because they are related?
Click to expand...

What the hell is your agenda here? Are you trying to say if two men can marry, why can't two family members do it? If two guys want to suck each others cock, than they can go ahead and do that. I don't care (just not in front of me plz). But two family members? That's just digusting. I went out with a chick before whose brother "raped" her when she was nine, but there was some serious "glances" and "sparks" between them, so I have doubts it wasn't consensual. Incest is digusting.
 
Link648099 said:
Should they be allowed to marry and should society support their marriage?
Click to expand...
I'm for it. It seems to me the simplest and best legal thing would be to define a set of rights between any two consenting legal adults.
 
Wafflecopter said:
What the hell is your agenda here? Are you trying to say if two men can marry, why can't two family members do it? If two guys want to suck each others cock, than they can go ahead and do that. I don't care (just not in front of me plz). But two family members? That's just digusting. I went out with a chick before whose brother "raped" her when she was nine, but there was some serious "glances" and "sparks" between them, so I have doubts it wasn't consensual. Incest is digusting.
Click to expand...

Wow, arent you getting pissy so early? Why is incest disgusting and homosexuality not? Give me your reasoning behind this, not just your mere opinion. Why is incest "wrong" and homosexuality "right"?

I dont care about the chick you went out with. That is a different situation altogether and you need some better reasons for denying these two men the right to marry simply because the share the same blood. Theres no possibility of offspring, they are of age and definitly love each other and freely consent to marriage.

Whos to get hurt from this marriage? You? Why should these men care about offending you?

Whats your problem?
 
this really isn't news to me. I'm glad all of you are making fun of bush, but he is just a face. He's controlled by the religious special interests. It's as if he has no mind of his own and is just a vintriliquist doll for the right wing. I guestion if Bush even has a soul.
 
Link648099 said:
Wow, arent you getting pissy so early? Why is incest disgusting and homosexuality not? Give me your reasoning behind this, not just your mere opinion. Why is incest "wrong" and homosexuality "right"?

I dont care about the chick you went out with. That is a different situation altogether and you need some better reasons for denying these two men the right to marry simply because the share the same blood. No possible children, they are of age and definitly love each other and freely consent to marriage.

Whos to get hurt from this marriage? You? Why should these men care about offending you?
Click to expand...

Look here......Allowing gays to marry won't do any wrong. Allowing two mother****ers that are RELATED to marry, opens a can of worms.
 
Flynn said:
Incest harms the gene pool. Homosexuality only opts out from the gene pool.
Click to expand...

Well 1st generation incest wouldn't immediately harm the gene pool, but a series of generations of incest would.
 
Wafflecopter said:
Look here......Allowing gays to marry won't do any wrong. Allowing two mother****ers that are RELATED to marry, opens a can of worms.
Click to expand...

Ooo...the old slippery slope argument! Can't a simple law that states only two related people of the same sex can marry fix that can of worms you mention?

You still havn't given me a good reason why these two men shouldnt be allowed to marry.
 
Flynn said:
Incest harms the gene pool.
Click to expand...
Things can still be taboo without legal backing. If it were legal for a person to marry their sibling, I doubt we'd have some species-damaging pandemic on our hands.
 
DarienA said:
Well 1st generation incest wouldn't immediately harm the gene pool, but a series of generations of incest would.
Click to expand...

That's why society has made a taboo out of incest -- to prevent the ball from rolling.

Social criticism of homosexuality is intolerance that harms society more than allowing it to exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dave Grohl announces daughter outside of his marriage
2 3
143
9K
Dr.Morris79 replied
Major Reddit Forums Ban X Links
News  2 3 4 5
213
13K
Bitmap Frogs replied
  • Locked
Disney demanded edits on Inside Out 2 to make Riley appear "less gay"
40
3K
Doom85 replied
Australia plans to ban children from social media
2 3 4
160
9K
Cyberpunkd replied
  • Locked
Ban request
10
2K
The Cockatrice replied
Top Bottom