Bush: Marriage for heterosexuals only

[Corn]

There's no valid reason for the gov't to be determining what is or isn't marriage anyway.... It all breaks down to a religious argument.

I disagree. The institution of state recognized marriage is meant to protect wives/children from dishonerable men who may choose to abandon them. The reality for this treatment had less to do with religion and more to do with simple biology--married people tended to have children "back in the day". Ensuring the welfare of those without the means to care for themselves is a state held interest.

No doubt times have changed, no longer are women relegated to living off the generosity of their husbands while raising their children, much as gay couples can, with the aid of others, raise children together.

My personal belief is that "marriage" is between a man and a woman. That doesn't mean that I'm against homosexual couples sharing the same legal benefits of marriage, I would just prefer that it not be called something, that by definition, it cannot be.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: flashbacck

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
This is one of the rare times I have ever agreed with Bush. Homosexualites are basing their relationship solely on misguided sexual desire. If a person doesn't have normal instincts when it comes to mating, they could be a very dangerous individual. If they think a Penis has to go in a Butthole, they might just as easily think a bullet needs to go into someones head.
The argument I just made may not be valid, but thats my opinion.

Okay then, go dig up stats on the % of men convicted of murder that are gay vs. the % of our overall populace who are gay. I'm guessing these will make your "argument" look completely moronic. Just say "I hate fags." and quit beating around the bush with your made-up reasons that they are bad people and a danger to us all.

So we should all smoke pot, pack fudge and live happily ever after?

I disagree with Bush on this, but still disaprove of the gay men standing on a podium screaming look at me, I'm gay. I stick my penis in men's bums. Who gives a sh!t what you do with it as long as you do it behind closed doors. I don't organize parades in which I boast about banging my wife. Keep your own sex life to yourself, because I don't want to hear about it nor have to explain to my children what being a queer or drag queen is.

I don't see anywhere in his post any mention of smoking pot or packing fudge.

What's the definition of being a homosexual man? Last time I checked it was one who engaged in homosexual acts with another man. Is there another definition that does not mean engaging in sex with men?

 

[konichiwa]

No my 8 year old child does not need to know that the man is different because he put's his dick in other men's butts. Imho they do not need to know that at this age....Tell it to the gathering at the homosexual meet at Disneyland a month or so ago.

Nor should he know that you stick your dick in his mother's muff (to match your crassitude). An 8 year old shouldn't be concerned with matters of sexuality, whether they be hetero- or homo-sexual.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

No my 8 year old child does not need to know that the man is different because he put's his dick in other men's butts. Imho they do not need to know that at this age....Tell it to the gathering at the homosexual meet at Disneyland a month or so ago.

Nor should he know that you stick your dick in his mother's muff (to match your crassitude). An 8 year old shouldn't be concerned with matters of sexuality, whether they be hetero- or homo-sexual.

Additionally (if I may) this isn't about the legality of the sex itself. We already covered that (do a quick search for "sodomy laws"). This is about the legality and legal benefits of two people in a committed relationship. I fail to see how that flaunts anal sex in the faces of young children as you seem to think.

 

[YellowRose]

when we boil all of the arguments down to the basics we have this.

On what grounds can you deprive an American citizen of a basic civil right to be married by a civil authority.

 

[Michael]

YellowRose - I'm not sure there is such a right.

I'm pro-same sex "marriages" (probably a huge surprise for a monkey or two that like to bash me for being "right wing").

However, this is an issue that has profound implications and, as far as any opinion poll has shown, the vast majority of Americans disagree with me.

As such, it is a national issue and should be settled for the country as a whole. Americans opinions have to be listened to. It doesn't matter if some reasoning is based on Religion, that does not invalidate the opinion.

For the most part, it comes down to an inequity in taxation, child care, and certain benetfits that only "married" people can get. If these could be granted without the line of "marriage" being crossed, we may have a workable solution.

Michael

 

[LeadMagnet]

Originally posted by: jjones
The federal government should stay out of the marriage issue altogether.

I would take that even one step further and say that goverment has no business defining what a marriage is at all. We should be treated like 200 million adult individuals, and no tax breaks or incentives to anyone based on who they are/aren't married to or how many children they have.

Marriage is a religious thing and should have no bearing in/on government. If 2+ adults want to enter into a legal binding contract that is their business not mine and they should not be rewarded or penalized for doing so.

 

[rbV5]

IMHO, the folks most vocal against seemingly private issues such as same sex marriage, ect, use their opposition as some sort of suppression or release of their own hidden desires or shame. Sad really.

 

[Insane3D]

I ask this in every gay related thread. Why does everyone always refer to men only when referring to gay issues like marriage and such. You never hear anyone complain about two women....in fact that sort of thing is quite popular with a good deal of heterosexual men. I mean the term "fudge packer" has already been used a few times in this thread....no equal time for "carpet munchers"?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
I ask this in every gay related thread. Why does everyone always refer to men only when referring to gay issues like marriage and such. You never hear anyone complain about two women....in fact that sort of thing is quite popular with a good deal of heterosexual men. I mean the term "fudge packer" has already been used a few times in this thread....no equal time for "carpet munchers"?

kobe is a fudge packer, apparently

theres a double standard because heterosexual men like the idea of crack snackers!

(plus, for some reason unbeknownst to me, gay refers only to homosexual males and not females)

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Insane3D
I ask this in every gay related thread. Why does everyone always refer to men only when referring to gay issues like marriage and such. You never hear anyone complain about two women....in fact that sort of thing is quite popular with a good deal of heterosexual men. I mean the term "fudge packer" has already been used a few times in this thread....no equal time for "carpet munchers"?

kobe is a fudge packer, apparently

theres a double standard because heterosexual men like the idea of crack snackers!

(plus, for some reason unbeknownst to me, gay refers only to homosexual males and not females)

That's ecause the Men are happy and the women are bitter!

 

[Michael]

Insane3D - Not me. I went to my sister-in-law's "wedding" where she married another woman. I'm fine with gay or lesbian marriage, that's why I used "same sex" in my post.

Michael

ps - what about poly relationships, shouldn't they be accepted? What about marriages between men and dogs? This is where things start to breakdown, in my opinion. Where does the line get drawn?

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Michael
Insane3D - Not me. I went to my sister-in-law's "wedding" where she married another woman. I'm fine with gay or lesbian marriage, that's why I used "same sex" in my post.

Michael

ps - what about poly relationships, shouldn't they be accepted? What about marriages between men and dogs? This is where things start to breakdown, in my opinion. Where does the line get drawn?

That was my point about the Federal Government staying out of marriage altogether. There shouldn't be the need to draw any lines. If somebody wants to marry their dog, who cares? Let the retard do it. It's no more stupid than some Grandma leaving her estate to a cat in her will. Marriage is just a contract. Remove all Federal legislation surrounding marriage and let the states decide what to do about it.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
This is one of the rare times I have ever agreed with Bush. Homosexualites are basing their relationship solely on misguided sexual desire. If a person doesn't have normal instincts when it comes to mating, they could be a very dangerous individual. If they think a Penis has to go in a Butthole, they might just as easily think a bullet needs to go into someones head.
The argument I just made may not be valid, but thats my opinion.

Okay then, go dig up stats on the % of men convicted of murder that are gay vs. the % of our overall populace who are gay. I'm guessing these will make your "argument" look completely moronic. Just say "I hate fags." and quit beating around the bush with your made-up reasons that they are bad people and a danger to us all.

Or how about the approx. 30% of heterosexual males who have tried anal sex (with a female)? Since they stick "a penis in a butthole" will they become serial killers as well?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Looking at the polls it appears to be the mainstream view period. Or at least the majority view.

Looks like you should have waited for a good sample before jumping the gun UQ

CNN.com poll results

Should marriage be legally defined as only a union between a man and a woman?

Yes 41% 185723 votes
No 59% 269921 votes
Total: 455644 votes

I think by privatizing marriage, you effectively remove the entire problem - that there are those who oppose the government recognizing and giving credence to gay marriage. If you remove the government from the picture, you're basically saying the government is no longer the authority of what type of marriage is acceptable or not. So if someone wants to marry themselves, or marry their cat, so be it. Those opposed to gay marriage can rest easy knowing that their government, at least, isn't condoning it.

 

[KEV1N]

Honest question: does anybody besides gays really care that much about gay marriage? I would suggest the answer is either no or the straight community would rather not hear about it before they had strong feelings of moral opposition. Therefore I don't really think gays will ever get their gay marriage because the mainstream is indifferent to it or doesn't want to see homosexuality.

 

[LunarRay]

Marriage ought to be the legal union between two adults so committed... the religious union ought to be up to the various religious organizations.. or atheist or agnostic unchurch... whatever.. I fail to see the need for the two people to be of the opposite sex.. legal speak... and it ought to be the state that determines this... I fail to see a federal issue.. here.. It would need an amendment..

 

[Piano Man]

Well, he does have a direct line to God, so I'm not gonna question his authority.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Where are all the gay-bashers from this forum? You'd think they'd be all over this crap?

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another," Bush told reporters at a White House news conference. "And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that."

Translation: We're clearly taking the mainstream Christian viewpoint on gay marriage. It's bad. It's a sin. Gays are going to hell. Blah diddy blah, da blah blah. Our crack-team of lawyers will ensure that we get our way, just like in that Affirmitive Action case before the Supreme Court. Oh wait... D'oh!

Thats funny..God warned me about judging others...But I'm by no means mainstream

I liek this one.

Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned. Luke 6:37

CCC, 1994
(Homosexual persons) must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
This is one of the rare times I have ever agreed with Bush. Homosexualites are basing their relationship solely on misguided sexual desire. If a person doesn't have normal instincts when it comes to mating, they could be a very dangerous individual. If they think a Penis has to go in a Butthole, they might just as easily think a bullet needs to go into someones head.
The argument I just made may not be valid, but thats my opinion.

Okay then, go dig up stats on the % of men convicted of murder that are gay vs. the % of our overall populace who are gay. I'm guessing these will make your "argument" look completely moronic. Just say "I hate fags." and quit beating around the bush with your made-up reasons that they are bad people and a danger to us all.

So we should all smoke pot, pack fudge and live happily ever after?

I disagree with Bush on this, but still disaprove of the gay men standing on a podium screaming look at me, I'm gay. I stick my penis in men's bums. Who gives a sh!t what you do with it as long as you do it behind closed doors. I don't organize parades in which I boast about banging my wife. Keep your own sex life to yourself, because I don't want to hear about it nor have to explain to my children what being a queer or drag queen is.

I agree with you and, as someone suggested, I have no problem with gays having a legal union of some kind. Howerver, if you beleive in religion, you have to admit that no mainstream religion sanctions gay marriages. Its not up to us to change that. I have a few gay friends and they are also quite against flambouyant displays of homosexuality like parades et al, and beleive that it does nothing to further their cause.

 

[Michael]

DealMonkey - Instant web polls are not scientifically valid.

Quoting the poll itself:

"This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein."

Michael

 

[VikingBerserker]

I say good job Mr. President.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: VikingBerserker
I say good job Mr. President.

You want more intrusive government and Religious Wankers pushing their Morality down everyones throat? (Pun intended)

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Amirtallica
This is one of the rare times I have ever agreed with Bush. Homosexualites are basing their relationship solely on misguided sexual desire. If a person doesn't have normal instincts when it comes to mating, they could be a very dangerous individual. If they think a Penis has to go in a Butthole, they might just as easily think a bullet needs to go into someones head.
The argument I just made may not be valid, but thats my opinion.

Okay then, go dig up stats on the % of men convicted of murder that are gay vs. the % of our overall populace who are gay. I'm guessing these will make your "argument" look completely moronic. Just say "I hate fags." and quit beating around the bush with your made-up reasons that they are bad people and a danger to us all.

So we should all smoke pot, pack fudge and live happily ever after?

I disagree with Bush on this, but still disaprove of the gay men standing on a podium screaming look at me, I'm gay. I stick my penis in men's bums. Who gives a sh!t what you do with it as long as you do it behind closed doors. I don't organize parades in which I boast about banging my wife. Keep your own sex life to yourself, because I don't want to hear about it nor have to explain to my children what being a queer or drag queen is.

I agree with you and, as someone suggested, I have no problem with gays having a legal union of some kind. Howerver, if you beleive in religion, you have to admit that no mainstream religion sanctions gay marriages. Its not up to us to change that. I have a few gay friends and they are also quite against flambouyant displays of homosexuality like parades et al, and beleive that it does nothing to further their cause.

<---calling Ripley's Believe it or not
I'm agnostic and I believe that religion should be kept out of government. Marriage should be considered a lifelong partnership between 2 people not one sanctioned from a religious entity. The Vatican is opposing it as well....big surprise

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
CNN is reporting that Bush is speaking out on the gay marriage issue, and seems to be adamantly opposed to it.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another," Bush told reporters at a White House news conference. "And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that."

Bush is a conservative of course, but I didn't expect him to be so gung-ho against it. Is this the start of YALB(Yet Another Legal Battle)?

Funny how the Bush complains about the USA being over litigous and is all for tort reform to keep us from protecting our rights but he runs to his lawyers every time he doesn't agree with anything, whether it be an election result or the rights of people to marry and live with any person they choose.

I love having Bush and Ashcroft and their likes creeping around under my bed. Seems we should have seen this coming with the Republican's affinity for crawling around under Clinton's bed. Just more pandering to Bush's true base of support, right wing radical so called Christians.