George W. Bush has recently made it very clear how he stands on gay marriages, from that prewritten speech he was reading at a press conference.

I don't feel that it's any kind of violation or disrespect to a heterosexual marriage when we allow gays to marry. However, Bush seems to think that we should have an amendment to the constitution against gays marrying for this reason. It wasn't clear from the footage that I saw on the news if he's for or against a "civil union", but as I've said before to several people on this site, that term seems cold and emotionless to me.

Also, if we live in such a "free country" why should we deny our citizens the right to marry? We can't refuse employment due to race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., so why should we deny marriages on that same line?

I couldn't put this in General Discussion, but for everyone who wanted more discussions, here it is. It's too controversal to put anywhere else.

---
Mediocrity at its most average.

Yes, chicka, I just addressed that issue in the Nader thread as well. Gay people should be allowed every single right straight people are. They are people. If we are going to limit rights to marriage based on Christian ethics, then we should eliminate non-Christian marriage as well, right?

Let's look at this politically. Why would you do something so restricting and effectively eliminate an entire contingent of voters? There are quite a few wealthy gay people as well. The reason Bush can even consider this, in my opinion, is because he knows that even if everyone votes him out of office, he'll get to keep it because he's a CHEATER.

Just ONE of many articles on the upcoming voting controversy:
http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/4642/1/197

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

According to an article I just read here, a majority of Americans oppose gay marriages, and it sounds like a lot of Bush supporters are actively pushing for this amendment because it will lead to the downfall of society or something. So I would expect Bush isn't too bothered about disenfranchising 1m gay voters when it would ensure the votes of all the anti-gay groups.

One thought.

Who says Gay marriages should be illegal? Religious fanatics for the most part. Wtf are we even coming CLOSE to letting ONE religious belief of ONE sect/religion come even a little close to forming a law for us?

Last time I checked, the church and the state were supposed to be two seperate things. The bible has no place influencing our constitution and laws. Everyone is supposed to be equal. If a transexual named Bill wants to change his name to Diane, are we going to deny him that because a religion says being a transexual is wrong and therefore he cannot change his name? No. That's ridiculous.

There is a difference between agreeing and tolerating something. Just because you tolerate it, doesn't mean you support it. I think that's something people are forgetting in this case. Other countries aren't going to look at us and think, "Good god! It's a country full of queers/etc!" I hate to tell whoever it is that opposes this, but married or not, the homosexuals will still be here.

The main concern should be the following question:

Who is it really going to hurt if gay people are allowed to get married?

Really? What are the consequences of gay marriage? I, for one, can't think of any that are plausible. If there was something you could come up with that would effect others negatively, then you might have some cause for alarm.

I say: "Hey George, ya a little insecure about your own manhood?"
Laura looks like a dude anyway. I wouldn't be surprised...

---
dcomposed:11-06-05: If I was a viking invading your village, you'd be the first to get raped.
Crabby: 10/5/06: i would love to feed you fresh fruit while bathing you.

Christians, especially "less government is better" christians should be scared to fucking death of such an ammendment more than anyone else. If the government has the right to define what a Christian marriage is and is not, then why are they so confident that some day the government won't manditorily redefine marriage, or anything else about their worshiping habits, in a way that runs counter to their beliefs? After all, if this ammendment goes through then it will set a precident that government indeed has the right to dick around in religious ceremony, doctrine, and belief when it pleases them, even when no other laws and no other person's rights are being infringed upon by said ceremony, doctrine, or belief.

Hey, I have an idea. Let's make it unconstitutional and illegal for Catholic churches to have communion. After all, they're eating the flesh of a man who died thousands of years ago! That's cannibalism! It's just plain sick and wrong, and every day that we encourage this vile practice, that's one more step down the tubes that our great country takes. We must defend our nation from the horrors of cannibalism! We must make it unconstitutional for Catholics to practice Communion!

quote:

---

If we are going to limit rights to marriage based on Christian ethics, then we should eliminate non-Christian marriage as well, right?

---

I see what you are saying, chicka, but I think most people here are open-minded enough to at least agree on that particular topic.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Most Americans don't like gay people, and Bush is going on that with this amendment. He's smart enough to know what he's doing.

Remember: Kerry doesn't support gay marriage, and he's probably gonna be the nominee. If you're planning to vote Democrat, please don't be hypocritical and go all out protesting this amendment, then vote for a man whose official stance is against gay marriage.

I, for one, think that marriage is about LOVE, not Christianity, so I'm pretty confused about the whole thing. Obviously, we have a lot of "tradition" and "religious" arguments here, but I just don't see why SO MANY PEOPLE care so much. If two people are in love, they should be able to get married. Who cares what sex they are?

But yeah--I'm at the point where I'll vote for ANYONE less Republican than Bush that has a chance to win. This amendment isn't gonna get out of the House, and even if it got through there AND the Senate, 3/4 of the states would have to ratify it. I'm not worried. It's probably a good thing; it's reminding people to go out and vote in this next election to make sure we get this man out of office.

---
Sex Piano.

quote:

---

Last time I checked, the church and the state were supposed to be two seperate things. The bible has no place influencing our constitution and laws.

---

But are we openminded enough not to tell people how "wrong" they are for NOT agreeing?

---
Mediocrity at its most average.

exactly. furthermore, the more such "moral" decisions are taken out of the hands of the individual by government regulation, the less responsibility the individual has for his/her own actions. it's not dissimilar to the FCC's regulating what it's prohibited to regulate per our freedom of speech under the constitution; the FCC gets away with it because it has to certify (based on arbitrary reasons of its own design) because of the limited number air frequencies available. in the case of gay marriage (which falls under the category of "speech acts": declarations, certifications, constituting realities through symbolic language, etc...), Bush wants to ammend the constitution, which then explicitly says that the government can modify its limitations whenever a given administration with the right clout so chooses.

i think it's also important to realize that whether the government deems it legal or illegal, either way it's already regulated. in other words, the freedom from government regulation (such as is supposedly the case with "free speech") has already been taken away. once the government decides any given something is the subject of regulation, even if the government decides to permit it, the government can change its decision at any time. welcome to totalitarianism: movement towards 100% regulation.

"What do you want to do today?"
"I don't know. What are we allowed to do?"

---
i want to piss on you

I've no problem with government making law along "moral" lines. That's what it should be for, in fact. But a pair of buffties bum-blasting each other has nothing to do with morality.

Staring at greykane's sig for too long is disturbing. Andy, I just don't think the government should be able to tell the Dougan family how they should be allowed to express their undying and eternal love for each other.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Says you (and me too). So how do you qualify this? How do you prove that statement to people who think that "h0m0s r ghey?" And why is your or my version of morality any more or less pressing than theirs. I agree that laws certainly aren't written arbitrarily. If they were arbitrary, they'd be really pointless. As it turns out, they're often based on someone's morals, but what are morals other than arbitrary decisions about right and wrong based on individual conviction?

So who's conviction gets to win out?

Maybe Kobe Bryant's, maybe Michael Jackson's. I guess we'll have to wait and see!

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Both the situation and the comic I made about it amuse me:
[ Posted comic does not exist ]

---
Mediocrity at its most average.

Says you (and me too). So how do you qualify this? How do you prove that statement to people who think that "h0m0s r ghey?" And why is your or my version of morality any more or less pressing than theirs. I agree that laws certainly aren't written arbitrarily. If they were arbitrary, they'd be really pointless. As it turns out, they're often based on someone's morals, but what are morals other than arbitrary decisions about right and wrong based on individual conviction?

If morals have any purpose, it's to maximise net pleasure and minimise net suffering. This non-cognitivist idea that morality is all subjective and anything's right if you think it is, completely collapses when you glance at the real world.

Morality is never arbitrary. Banning gay marriage, forcing women to wear tents over their bodies or allowing David Schwimmer to appear on TV, cause suffering without alleviating any, so the sums are pretty easy to do.

For example, Tony Blair has said that he believes abortion is wrong, but that it's not up to the government to impose its "personal beliefs" on people. This is an inane argument to me. The state should always intervene to stop wrong being done. It would intervene to prevent slavery, because it's wrong, so why not abortion, if that's wrong too? If the answer is "Because slavery causes harm and abortion doesn't", then abortion isn't wrong. But you can't have it both ways.

What were we talking about? Oh yeah, the queers. It's immediately obvious that outlawing gay marriage is wrong (though I'd guess the amount of harm it does is pretty low). Gay adoption would be harder to weigh up, I suppose, because kids would get bullied at school and stuff.

But that bear above obviously has the right to hands, I notice...

1. My viewpoint. I was raised in a religious village in a religious country. Marriage is a religious institution. I don't see the point if you're not religious. Then I expanded my world view. This leads on to...

2. I would support civil unions for homosexual couples. I think that's fine. Cultural thinking's got most people wanting their Big Day Out with The One in front of their friends and families, and I'm cool with that. But...

3. Why should there be tax breaks and benefits for people who are married? I disagree with all of that, straight or gay. It's a legacy of a byegone age, AFAIC. But that's a digression from the main crux...

4. I had a quick read* of the Constitution, and I'm fascinated why an amendment is being proposed.
I quote Amendement X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

Quoting Channel Asia News
"The battle has been brewing since 1996, when conservatives and religious groups pushed through Congress the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows each state to set its own rules against same-sex marriage."

I assume in Article 10 "the people" are the American public as a whole. This would entail a referendum, and that would easily solve the problem.

I now assume this isn't the case and*, Bush wants to fuck with Amendment 10, to basically say* "States have the right to set their own laws, except when it's in conflict with the will of the rest of the states"

That's a guess.

* - I'm not a lawyer. I haven't read the whole constitution. I am theorising what's going on in the minds of Republican strategists.

I'm sick of this issue, Oi! Who said Smokescreen?.

I couldn't care less to be honest. But I'm always up for a good old rational debate.

---
Please replace the handset, and try again.

i think you're talking about "ethics." "morals" implies a call to a higher power. "ethics," meanwhile, is interpersonal relations. laws are designed for "ethics," not "morals." for example, laws can regulate lying insofar as it affects exchange values, but not insofar as it is morally right or wrong under a god. marriage falls under both ethics and morals, but the judgment being placed on it as "sacred" is not ethics but rather morals. i should be allowed to lie to the extent that it doesn't affect exchange values. i should be allowed to fuck your unhappy wife to the extent that it doesn't grant me access to your wealth when she divorces you for me. the moral decision should be left up to me.

---
i want to piss on you

I believe that people who are gay should be able to have their marraige. Really. It never says in the Bible to bash gays or to take away their right to marry. It's their own choice. I'm not saying it isn't wrong, but really. We should do our own things and leave them to do theirs. If they love the person, why not?

This only applies if everyone looked at the real world in the exact same way, if the same things offended everyone, we all share the same brain...which of course, is never going to happen.

If gays want to get married, I say let 'em. Like Phreaky said, who is it really going to hurt?

This whole thing is hypocritical. Doesn't the Bible say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."? I seriously doubt that these gay bashers have no skeletons in their closets. It would be nice if people would take care of their own backyards instead of trying to fix whatever's wrong (in their eyes) with their neighbors.

[Click to view comic: 'Marriage Is Sacred']

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

Where exactly do you stand? You seem to think it's wrong for a man to love a man or a woman to love a woman, but you think they should be allowed to get married. Are you still on the fence?

---
Mediocrity at its most average.

Argh...as the SC resident homo, where do I start?

1) Marriage is essentially a contract. I have no problem calling it a civil union provided that it provides the same benefits as male/female unions do. I can't think of any other contracts where both parties must be of opposite genders. In most cases, gender is entirely moot.

Frankly, I wouldn't care about this whole issue, except that gays are being denied the same tax breaks straights are allowed, so on that basis, it is discriminitory. Also, since we don't have universal health benefits, many people depend on the health insurance of their spouse for coverage--most companies in the US deny coverage to unmarried couples. I can see why they do this for business reasons (adding and dropping boyfriends and girlfriends is expensive and impossible to verify or control) but if gays were contractually obligated to each other, it would cost no more to add a gay spouse to insurance coverage than a straight one.

2) California is one of the few states that specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in its constitution. However, Californians also voted for a constitutional ammendment defining marriage as male/female--I've often wondered why nobody has challenged this discrepancy, and on this basis, I believe the City of San Francisco will win in its challenge.

The federal government has not extended this protection in any of its anti-discrimination laws. What progress has been made in the area of gay rights at the federal level has been in the courts.

3) I've heard too many religious fanatics criticize gays for being promiscuous--so why not allow us to commit to monogamous relationships?

4) The whole name of the Defense of Marriage Act is offensive. At a time when religious leaders cry about the number of divorces, you'd think they'd welcome more committed couples to marry. The way you defend marriage is to create a way for more people to get and stay married.

Now having said all that, you'll be surprised that I tend to be conservative when it comes to my politics (I'm sure I'm the only gay, athiest, government employee who votes Republican), but it bugs the shit out of me when Republicans champion such divisive issues in order to pander to the religious right for their votes, and I almost always vote against candidates who make social issues a center of their election campaign. If they were more inclusive, and focused on solving problems that seriously affect people instead of mildly annoy them, perhaps that party could draw from a wider array of voters. I don't think government belongs in bedrooms and it shouldn't tell anyone who they should or shouldn't love. This whole issue is a smokescreen. When government has fixed all our other, more important, problems such as the economy, our national security, and how to get out occupying two countries half a world away, they can turn their attention to this otherwise trivial matter.

p.s., thanks to everyone who took the time to post above.

[Click to view comic: 'Jealous Yet?']