Bush approves only of heterosexual marriage

[amcdonald]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Bush " They ought to codify that" Codify? Jesus H Christ, and this Moron is the leader of the free world

Hahahaha it couldn't possibly get funnier than this.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Encryptic

Originally posted by: Vic
Odd that no one ever wants to realize that this argument has nothing to do with gay rights or the "sanctity of marriage" or morals, and has everything to do with money, namely trillions of dollars in employer and government benefits.

Yeah, that's a good point as well.

Companies could always just cancel benefits entirely.

If gay couples can get benefits, then I want my live in girlfriend to get my benefits.

On second thought, my roommate & his wife have much better insurance than I do I'd like to be on their policy. I'm their bisexual third member, but we can't get married.

Where do you draw the line?

Viper GTS

Exactly. And so the slippery slope that began with the advent of Social Security continues...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Lutefisks
Marriage is a religious instituion, and is defined as between a man and a woman.

However, I also belive that gays should be allowed to have some sort of union, you can't call it a marriage.

So, I agree with Bush to a point.

Marriage is actually a legal institution. That's why it requires a court to dissolve it (divorce).

I see no reason why same-sex marriages shouldn't be treated the same as non-same-sex. I mean...isn't this country about freedom? About freedom from discrimination? From persecution?

 

[Buttzilla]

Bush needs to get some bush...

 

[Encryptic]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Lutefisks
Marriage is a religious instituion, and is defined as between a man and a woman.

However, I also belive that gays should be allowed to have some sort of union, you can't call it a marriage.

So, I agree with Bush to a point.

Marriage is actually a legal institution. That's why it requires a court to dissolve it (divorce).

I see no reason why same-sex marriages shouldn't be treated the same as non-same-sex. I mean...isn't this country about freedom? About freedom from discrimination? From persecution?

Not if Bush and Asscroft have it their way.....

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Bush " They ought to codify that" Codify? Jesus H Christ, and this Moron is the leader of the free world

Open mouth, insert foot

Viper GTS

Hahaha.. you got me on that one. Sorry Dubya!

And this moron is an elite member?

 

[Chaotic42]

The government has no business dealing with marriages at all. It's none of their business.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Encryptic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Lutefisks
Marriage is a religious instituion, and is defined as between a man and a woman.

However, I also belive that gays should be allowed to have some sort of union, you can't call it a marriage.

So, I agree with Bush to a point.

Marriage is actually a legal institution. That's why it requires a court to dissolve it (divorce).

I see no reason why same-sex marriages shouldn't be treated the same as non-same-sex. I mean...isn't this country about freedom? About freedom from discrimination? From persecution?

Not if Bush and Asscroft have it their way.....

Well, I voted for Bush in 2000...he just lost my vote, for sure!

 

[Encryptic]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
The government has no business dealing with marriages at all. It's none of their business.

That's what I'm saying. If two people love each other and want to make the commitment of getting married and all that implies, then SO BE IT. Why is the government in charge of making this decision for us?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
The government has no business dealing with marriages at all. It's none of their business.

I agree with you. However, the problem is that we have made it the government's business. See my posts above as to why.

 

[Encryptic]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Encryptic

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Lutefisks
Marriage is a religious instituion, and is defined as between a man and a woman.

However, I also belive that gays should be allowed to have some sort of union, you can't call it a marriage.

So, I agree with Bush to a point.

Marriage is actually a legal institution. That's why it requires a court to dissolve it (divorce).

I see no reason why same-sex marriages shouldn't be treated the same as non-same-sex. I mean...isn't this country about freedom? About freedom from discrimination? From persecution?

Not if Bush and Asscroft have it their way.....

Well, I voted for Bush in 2000...he just lost my vote, for sure!

Amen. Seems like every day more rights get flushed down the toilet in the name of combatting terrorism. I didn't vote for Bush and certainly won't be voting for him this time either.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Yet another uniting stance by our non-dividing president.

 

[stormbv]

Every time Bush starts a sentence with "I believe", I shudder.

 

[Quixfire]

Originally posted by: Encryptic

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
The government has no business dealing with marriages at all. It's none of their business.

That's what I'm saying. If two people love each other and want to make the commitment of getting married and all that implies, then SO BE IT. Why is the government in charge of making this decision for us?

So if government dissolves marriages, then we could have more than one partner? We could leave our current partner with or without kids and pursue another without a legal recourse on our partner?s behalf?

Is this what you mean?

I don't support same sex marriage and that is my right, but I don't believe this should be a national policy or even a state policy.

 

[gordy]

Originally posted by: conjur

I see no reason why same-sex marriages shouldn't be treated the same as non-same-sex. I mean...isn't this country about freedom? About freedom from discrimination? From persecution?

ahh, where's the freedom from christian-bashing/hating?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Syringer

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Bush " They ought to codify that" Codify? Jesus H Christ, and this Moron is the leader of the free world

Open mouth, insert foot

Viper GTS

Hahaha.. you got me on that one. Sorry Dubya!

And this moron is an elite member?

That's right dipsh!t Sometimes even us Elite Members make an error. Now not to acknowledge that error would be Moronic..or to call someone a Moron because he acknowledged his error would be Moronic.

 

[Encryptic]

Originally posted by: Quixfire

Originally posted by: Encryptic

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
The government has no business dealing with marriages at all. It's none of their business.

That's what I'm saying. If two people love each other and want to make the commitment of getting married and all that implies, then SO BE IT. Why is the government in charge of making this decision for us?

So if government dissolves marriages, then we could have more than one partner? We could leave our current partner with or without kids and pursue another without a legal recourse on our partner?s behalf?

Is this what you mean?

I don't support same sex marriage and that is my right, but I don't believe this should be a national policy or even a state policy.

No, you misread my post. What I'm saying is that the government shouldn't be in charge of saying whether two people can get married or not. The option of getting married should be valid for gay couples, just as it is for straight couples. To me, getting married is a commitment to one person that you love, as with my marriage to my wife. Why shouldn't gays have the right to make this commitment if they love one another?

I am not advocating the abolishment of marriage as an institution. If you got that impression, I'm afraid that's not what I was trying to convey.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Lutefisks
Marriage is a religious instituion, and is defined as between a man and a woman.

However, I also belive that gays should be allowed to have some sort of union, you can't call it a marriage.

So, I agree with Bush to a point.

Since when is it the soul domain of Mythology (Reigion) Many of us who don't buy into that Religious Mumbo Jumbo are Married.

 

[0roo0roo]

f*cking bastards learned nothing from the taliban😛

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Lutefisks
Marriage is a religious instituion, and is defined as between a man and a woman.

However, I also belive that gays should be allowed to have some sort of union, you can't call it a marriage.

So, I agree with Bush to a point.

And if so many economic, civic & property rights weren't tied to the religious institution of marriage, I'd have a much easier time swallowing the religious objections to same-sex marriages.

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

I agree with George.


"Those Whom God Hath Joined Together Let No Man Put Asunder"

 

[Red Dawn]

This is just another case of the Religious Totalitarians trying to push their hypocritical moral standards on others.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: gordy

Originally posted by: conjur

I see no reason why same-sex marriages shouldn't be treated the same as non-same-sex. I mean...isn't this country about freedom? About freedom from discrimination? From persecution?

ahh, where's the freedom from christian-bashing/hating?

Won't hear me bashing christians. As long as they keep their religious beliefs to themselves and do not try to impose their morality on me or anyone else.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Syringer

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Bush " They ought to codify that" Codify? Jesus H Christ, and this Moron is the leader of the free world

Open mouth, insert foot

Viper GTS

Hahaha.. you got me on that one. Sorry Dubya!

And this moron is an elite member?

That's right dipsh!t Sometimes even us Elite Members make an error. Now not to acknowledge that error would be Moronic..or to call someone a Moron because he acknowledged his error would be Moronic.

Moron!







😛

 

[Quixfire]

Originally posted by: Encryptic

Originally posted by: Quixfire

Originally posted by: Encryptic

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
The government has no business dealing with marriages at all. It's none of their business.

That's what I'm saying. If two people love each other and want to make the commitment of getting married and all that implies, then SO BE IT. Why is the government in charge of making this decision for us?

So if government dissolves marriages, then we could have more than one partner? We could leave our current partner with or without kids and pursue another without a legal recourse on our partner?s behalf?

Is this what you mean?

I don't support same sex marriage and that is my right, but I don't believe this should be a national policy or even a state policy.

No, you misread my post. What I'm saying is that the government shouldn't be in charge of saying whether two people can get married or not. The option of getting married should be valid for gay couples, just as it is for straight couples. To me, getting married is a commitment to one person that you love, as with my marriage to my wife. Why shouldn't gays have the right to make this commitment if they love one another?

I am not advocating the abolishment of marriage as an institution. If you got that impression, I'm afraid that's not what I was trying to convey.

Thanks for clearing that up, I agree with your stance on this topic, but I still would choose not to support it, but I wouldn't want to limit one's personal freedoms because of my beliefs.

To clarify this, I don't want my tax dollars spent on either side of this issue, but if two people choose to create a legal union then they should be allowed.