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

Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals

Discussion in 'Serious' started by stewe151, 31 Jul 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. stewe151

    stewe151 Stress Personified

    Joined:
    9 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    0
    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush indicated Wednesday he opposes extending marriage rights to homosexuals, saying he believes marriage "is between a man and a woman."

    Bush said it is "important for society to welcome each individual," but administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.

    "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."



    Full article here.

    I think it was put best when Winnie Stachelberg said:
    This upsets me very much. We, as a nation, are striving to erase discrimination, but our president is hell bent on enforcing it.
     
  2. :: kna ::

    :: kna :: POCOYO! Moderator

    Joined:
    15 Mar 2001
    Posts:
    4,207
    Likes Received:
    7
    (Bear in mind here I'm an athiest and also believe if gay people want to marry then that's perfectly fine by me).

    The way I see it, how can any religious person in power go against their beliefs? (And believe me, this is about the fact homosexuality is a sin, nothing to do with it just being 'what he thinks')

    This is why I don't think that people in power (at least, in multi-cultural nations not driven primarily by religion) should be religious. They should be agnostic at best.

    They're biased, not only against other religions but against morals and actions which are classed as sins in their eyes. Sure, (like bush says) they may appreciate or accept other ways of life, but given the choice, why should they change their country from what they believe is right? He believes marriage is between man and a woman, millions of people don't. Yet, what gives him the right to morally judge those people.. unfortunately, the fact that he is the president.
     
  3. ChillingSP

    ChillingSP What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    11 Jun 2003
    Posts:
    863
    Likes Received:
    0
    This also can be seen as discriminating......
     
  4. Guest-16

    Guest-16 Guest

    You cant win whatever you are. To be totally politically correct youd need a black, homosexual president who wasnt married and had a child.

    But he represents the country. Over the last centuary there have been MASSIVE strives for equality and he should respect and support that reguardless of his beliefs. He's not muslem, does that mean he should knock down all the islamic religious places (appoligies i cant spell "mosk")?? He;s not a women, or a single parent, or out of work, or disabled - does this mean he should not respect and move to understand these people too for their benefit considering his position?
     
  5. :: kna ::

    :: kna :: POCOYO! Moderator

    Joined:
    15 Mar 2001
    Posts:
    4,207
    Likes Received:
    7
    I guess yes, it can be seen as discrimationary.. and there's obvious double standards in any argument. At least having a non-religious head of state though would ensure that religion would not play a part in their decision making. (Then at least if he discriminated, it could be based on his true opinions rather than those which have been fed to him as a child).

    The problem is that any good work he has done can be undone with a single, pointless religious opinion. If he turned round and said 'Black people can't get married' there would be uproar, but if he says 'Gay people can't get married', everyone kind of shrugs and gets on with their life (except gays of course).

    By attempting to stop this, he's basically saying "Sure, I will work hard to stamp down on inequality with the ethnic, homeless, one-parent, disabled people.. but not the gays, because that's a sin."
     
  6. heelan

    heelan bow tie enthusiast

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2002
    Posts:
    398
    Likes Received:
    2
    To be honest I think this is the most worrying bit of the report. Bush's religious beliefs mean he thinks something is wrong, so let's make it the law. Hypocritical for a man so keen to denounce countries run by undemocratic religious fundamentalists.

    There will never be equality without separation of church and state. But perhaps in some countries, upholding a particular religious and moral order is more important. Maybe that's up to them.
     
  7. Guest-16

    Guest-16 Guest

    I get you, but does that mean (to not the same degree obviously, but in principle) he is no better than the taliban or saddam or anyone else that enforces their religious beliefs on the public? Just cause there are millions of black people in america compared with a much more minority of homosexuals that shouldnt be the issue, but ur right about peoples attitudes cause its less aparent. You cant tell if someones gay by looking at them, but u can tell a black person from a white person etc (shallow society?).

    I lost the point a bit there, im tired :( I was gonna say about the many years of opression black people had etc but i cant remember my point :rolleyes:
     
  8. linear

    linear Minimodder

    Joined:
    5 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    4,393
    Likes Received:
    1
    For openers, I'm not a Bush fan.

    But I need to ask everyone who's responded so far, "what do you think exactly is being denied to homosexuals here?"

    Marriage is a narrowly defined legal arrangement. Just about 100% of the actual human behavior is dealt with separately in law, the exception being certain aspects of property ownership. I'm not seeing what a "married" gay couple would have access to that a non-married one would not, possibly save a couple tweaks in the tax tables.

    I would just like to know what vistas of new opportunity are being closed off to homosexuals by the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. The bulk of the financial advantages of marriage are withing their grasp already. My workplace is typical in extending equivalent benefits to a partner (read: non-spouse of the same or different sex) who files an affidavit of domestic partnership. But that's neither required nor frorbidden by law--employers make the decision that they feel best allows them to attract a quality workforce (you can't force an employer to give benefits above a certain minimum, but almost all will offer benefits to the immediate family as a means to attract quality employees).

    Can someone explain what the inequality is here?
     
  9. -Rx-

    -Rx- What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    18 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm, think iam agreed with Linear here....

    Surely the best way to make things equal would be to give gay & heterosexual couple equal benifits to married couples.

    Why the big deal about "marige" i dont know, shared ownership of a property means more to me than a bit of paper i could get from the registry office, and its not surprissing that bush would say about the santity of marrige is between a man & a woman..... its been like that for 1000's of years. When the equality can be made using alternative methods, why change such a tradition??


    Of course thats IMO.

    However, iam mostly agsinst gay adoption, but thats a differnt story.....
     
  10. Guest-16

    Guest-16 Guest

    Yea, i have to say im totally undecided on the gay adoption thing too :blah: again though - another thread.

    I know its a legal agreement at the end of the day, but to many it's more than that. The whole principle of marriage is a big event to some. I think its about the right to be allowed to if they want to, reguardless of legal "gains or losses".

    TBh if i was to ever get married (to a women mind) i wouldnt want a wedding, id rather just sign a form saying we're married then spend the cash on a 2 month honeymoon :naughty:
     
  11. Sid

    Sid Banned

    Joined:
    13 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    1,413
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally I don't think they should be allowed to marry. I mean, marriage is between a man and a woman, it always has been, that's the way it is. It wouldn't be right for same sex couples to marry.

    I also don't think it's acceptable to act as if homosexuality is normal. It's clearly abnormal. Gay people don't bother me, I mean they don't do me any harm, but I just think it's wrong and they shouldn't expect to be treated as a normal couple.

    As for gay adoption, I think that's wrong too. If they want a child, find a relationship where a child can naturally be produced. It's not fair on children to be brought up by a couple of the same sex. Children need both a mother and a father I think in order to develop properly.
     
  12. Hwulex

    Hwulex Minimodder

    Joined:
    1 Feb 2002
    Posts:
    4,007
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thing is, with the war still going on in Iraq, and countless other major problems, you'd think something like this would be bottom of the 'to do' list. What on earth has posessed him to suddenly feel the need to bring this up? :blah:

    Surely all money, time, effort, would be spent more effectively dealing with real issues in the states, and around the world, than about something so, relatively, insignificant as this.
     
  13. Ubermich

    Ubermich He did it!

    Joined:
    21 Jun 2002
    Posts:
    4,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    First of all, my opinion: I believe that to limit gay marriages on a federal level is a violation of seperation of church and state... because there is no reasoning for such a law beyond his personal religious beliefs. Thus, I don't think it will get anywhere, and if it does it will be swiftly done away with.

    Now, what I wonder is... what's he gonna do about commonlaw marriages? Texas is one of the few states that still allows these. So if a gay couple prances around like they're married, say they're married, and maybe have a phone bill that says Mr and Mr Thorton Rudy, they can be found to be married in a court of law. But as I said, I don't think the law is gonna hit the books. It's too connected with the church. One could almost say the pope told him to do it... :eyebrow:

    If he does ban gay marriage...
    Who's gonna know any different whether you're married or not if you tell them you're married? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

    As for forcing a president be non-religious. That's wrong, IMO. But a president should have the ability to follow the guidelines prepared by his predecessors, which include the seperation of church and state. This means he should realize that he's only wanting this law because of his personal religious beliefs and that is wrong...
     
  14. linear

    linear Minimodder

    Joined:
    5 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    4,393
    Likes Received:
    1
    A recent supreme court decision overturning state laws against sodomy for one, and Canada's recent legalisation of gay marriage for another.

    This isn't occurring in some vacuum, he's trying to defend an institution, and what he's doing seems to have popular support fromthe majority of US citizens. Not an overwhelming majority, mind.
     
  15. Guest-16

    Guest-16 Guest

    it could be a GM chicken
     
  16. linear

    linear Minimodder

    Joined:
    5 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    4,393
    Likes Received:
    1
    No, you are missing it. It's the beliefs of the people who are his support base. If you think a politician is capable of actually holding a belief, you need an immediate cynicism transfusion.
     
  17. ZapWizard

    ZapWizard Enter the Mod Matrix

    Joined:
    19 Sep 2002
    Posts:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    5
    But remember that marriage is a religous idea.
    Personaly, and religiously, I am against same sex marriage, but not against their right to have a legal partnership, and have the same legal rights as a couple.

    But as far as marriage is concerned, it is a religous act, and should be kept between a man and woman.
     
  18. Ubermich

    Ubermich He did it!

    Joined:
    21 Jun 2002
    Posts:
    4,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think Bush at least believes that this is his doing though. He is a religious man, from my own state (no need to explain how conservative the man is in his political or religious beliefs). I would have to argue that he's doing it to please his support base, but not because his support base was screaming for it.
    I happen to support Bush, but I still think what he's doing is morally and constitutionally...

    On a side-note. If you know that he is incapable of holding a belief, that means he is incapable of acting on his own. So how can you hate him and not his support base?
    I love you too Linear. :lol:
     
  19. Ubermich

    Ubermich He did it!

    Joined:
    21 Jun 2002
    Posts:
    4,389
    Likes Received:
    1
    A religious idea being condemned by a law of the state. You can't suggest that this goes with what our nation (theorhetically) stands for...
     
  20. linear

    linear Minimodder

    Joined:
    5 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    4,393
    Likes Received:
    1
    No, I think you're not carefully reading what I write. I don't hate him, nor his support base. I don't particularly agree with substantial portions of his administrations policies, and I'm not of the opinion that he's a great president, but I never said I hated him.

    What I specifically said is that politicians don't hold beliefs. They act, not out of moral conviction, but rather out of a calculated attempt to stay in elected office. I think this is equally true of US politicians of both major parties.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page