Bush Drops Gay Marriage Amendment?

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Czar
haha, and wasnt this a huuuuge part of his election agenda, and ofcorse alot of people gave him their support because of that

damn politicians and their never ending list of unfullfilled election promises

Topic Title: Bush Drops Gay Marriage Amendment

I'll have to ask my family member what he thinks about Bush now.

This was a primary reason that he voted for Bush, he is deathly afraid that the Gays are going to break down his door to convert him.

This is obviously the teaching (Brainwashing) of the Church.

You have to admit, though, it would be funny as fvckin' hell if a bunch of gay guys DID bust down his door to "Convert" him 🙂

Jason

 

[Buz2b]

Ya know, I think some of you are missing the point in this. I frankly don't care if gays want to be together in some sort of fully recognized union and given all the same rights as a married, hetro couple.
The big HOWEVER to that is I DO NOT BELIEVE it should be called marriage. Marriage is a union that is defined as between a man and a woman. So, find your own damned name for it but I will never support calling it Marriage. As I said though, I would support giving the same recognition and rights as a married couple had to this gay "union" (or whatever designation it is given). I think you'd find there are a lot of folks that feel the same way. So, preserve the sanctity of marriage as between a man and a woman and then legislate in a form of gay union, under its own name, with the same rights and you might find a few more supporters out there.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Odd how all the regular anti-gay marriage posters aren't present in this thread.

But even it was for another motive, it's about damn time he dropped the whole thing.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Buz2b
Ya know, I think some of you are missing the point in this. I frankly don't care if gays want to be together in some sort of fully recognized union and given all the same rights as a married, hetro couple.
The big HOWEVER to that is I DO NOT BELIEVE it should be called marriage. Marriage is a union that is defined as between a man and a woman. So, find your own damned name for it but I will never support calling it Marriage. As I said though, I would support giving the same recognition and rights as a married couple had to this gay "union" (or whatever designation it is given). I think you'd find there are a lot of folks that feel the same way. So, preserve the sanctity of marriage as between a man and a woman and then legislate in a form of gay union, under its own name, with the same rights and you might find a few more supporters out there.

Thats your defintion of marriage. In reality our state sponsered marriages in reality are infact unions. Why? What does a marriage require? LOVE! Our goverment doesn't require love at all for there to be a "marriage".

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Buz2b
Ya know, I think some of you are missing the point in this. I frankly don't care if gays want to be together in some sort of fully recognized union and given all the same rights as a married, hetro couple.
The big HOWEVER to that is I DO NOT BELIEVE it should be called marriage. Marriage is a union that is defined as between a man and a woman. So, find your own damned name for it but I will never support calling it Marriage. As I said though, I would support giving the same recognition and rights as a married couple had to this gay "union" (or whatever designation it is given). I think you'd find there are a lot of folks that feel the same way. So, preserve the sanctity of marriage as between a man and a woman and then legislate in a form of gay union, under its own name, with the same rights and you might find a few more supporters out there.

'Separate but equal' is not the same as equal. That's why this 'compromise' isn't really a compromise at all.

As someone who isn't gay, and believes that marriage is very important both socially and between marriage partners on a private level, I don't see gay marriage as having any effect on the 'sanctity' of marriage. Therefore unless you have some argument or rationale for this, your argument won't convince anyone who doesn't already hold the same position you do.

 

[wylecoyote]

I understand you're point, Buz2b.

I understand that the religious definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, but the secular, governmental definition must NOT be based on a religious definition. Separation of church and state. Marriage must be between two people who love each other.

THAT BEING SAID...

Whether churches want to perform same-sex marriages should be up to them, their denomonation/religion, their congregation, etc. If they want to deny it because their religious text deems it immoral, so be it.

But government shouldn't inextricably tie the secular definition of marriage and the religious one.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: wylecoyote
I understand you're point, Buz2b.

I understand that the religious definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, but the secular, governmental definition must NOT be based on a religious definition. Separation of church and state. Marriage must be between two people who love each other.

THAT BEING SAID...

Whether churches want to perform same-sex marriages should be up to them, their denomonation/religion, their congregation, etc. If they want to deny it because their religious text deems it immoral, so be it.

But government shouldn't inextricably tie the secular definition of marriage and the religious one.

:thumbsup:

 

[CQuinn]

Originally posted by: wylecoyote
I understand you're point, Buz2b.

I understand that the religious definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, but the secular, governmental definition must NOT be based on a religious definition. Separation of church and state. Marriage must be between two people who love each other.

While I agree in principle, I think you are applying your own bias here. Requiring proof that
two people actually love each other (by creating some standard definition of love), would probably
invalidate a good number of existing heterosexual marriages as it is.

If I read you correctly, I would have phrased it as (clearing throat):
A State-sanctioned marriage agreement should be based primarily on the willingness of two
consenting adults to commit to one another within a long-lasting (with luck, lifelong) relationship.
That willingness can be brought about by many social, spiritual, economic or religious factors;
that the state should be respective of when considering the validity of such a claim to commitment.
The state should also not therefore, be in a position to discriminate against the individual choice
in this matter, unless such choice can be proven as invalid in regard to the status of either
member as to adulthood or ability to freely consent, or patently detrimental to the chances of
achieving a successful long-term bond.

THAT BEING SAID...

Whether churches want to perform same-sex marriages should be up to them, their denomonation/religion, their congregation, etc. If they want to deny it because their religious text deems it immoral, so be it.

And the corollary, if their system of beliefs allows for it, and condones marriage as a preferred form
of cohabitation.

But government shouldn't inextricably tie the secular definition of marriage and the religious one.

But government shouldn't inextricably tie the secular definition of anything with a singular religious one.

 

[Cerb]

He won the election. What purpose does it serve now?

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Cerb
He won the election. What purpose does it serve now?

what purpose does what serve now?

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: Cerb
He won the election. What purpose does it serve now?

what purpose does what serve now?

The ammanedment to ban homosexual marriage.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Buz2b
Ya know, I think some of you are missing the point in this. I frankly don't care if gays want to be together in some sort of fully recognized union and given all the same rights as a married, hetro couple.
The big HOWEVER to that is I DO NOT BELIEVE it should be called marriage. Marriage is a union that is defined as between a man and a woman. So, find your own damned name for it but I will never support calling it Marriage. As I said though, I would support giving the same recognition and rights as a married couple had to this gay "union" (or whatever designation it is given). I think you'd find there are a lot of folks that feel the same way. So, preserve the sanctity of marriage as between a man and a woman and then legislate in a form of gay union, under its own name, with the same rights and you might find a few more supporters out there.

One big talking point here.


So the Dub just wants to give it up now, huh? Where are the big morals this guy has that I heard about 24/7 leading up to the election?

 

[Miramonti]

Ralph Reed must be ready to have a heart attack right about now.

 

[wylecoyote]

"So the Dub just wants to give it up now, huh? Where are the big morals this guy has that I heard about 24/7 leading up to the election? "

Exactly... Karl Rove advised Bush to stress the gay marriage issue to mobilize the religious right to the polls. And boy did it work.

Of course, the ammendment would never pass... Bush knew this, so as soon as the election was sealed Bush dropped it, betraying the religious right (hehe... where's the faith in your leader now, biatches!?).

And so it goes in the Bush camp.

 

[wylecoyote]

Indeed CQuinn, you speak more elegantly than I...

(I wasn't actually asserting that the government would actually "require proof" of love between two individuals using some kind of "love-o-meter". )

Originally posted by: CQuinn

Originally posted by: wylecoyote
I understand you're point, Buz2b.

I understand that the religious definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, but the secular, governmental definition must NOT be based on a religious definition. Separation of church and state. Marriage must be between two people who love each other.

While I agree in principle, I think you are applying your own bias here. Requiring proof that
two people actually love each other (by creating some standard definition of love), would probably
invalidate a good number of existing heterosexual marriages as it is.

If I read you correctly, I would have phrased it as (clearing throat):
A State-sanctioned marriage agreement should be based primarily on the willingness of two
consenting adults to commit to one another within a long-lasting (with luck, lifelong) relationship.
That willingness can be brought about by many social, spiritual, economic or religious factors;
that the state should be respective of when considering the validity of such a claim to commitment.
The state should also not therefore, be in a position to discriminate against the individual choice
in this matter, unless such choice can be proven as invalid in regard to the status of either
member as to adulthood or ability to freely consent, or patently detrimental to the chances of
achieving a successful long-term bond.

THAT BEING SAID...

Whether churches want to perform same-sex marriages should be up to them, their denomonation/religion, their congregation, etc. If they want to deny it because their religious text deems it immoral, so be it.

And the corollary, if their system of beliefs allows for it, and condones marriage as a preferred form
of cohabitation.

But government shouldn't inextricably tie the secular definition of marriage and the religious one.

But government shouldn't inextricably tie the secular definition of anything with a singular religious one.

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: wylecoyote
I understand you're point, Buz2b.

I understand that the religious definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, but the secular, governmental definition must NOT be based on a religious definition. Separation of church and state. Marriage must be between two people who love each other

It really cracks me up when people start quoting the Constitution of the US and throwing out "separation of Church and State". In truth, there is no such wording in the Constitution. The first amendmant reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I know, I know, some say it is "implied" by meaning. So, I guess we are all really good at reading the minds of dead statesmen and deciding what they meant to imply. 😉 How about just reading it and using common sense?
You say the government's definition must NOT be based on a religious definition. Hell, this country was FOUNDED by religious people who wanted the right to express themselves and practice their religion.
And those who cry "separate but equal" is what I am implying, get lost. All I am condoning is preserving the definition and sanctity of the word marraige. Nothing more. Marraige was founded and named by religion. That is why it is what it is. If you want to have a union not based on those religious definitions, don't use the name. Besides, in theory, if the government tries to pass a law allowing gay unions to be called marraige, aren't they guilty of breaking the first amendment since they are passing a law that tramples on religious rights?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Buz2b
Marraige was founded and named by religion. That is why it is what it is.

Which religion founded marriage? When did this occur?

How do you account for the fact that civil marriages occurred in Ancient Greece thousands of years prior to christianity?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Having many gay friends, teachers, family members, I know that gay people, despite their sexual preferences and great fashion, are no different from you or I.

Of course, we?re all flawed people.

I?m fat and clearly I engage in gluttony. I?ve tried not to over eat, but I?ve still not found my way past it. You could easily say that the tendency to over-eat is part of how I was made, that fat people have been here sense the beginning of time, and that it?s human nature to over eat and not exorcize.

But that doesn?t make my choice not to eat less and exorcize enough the right one and it doesn?t mean that we should change society around me to accommodate my alternative lifestyle.

It essentially reclassifies marriage as a 'religous-only' institution, which I think is as much of a change in the 'definition of marriage' as including homosexual couples represents.

The idea of two souls becoming one is definitely a religious idea, one that?s found it?s way into society on a level that isn?t necessarily biblically based.

But the question really is: is it worth the social benefits to risk changing the definition of marriage and when it comes to such issues I error on the side of keeping society together instead of falling further into decadence.

My general rule is I don't like laws that are restrictive of freedoms which don't harm anyone else.

I think this is a reasonable difference of opinion, something that we can only really resolve by going through the democratic process.

I respect your religion and it's beliefs. I don't agree with them (agnostic) but what you believe is your choice, and as Voltaire said, "I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it."

I feel the same way about every other American, less those few calling for violence against others.

If you want my opinion, I believe that marriage shouldn't be based on something as trivial as sexuality, but on the one thing that really matters--love.

My general rule is I don't like laws that are restrictive of freedoms which don't harm anyone else.

I?m not trying to flame bate I honestly want to know what the principled difference between to homosexuals marrying because they love each other and:
A brother and sister marrying, because they love each other.
A group of 3 people marrying, because they love each other.

You can come up with social reasons why either of these is bad, but you?ve dismissed my arguments regarding the negative effects of homosexual sex by saying that the principles of love and freedom are more important? I realy would like to understand why the principles of live and freedom wouldn?t apply to what these consenting adults do behind closed doors?

Again, I?m not saying that these things will be legalized, just that the same principles applied to these situations as your applying to homosexual marriage would seem to have to lead you to the same conclusions you?ve come to in that regard in the aforementioned situations.

If you want to be fair, honest and objective about it, the government should STOP recognizing marriages, recognize ONLY individuals and allow marriage to be the PRIVATE matter that it always should have been (and historically was).

that?s fair enough Jason, but we?ve built society on the social and legal constraints of marriage and family, eliminating that seems like a dangerous proposal.

The big HOWEVER to that is I DO NOT BELIEVE it should be called marriage.

Thats your defintion of marriage.

Interestingly enough, that we?re in a democracy allows us to define such things by popular mandate. The idea of trying to give a social and spiritual equivalence to homosexual unions with those of heterosexual unions is something that you?ll get a strong out-pouring of emotional dislike for. All of us, on the base, can honestly see the difference between the two, and pretending that they are the same is both offensive to mainstream values and a little more than absurd.

But government shouldn't inextricably tie the secular definition of marriage and the religious one.

I don?t think any of us want that!

We just want the vast majority?s opinion on this to be properly expressed in the law. The church has not f*ing right to tell Americans what to do!
But the people of America do have a right to determine the laws under which we are governed. Not tyrannical judges.

How do you account for the fact that civil marriages occurred in Ancient Greece thousands of years prior to christianity?

how does Christianity bring about marriage? That?s a bit silly, I think your choosing intentionally not to give good faith and charity to those who agree with you.

That?s common tactic of a demagogue, an even more common tactic of someone who?s purchased the demagoguery of others.

The origins of marriage aren?t at question, the meaning of marriage to any church isn?t in question, the only question here is;
Do we allow the vast majority decide how they are governed, or do we submit to the tyrannical will of elitists judges?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

How do you account for the fact that civil marriages occurred in Ancient Greece thousands of years prior to christianity?

how does Christianity bring about marriage? That?s a bit silly, I think your choosing intentionally not to give good faith and charity to those who agree with you.

That?s common tactic of a demagogue, an even more common tactic of someone who?s purchased the demagoguery of others.

The origins of marriage aren?t at question, the meaning of marriage to any church isn?t in question, the only question here is;
[/quote]


Yes, the origins of marriage are at question. The poster (whose comments you have conveniently edited out) made the claim marriage was created by religion, i.e., it had a religious basis. I am asking what is the evidence for that? How does one account for the fact that marriage was a civil (i.e., not religious) arrangement in Ancient Greece? I am saying the historical origins of marriage are NOT religious, and that marriage served a social purpose long before the institution was "contaminated" by religion. Furthermore, I resent brain-dead morons attempting to redefine the institution of marriage as a religious institution.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Do we allow the vast majority decide how they are governed, or do we submit to the tyrannical will of elitists judges?

If the legislature passes laws which unreasonably violate individuals' constitutional rights, then those laws must be overturned. That is the role of the supreme courts - to act as a check on the power of the legislature and the will of the majority. The US is not a democracy, it is a constitutional democracy (or constitutional republic). I.e., the majority does not always get to impose its will on the majority.

As for submitting to the will of judges, are you worried you will be forced into a gay marriage at court mandate? Exacly what kinds of impacts do you think gay marriage will have on YOUR life?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

The big HOWEVER to that is I DO NOT BELIEVE it should be called marriage.

Thats your defintion of marriage.

Interestingly enough, that we?re in a democracy allows us to define such things by popular mandate.

Well, no, actually, you don't get to define marriage by popular mandate. If that was the case, black people wouldn't be able to marry each other, let alone black and white people marry each other.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
The idea of trying to give a social and spiritual equivalence to homosexual unions with those of heterosexual unions is something that you?ll get a strong out-pouring of emotional dislike for. All of us, on the base, can honestly see the difference between the two, and pretending that they are the same is both offensive to mainstream values and a little more than absurd.

Please explain why homosexual unions are socially and spiritually inferior to heterosexual unions.

I see no differences between the two that makes me suspect the one is superior (morally, socially) to the other.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

If you want my opinion, I believe that marriage shouldn't be based on something as trivial as sexuality, but on the one thing that really matters--love.

My general rule is I don't like laws that are restrictive of freedoms which don't harm anyone else.

I?m not trying to flame bate I honestly want to know what the principled difference between to homosexuals marrying because they love each other and:
A brother and sister marrying, because they love each other.
A group of 3 people marrying, because they love each other.

What is the principled difference is between a heterosexual couple marrying, and a brother and sister marrying because they love each other, or a group of 3 people marrying because they love each other?

I honestly want to know the answer to this, MagnusKain.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Having many gay friends, teachers, family members, I know that gay people, despite their sexual preferences and great fashion, are no different from you or I.

Of course, we?re all flawed people.

I?m fat and clearly I engage in gluttony. I?ve tried not to over eat, but I?ve still not found my way past it. You could easily say that the tendency to over-eat is part of how I was made, that fat people have been here sense the beginning of time, and that it?s human nature to over eat and not exorcize.

But that doesn?t make my choice not to eat less and exorcize enough the right one and it doesn?t mean that we should change society around me to accommodate my alternative lifestyle.

As far as I am aware, there are no laws preventing you from marrying, serving in the army, or forming private legal contracts with your partner simply because you are a disgusting fat pig with no self-control. I.e., altho you may face discrimination from people who are repulsed by your obsesity, the government/ state does not single you out for a particular type of treatment that could be reasonably regarded as unfair simply because you are a fat pig, or because you live a certain way of life.

Whether or not homosexuality is morally right or wrong is irrelevant and not at question here. It is legal, and it exists. The more relevant question is, does the government/ state have the legal right (i.e., is it constitutional) to continue to discriminate against gay people by denying them access to marriage? Is this form of discrimination reasonable, or is it unreasonable, as per the US constitution.

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
All he's done here is demonstrate that this was never a principled position for him and that he is willing to exploit base prejudice to drum up votes. I see him as even more despicable now, if that is even possible.
©365Gay.com 2005

this is what we've been telling everyone ALL along. it's just a red herring to drum up support for heil bush from those religious fundamentalist flocks out there.

this farce could be seen three thousand miles away.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So still having not read this thread, I would guess that this has been about 80% gay marriage arguments, 10 percent outright flames, and 10 percent discussing the fact that Bush rolled over on this even before the inauguration, which is the thing that annoys me.

I will bet that some responses will have been that giving up on it is what the other side wanted. I would respond that if he decided to give up so soon, why make it an issue to begin with? To fool voters into supporting him of course.

Further prognostication says that someone has or will remark that both sides do it. Lame.


So, how did I do?