Bush vs Gay Rights

Originally posted by J0HNSmith
I think this thread got hijacked by 14 yearolds who's parents refused to buy them GTO2 for their PS2 and their taking their anger out here. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the topic than go post somewhere else. And "god made aids to punish homos" is not constructive. Prove god exists before you use him as a premise in an argument.

I have to agree.

Although, I would edit the average age to about 12ish and the possibility of some emotional disorders.

I'm American and living/working for 6 months in Toronto Canada.

Last summer i happen to be traveling within the city one day when the yearly gay pride parade was taking place, ya no kidding, the gay people of Canada host a pride parade on the busiest street in Toronto. So anyways, at first being American and from a red state i grew a little concern about the atmosphere of this "pride parade", i figured my non-practicing christian born eyes wouldnt be able to handle the imagary of homosexual activity dancing on the streets, trying to entice me into sinner activities.

You know what though,

It was a lotta fun and had a great time trying to catch heart shaped lolly pops from some cross dressing drag queens dancing on street parade floats. No the clouds did not part from above with the fear of god shooting thunderbolts of lighting striking down from the heavens killing all the evil sinners.

No,

I actually enjoyed hearing the speeches on microphone of the recently happily married, and gay! people who were celebrating their freedom and love for another HUMAN BEING!.

Another parade later on in the summer was the carribean parade, which accepts ethnicitity and the celebration of carribean culture. Yet another thing most red states should accept and put their general stereotyping fears to rest.

The divorce rate these days is absolutly horrendous, but if we could get one divorce happening I would celebrate it! The divorce in question being between the goverment and the church. Religion has no place in politics, especially in a country boasting such a diverse society.

Originally posted by CazMedia
" argument...or the "marriage not a RIGHT for anyone"
but PLEASE dont use subjective, non evidenciary items, even tho your beliefs are important to you, and form some of your points....

I agree with you completey. People use religion too much when arguing against gay marriage. I am for civil unions because I believe everyone deserves the same rights. But marriages that is something between the church and the couple, not between the government and people.

Hi Everyone,
I am new here and just reading the responses to this question .....I find it amazing how so many people still show fear of gay marriage and how it is concidered only a heterosexual thing. What is marriage, the word itself means coming together, binding of two. What fascinates me is the need to label things out of discimination and not for recognition catagorically only.I like to think of myself as human ....in that comes many variables. I have human physical traits such as a body and two legs and head and arms and of course the usually features that go with it ....also i am human in heart and brain. I think and well I might add, I feel my heart is drawn to like minded and feeling people( the old addage water finds its own level), and of course many many other traits also. I hear, still, in our very well educated societies that we pass laws and prevent groups of people from becoming and being, and why .....out of fear or disgust or just plain out of difference, why do we legislate to keep others down ?
Why is it so important to claim ownership of marriage does one get a prize after death?
If I want to get married to another human being I should and be able to express love to that person just as any other human has the right to .
why do we have to put boundries on ourselves. It only limits our journey and exploration in life.
It baffles me how humans myself included like to build walls. People are not like water and needed to be walled out.

The Republican Party is just using anti-gay prejudice in order to deflect attention away from its many scandals (Enron, phantom WMDs, etc). It is the last organization on earth that should have anything to say about "moral values."



Read more at www.freedomtoons.org...

FreedomToons is just using anti-Bush propaganda in order to deflect attention away from the falicies of his argument.

Enron, oh you mean the scandal ridden private corporation that had to restate its books from the early 90's??? Exactly when did they start cooking the books? Long before Bush got to office would be the general answer.

Phantom WMD's....ohh you mean the WMD's mentioned in the final UN resolution which passed unanimously befor the war...the one that spelled out Iraqi non-compliance with the inspections...the WMD's that were generally believed by the worlds intelligence communities to exist in some fashon? Apparently we werent the only ones with faulty intelligence on this issue.

Also apparent is the majority support for a defense of marriage position that Bush supports....11 new states passed legislation which defines marriage as between a man/woman...

Bush was no fool to make this idea an issue as the silent majority in many places had done nothing but allow the pro gay agenda to be very vocal, with no counter....well, now we're seeing the counter sides of this debate.
11 more states have now said no to gay marriage.

Also note that some type of federal oversight of marriage needs to occur because soon we'll have a hodge pog of some states recognizing other states, but not some as the marriage laws will differ wildly...I doubt this will result in an amendment, but some type of federal regulations need to be enacted.

Hey everyone,

I’m new here and just wanted to throw in my two cents.

I guess I should start by saying that I’m entirely in favor of gay marriage as a principle (though I discourage it as a practice, but that’s mainly for reasons surrounding heteronormativity and good queer/bad queer images…I’ll save all of that for another thread). Back to the principle of gay marriage…

I’m tired of pro gay marriage proponents bringing up the biological argument. You can’t win that one, because there seems to be proofs going either way. And besides, it’s a moot point. A basic cornerstone of human rights (and all western liberal democracies) is that we don’t discriminate on account of…lets say…race or religion. Now, as far as I can tell, race is a genetically inherited condition, and religion is a choice. No one is born and inherently Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim…whatever, they make a choice to practice that religion and they can’t be discriminated on the grounds of their choices. Choices and biological characteristics are both protected. So it doesn’t really matter if someone is gay because they were born that way or because they chose it, they shouldn’t be discriminated against either way.

The nature thing is equally ridiculous. Who cares if there are gay penguins? Or lesbian seagulls? We’re not seagulls, we’re not penguins. Stop bringing it up. I think you guys have done a fine job already in showing that natural doesn’t always mean right, (both the proponents and the opponents) so I’ll leave that one.

As for the religion thing. If we are going to protect freedom of religion, then we are also protecting freedom from religion. The religious history of a nation doesn’t really mean anything to a person who doesn’t share that religion. What I’m trying to say is whether or not America was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs doesn’t mean that Judeo-Christian beliefs have precedent over other ones. Even in the broadest sense, whether or not god believes homosexuality is an abomination is also moot if we are working in the public sphere. If you think it’s an abomination then great, run with it, that’s your prerogative, who am I to tell you what to believe? But, if I have to accept your belief, then you can’t use that as an argument against my beliefs. We have to balance these things out.

Now, the secular arguments against gay marriage. What are they again? Ummm….We have the slippery slope one. That if gays get married then people will start marrying nineteen people, children and pigeons and socks. Well, Slippery slope arguments are always in a precarious position because they imply causality. That is, a slippery slope argument against gay marriage that says it will lead to polygamous marriages implies that the two are somehow causal. X causes Y. Let’s stop here. Most polygamous relationships are between a man and multiple woman (fact is, I’ve never heard of a gay polygamous union, I might be wrong…if so let me know), now, couldn’t we say that allowing heterosexual marriage was the precedent that set up polygamy? I can’t see how gay marriage would cause a man to marry a bunch of woman. Now. If we can recognize the absurdity of saying that heterosexual marriage leads to polygamy, we should be able to do the same for gay marriage. The thing is, heterosexists (not homophobes, there’s a difference) seem to lump polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality together simply because they think they are all abhorrent. That because they are all abnormal, (when compared to heterosexual relationships…) then one must clearly lead to the other. Well, I don’t know if I have to say this again, but the loving, committed relationship between two adults of the same gender (and maybe sex too) isn’t the same as a man having sex with his dog. It’s different. If you can’t see that, then I can’t change your mind.

Someone on here said that gays were pushing there agenda on the majority. That every culture has the right to self determination, and that if gay marriage was allowed, it would be an affront to this determination. Oh and something about ‘united we stand’…and how gays are being the fractious ones in this situation. To start then, I guess that I just have one question: if gays are trying to enter into the same institution as you, how are they being fractious? The only people pushing for difference isn’t the gays and lesbians, it’s the people who are keeping them separate. To be truly, ‘united’, wouldn’t that imply granting them access to the same institutions? Now, as for the majority being asked to change for the minority, I would again point out that it is the minority that is hoping to change. They want to change their relationships so they look more like yours, they want to integrate themselves into your society. You literally have nothing to lose in this equation. You keep your marriage, you keep your nuclear family, you keep your religion, you keep your straight sex…you get the whole thing. All they get is a chance to be like you. Isn’t imitation the highest form of flattery?

As for the disruptive effects that gay marriage will have on society in general, well, I guess I just don’t understand how promoting long term, stable relationships causes disarray. Again, these people want to join families, they want the rights, recognition and responsibilities that go along with a marriage…and you think this is disruptive? This is normalizing at best. It provides stable social structures for people, it encourages ‘family values’ (not traditional ones, but still family ones) and it nurtures these structures.

Finally then, if you supports civil unions, then what are you actually objecting? You already recognize the positive aspects of gay marriage, but you want it to somehow be separate but equal. I mean, I used to marry coffee and cream when I was younger, but now I drink it black. OK, that was a little facetious, but you get my point. Is it really the word that’s the problem? Granting gays and lesbians access to word ‘marriage’ really isn’t that big of a deal if you just step back and think about. The meanings of words shift constantly, and really, if you’ve gone far enough to acknowledge that civil unions are valid, then why not just share the word marriage too? I mean, at the least, this will encourage gays to actually participate in this institution, because it really does let them be equal to everyone else. I’m not familiar with the actual etymology of the word (maybe someone could fill me in?) but if that’s really what were fighting over, then I’d say why not just wipe that chip off your shoulder.

The fact is separate but equal is never equal. It makes second class citizens out of gays and lesbians, and it certainly does nothing to encourage them to enter into these long term stable relationships that (supposedly) encourage social cohesion and stability. If you want to maintain separate but equal, all you are doing is encouraging gays and lesbians to avoid these relationships that you purport to value, because why would anyone go through the hassle of becoming almost equal? Not worth it, not by a long shot. And if its really the word that you object to sharing, then I guess I’ll ask why you have no problem sharing it with chemists (who marry to substances all the time), sailors (who marry rope together) and pinochle players (who try to win tricks when they play a marriage between a king and queen)?

Ok, sorry about the incredible length of this thing. I hope you guys actually read it and tell me what you think (I’m always interested in hearing other points…My life is so surrounded by like minded people that sometimes I forget opposition ever exists). I should also point out that at least half the reasons why you should embrace same-sex marriage are reasons why I discourage it. The fact is, same-sex marriage is an incredibly conservative idea, and realistically, it’s surprising that conservatives haven’t embraced the cause because they’ve found a collection of people who agree with their family values.


[edit on 16-2-2005 by robotbot]

So Bush got his buddy out of trouble for a corporation corruption that cost people thier lively hood, so he lied to the people and to the UN about Iraq having nukes, so he lied about Saddam being part of 9/11, so he sent soilders over to get oil from those second class brown people, gays might get equal rights! How dare they want equal rights!

Man, been awhile since I posted here. I still like that you people have no problem with priests raping 8 year old boys, no problem with a war for oil when the people who attacked us on 9/11, Saudi Arabia, has dinner with Bush to discuss how to fleece the people some more, no problem that Bush says "hey, only gonna cost 1.8 to invade a rebuild Iraq." 200billion dollars later........................

Republicans, either got some good meth or some good blinders.

When did they say only cost 1.7billion dollars? I know they had a guy who said it on the news, but that wasn't Bush himself saying it, was it? Unless he was a paid journalist like the other guys. WHich I do admit is wrong, especially that James or Jeff or whatever he goes by now that was able to sit on press conferences with his history/credentials, or lack of. If it was so easy to see Bush I would have done it by now, maybe get an autograph.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Marriage is ours, not theirs.

By "ours," you mean anyone who is religious, or just those from the Abrahamic traditions? If so, do you support Buddhist weddings?

The problem with the US is, whether or not it was intended that way at the beginning, that it's now a secular pluralist nation.

That said, I do agree with you somewhat. Myself, I'd like to the the US .gov get out of the marriage business altogether and leave that solely in the hands of the various churches/temples/mosques/terreiros/etc around the country. Create a civil institution that confers the legal benefits of marriage (SS, inheritance, etc), but call it something completely different. "Civil Unions", while good, will probably raise too many hackles, but I can't come up with anything better.

So, if we're agreed, care to set up a bipartisan movement to push this forward?

Redundant title, I know, but there's a point to it. Really!

Anyway, why does the state even recognize "marriage?" Why does the term "marriage" even exist in the legal sense? The best way to solve this is to say that the state and the law don't recognize the term "marriage." They should only recognize "civil unions." Let individuals and churches recognize the term "marriage" as they see fit. Why the hell should I care if baptists don't want to recognize "gay unions" as marriage? For that matter, there are some heterosexual "marriages" that I wouldn't recognize as "marriages."

Marriage, as it is, has implications far beyond just religion. Gay and lesbian couples simply want the same legal rights that heterosexual couples want. If we decide to recognize civil unions, but continue to recognize marriage, we will always have a system that invites discrimination, and intolerance.

The problem is that both sides of the debate are so riled up over the issue that they can't see one inch in front of their face to come up with this simple solution.

PS Gay Christian marriages do exist, and these are not in just UU churches either. Oh, wait, I guess some people might not recognize them as Christians, just as some don't recognize the Catholic Church as Christian.

I hate semantics. It lets people play these games of pettiness. It causes a myopia worse than a gopher. It turns everyone into lawyers, and I hate lawyers, most of them anyway.

[edit on 3/1/2005 by supercheetah]

will set you free...

You people who are against gay marriage are hate-mongers. Do you know why? What would you call a rich white guy on a plantation who didn't want black people to vote? Or women to vote? Black people to be free? What about those folks who didn't want interracial marriage? Do not deny what you are. Just accept it. There is no reason why these two people should not be married.

What are you worried about, some sistahs showing you how a working marriage functions? Are you scared that they might actually bring some credibility to the farce we call marriage? Or is it that vengeful spirit who will cast you into eternal damnation for STAYING THE HELL OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES? (He loves you but, he wants you to burn and writhe for eternity... )

Honestly, can't you people be off blowing up some abortion clinics elsewhere? Cause you are going to lose on this issue in the end, anyhow...

[edit on 3/2/2005 by OXmanK]

Originally posted by OXmanK
will set you free...

You people who are against gay marriage are hate-mongers. Do you know why? What would you call a rich white guy on a plantation who didn't want black people to vote? Or women to vote? Black people to be free? What about those folks who didn't want interracial marriage? Do not deny what you are. Just accept it. There is no reason why these two people should not be married.

What are you worried about, some sistahs showing you how a working marriage functions? Are you scared that they might actually bring some credibility to the farce we call marriage? Or is it that vengeful spirit who will cast you into eternal damnation for STAYING THE HELL OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES? (He loves you but, he wants you to burn and writhe for eternity...

)

Honestly, can't you people be off blowing up some abortion clinics elsewhere? Cause you are going to lose on this issue in the end, anyhow...

[edit on 3/2/2005 by OXmanK]

Yeah, no kidding. I keep getting this idea that God will punish them for allowing others to "sin."

According to the Bible, they could go around killing gays with impunity, since, hey, the blood would be on the gay man's hands.

appropriate ending?-->

Man, that comment "blowing up abortion clinics elsewere" is uh, wrong. I know you are kidding, but sorry, that is kinda the stuff Jerry Falwell, Bush, other christians say.

Anyways, why do people think they have the right to enforce the "morals" of their book? WTF? "My morals are better then yours, don't believe me? Fine, I'll kill you." Yeah, great morals.............

The U.S. was born out of the separation of Church and State at the government level, but still wanted to carry the notion of the church by using "IN GOD WE TRUST" on coins. Homosexual marraiges will not be legal next to the name of GOD.


E Pluribus Unum

Originally posted by IBM
The U.S. was born out of the separation of Church and State at the government level, but still wanted to carry the notion of the church by using "IN GOD WE TRUST" on coins. Homosexual marraiges will not be legal next to the name of GOD.


E Pluribus Unum

It won't have to be. God is mentioned once in the Declaration of Independence, and it used the deist notion of God (specifically, it says "Nature's God" which is a deist view of God), not the normative Christian notion of God. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. Money do not have laws dictated on them. Homosexual marriage will only be in the law books, which don't need any deity in them, Christian or otherwise.

The only thing better is if we replace the term 'marriage' with 'union' in all the law books, and for every single instance. If the religious right want marriage to be a religious event, then let's let it be so, and not have government establish one religion's viewpoint on the matter by having government not recognize the term at all.

Until the day that happens, I'm going to continue to advocate for homosexual marriage, because my ideas on marriage are quite different from that of Christian marriage. No imaginary entity in the sky is going to dictate to me how I define marriage.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
As noted so many times, this nation was founded upon the Judeo-Christian belief, and in that belief God gave us marriage. In that same belief, homosexuality is an abomination, and it has been unacceptable behavior across the globe for how long?

Homosexuals do not have rights in the fact that they are homosexuals. They have rights IAW being humans. But they do not have a right to enter into a marriage, two people of the same sex.

The ancient Celts had the institution of marriage, as have pretty much every other culture that existed during the thousands of years before Christianity reared it's head, so Christianity basically just carried on a more ancient tradition.

It will simply make a same sex couple have the same legal rights (i.e. in the event of becoming a widow, pensions, etc) that all other married couples have. Frankly it's a right that I feel gay couples are entitled to.

Here is an extremely abbreviated list of the rights that are not necessarily granted in a domestic partnership / civil union.

The right to:

Visit a partner or a partner’s child in a hospital - my spouse had a problem with getting in to see me after surgery. My spouse was refused the right to see her son when he was in the emergency room crying for her.


Inherit from partner if she or he doesn’t leave a valid will - If my spouse outlives me, she will lose everything we have gained together, including our son. This can happen even with a vaild will in my state.


Obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies


Enter joint rental agreements - our landlord actually let us both sign the lease on our current home. He's a very open minded guy.


Make medical decisions on a partner’s behalf - even an advance directive left by me to my wife can be over-ridden by my parents if they chose to do so.


Take bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or a partner’s child


Choose a final resting place for a deceased partner - a good will and understanding family can help with this one.


Get an equitable division of property in a divorce.


Obtain wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and child


Have the right to determine child custody, visitation and child support issues in a divorce.


Have joint adoptive or foster care parenting rights.


Have a spouse covered under Medicare and Social Security - my retirement won't even go to my wife if I die before her.


File joint tax returns - this one actually costs the IRS. Both my spouse and I can file as Head of Household under current loopholes. I would gladly pay the extra tax and be married.


Obtain veterans’ discounts on medical care, education and home loans.


Sponsor spouse in applying for residency status for partners from foreign nations.

Now people can claim all day long that I am asking for special rights, or more than my fair share. Fact is that I am not. I want the same rights that a heterosexual couple enjoy. My spouse of 14 years would like to be able to register our son for school if I am at work on registration day. She can't, I have to be there. She can't get his passport either, I must do that. She has been there since the day he was born, and he knows no other parents but us, yet his other mom can't sign his progress report or take him to the doctor without a special note from me.
Maybe it's just me, but this doesn't sound equal. It seems very much like a straight couple has more rights than I and my spouse have.
Please, someone, tell me one example of how I want more than my fair share.
I am not asking any church to condone my life. I am simply asking for a true separation of church and state - and for the state to give us the same rights as it gives other couples.

My spouse of 14 years would like to be able to register our son for school if I am at work on registration day. She can't, I have to be there. She can't get his passport either, I must do that. She has been there since the day he was born, and he knows no other parents but us, yet his other mom can't sign his progress report or take him to the doctor without a special note from me.

This happens with hetero couples as well. My wife who is not my eldest sons mother cannot do those things either.