1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Dad, 24 Feb 2004.

  1. Loz

    Loz Blah Blah

    Joined:
    16 Apr 2002
    Posts:
    998
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think the idea is you back your ideas and opinions up with reasons. It's hard to accept that "Gay marriage is world wide a NO" because it simply isn't, as can be seen by a lot of the responses here.

    People dying of disease and hunger in poorer countries doesn't have a direct impact on my day to day life. Should we all ignore it?
     
  2. diehrd

    diehrd What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    25 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    No is No and again it is the current standard and better issues deserve debate and would help society as a whole in a much broder way then Gay marriage and governments infringmants into there lives.
     
  3. Krazeh

    Krazeh Minimodder

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    56
    Just saying no is never a reason, acceptable or otherwise. And last I checked gay people were still people and voted for governments same as everyone else, why don't they deserve to have what they want represented?

    What else would you call it other than an infringement of rights? It's saying that because of your sexuality it's not allowed for you to do something that everyone else is allowed to. Would it be acceptable for them to ban black people from getting married? Or to have schools where only children of one ethnic background are allowed to attend?

    Noone's disputed it being perfectly legal for governments to limit the actions of people, of course there has to be boundaries but taking your example of the corvette there's not groups of people who are allowed to drive as fast as they like while a minority gets limited to 60mph, it's the same for everyone and that's the way it should be.

    Finally will some of you learn to separate religion from the state, religion shouldn't have any say in laws passed by government. There's absolutely no reason to ban homosexuals from partaking in civil marriages.

    The current standard not so long ago was black people were a lower class and only meritted life as a slave, and that women were unable to work or vote, should we have stuck with them cos they were the standard?
    Where does it become unacceptable for you for governments to infringe on peoples rights? If it's alright to do it to gays then what next, can they do it on another minority? Once you open that door you've started down a slippery path and sooner or later it'll be you who's having your rights removed and they'll be noone left to stand up for you.
     
  4. Da_BaCoN

    Da_BaCoN Minimodder

    Joined:
    25 Aug 2002
    Posts:
    1,200
    Likes Received:
    2
    i've kept my eye on this thread for a while and just thought i'd thrown in my two cents...

    i'm not gay and never plan to be. in fact, i find it somewhat gross and disgusting. but just because i feel that way about doesn't give me the right to force my viewpoint onto others. if two men or women want to get married, then that's all perfectly fine by me. if some relationship that i'm in is someone ruined by the fact that gay's are getting married, then that relationship was screwed looooong before. quite frankly, i think some people on here are quite hypocritical: you say we should be free, blah blah blah, but then you turn around and say that gays can't get married :confused:
    i can understand the whole religious argument - some religions DO prohibit gay marriage/relationships, but that doesn't give the governement the right to also do so...

    and diehrd, sorry, but your "arguments" don't even have a point to them, and the fact your also so sure in yourself makes it even worse.

    that was said right about some long rant about nothing
    because you give no reasoning as to WHY it's a no - you simply say that YOU think it's a no, so therefore it is...
     
  5. Astrum

    Astrum Dare to dream.

    Joined:
    8 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    2,632
    Likes Received:
    4
    Homosexuality, 100% effective birth control for the 22nd century.

    Hehe, don't take any offense to that, just trying to lighten the conversation a bit ;) .
     
  6. apoogod

    apoogod trix arent just for kids

    Joined:
    19 Jun 2002
    Posts:
    1,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    The same-sex marriage-ban amendment will never happen......50 years ago there was an atempt to ban blacks and whites from marrying each other and 50years before that another atempt was made to keep jews and christians from marrying....neither of those amendments worked out.
     
  7. Dad

    Dad You talkin to me?

    Joined:
    15 Apr 2003
    Posts:
    5,375
    Likes Received:
    8
    It's already pretty much there. Many states (NY & Cali to name 2) have told their counties and local magistrates that it is illegal. In fact, NY has gone so far as to press charges against 2 ministers for performing same-sex marriages. I think I heard that the Gouvenator of Cali is pressing to make it a crime to marry homosexual couples. Sad.
     
  8. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,937
    Likes Received:
    536

    But clearly... not everyone is gay... not even a mojority... not even a large minority.

    As for the argument that it's not natural, explain why homosexuality occurs in other mammals.. dogs, cats, bovine species, you name it... there's same sex coupling.

    So if homosexuality occurs in nature, why is it not natural? WE are the only species that have a problem with it it seems, probably because we're the only species that dreamt up this utter nonsense called "God" and then twisted everything to fit into a moral code.
     
  9. apoogod

    apoogod trix arent just for kids

    Joined:
    19 Jun 2002
    Posts:
    1,031
    Likes Received:
    0

    funny, sad and true all in one lump sum
     
  10. acrimonious

    acrimonious Custom User Title:

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2002
    Posts:
    4,060
    Likes Received:
    3
    Because i used the word "but"


    I don't 'buy' the whole god intended it thing either, because i am not a religious man at all, so your distortion about Hitler does not apply, since it is nature (be it evolution, natural selection, sociological order, etc) to which i am refering, I don't see how you could use this argument to justify or play-down the holocaust as a natural or balancing event.
     
  11. I'm_Not_A_Monster

    I'm_Not_A_Monster Hey, eat this...

    Joined:
    22 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    2
    to all you bigots out there, how will homosexual marriage affect you?

    will your hair fall out? your dog die? will it make your VCR blink "12:00 AM" forever?

    honestly, how will it change your way of life?

    .:EDIT:. and to everybody that spends all day thinking about gay sex, maybe you need to do a little soul-searching... I'm just sayin :worried: ...
     
  12. I'm_Not_A_Monster

    I'm_Not_A_Monster Hey, eat this...

    Joined:
    22 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    2
    "it's not found in nature, so it must be wrong" he types on his computer and posts on the internet... :D
     
  13. Pookeyhead

    Pookeyhead It's big, and it's clever.

    Joined:
    30 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    10,937
    Likes Received:
    536

    Good point... LOL
     
  14. daniel_owen_uk

    daniel_owen_uk What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    1 Sep 2003
    Posts:
    551
    Likes Received:
    1
    My point was you simply repeated what someone else had said then went off the subject (so clearly it wasn't in the context of procreation), most people would say "in the context of", then present an arguement.

    My apologies about the god thing, I though you were a religious man and thus used that to get my point across, I could have used a number of things to get my point across and clearly I choose the wrong thing :D, if I was to say that homosexuals can actually reproduce and yet CHOOSE not to, maybe that gets my point across better. You have to remember that there are people on this planet that cannot reproduce, why wouldn't nature/god just produce more of those people?
     
  15. diehrd

    diehrd What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    25 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  16. Dad

    Dad You talkin to me?

    Joined:
    15 Apr 2003
    Posts:
    5,375
    Likes Received:
    8
    Other than the "persuit of happiness" part of the saying.

    Once again, civial marrage is completely different from religious marriage. Civil marriage is the legal union between 2 people and a religious marriage is the "holy" union between them. Completely seperate. I can get married in a civil ceremony and not have it religious, I can be married in a religious ceremony without it being recognized by the state or I can do both. All the governmnet needs to do is to stay completely out of the argument and ALLOW same-sex marriage - it doesn't have to make the legality of it law. By doing this, religions can choose to allow or dis-allow same-sex marriage.

    Whose religion? Many mainstream Christian denominations, to be sure, and definitely most branches of Islam and Orthodox Judaism, but outside those, most religions are unopposed to gay marriage, and many actually favor it. When the Mormon church arrogantly claimed to represent all religions in the Baehr vs. Lewin trial in Hawaii, the principal Buddhist sect in that state made it very clear that the Mormon church didn't represent them, and made it very clear that they support the right of gay couples to marry. That particular Buddhist sect claims many more members in Hawaii than does the Mormon church. In a society that claims to offer religious freedom, the use of the power of the state to enforce private religious sensibilities is an affront to all who would claim the right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience.
     
  17. acrimonious

    acrimonious Custom User Title:

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2002
    Posts:
    4,060
    Likes Received:
    3
    It's not about reproducing that implicit DNA, but rather simply the natural occurrence of it once in a while, as with any feature of any living thing.

    Although that does raise an interesting point, the fact that the "purpose" or "sense of" homosexuality is questioned, when the same rationale is not applied to say, someone who is infertile (be it thorough age, on purpose, or by unfortunate circumstances).

    However, i digress. :blush:
     
  18. acrimonious

    acrimonious Custom User Title:

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2002
    Posts:
    4,060
    Likes Received:
    3
    You can't try and particpate in a debate by going... "well its not, so NERRRR!!!" - why not? - "BECUZ!...". Why is it "a big fat NO", why is it you think people don't accept "NO" on this issue?

    If people always accepted no as an answer, do you think you'd have the freedom to express your opinions now?
     
  19. Krazeh

    Krazeh Minimodder

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    56
    Yes they do, because of their sexuality they are not permitted the right to obtain a marriage license, it's exactly the same as women not being allowed to vote or black people being unable to do pretty much anything white people could.

    Churches can refuse to marry people, they are under no legal obligation to allow two people to get married within the church especially as a church wedding actually has no legal basis, it's not until you sign the marriage certificate (the exact same one they use in civil marriages btw) that the marriage is legally binding so a law allowing gay people to marry would not force churches to do anything.
    I don't see what's so difficult to grasp about separating the church and the state, i'm not religious, i'm not gonna get married in a church and no church is forced to perform a marriage ceremony for me, however i'm still given the right to marry as should every other person on the planet.

    Religion and the state should not interfere, religion should have no place in deciding laws for a country and in the US isn't supposed to afaik so to be honest your argument is a little flawed there
     
  20. Astrum

    Astrum Dare to dream.

    Joined:
    8 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    2,632
    Likes Received:
    4
    I had this discussion with my mom the other day. I told her that even though I don't like the idea of homosexuality, I would rather not have the government restrict that right for some people. It ended like this:
    Mom, "Marriage is okay only if you're straight".
    Me, "Voting is okay only if you're male".

    Everyone wants equal rights, but when that right allows someone of some ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference to do something we think is wrong people think it's okay to diminish their rights and still say "equal rights". After all, "equal rights" only pertain to the people in power right? The fact that we even call this a "free" country is so inane that I chuckle when I hear it. We take away rights from people left and right, we take away rights from ourselves for "security" (and I'm sure you all know the quote pertaining to that). We would rather take away rights of others who we dissaprove of just for the peace of mind; it doesn't even matter if we end up losing that right ourselves (incrementalism), just as long as they don't have it.

    Never claim equal rights when in fact you are talking about selective rights.
     
    Last edited: 23 Mar 2004

Share This Page