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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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?

---

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.

quote:

---

But a pair of buffties bum-blasting each other has nothing to do with morality.

---

quote:

---

So who's conviction gets to win out?

---

Both the situation and the comic I made about it amuse me:
/comics/attitudechicka/213946/

quote:

---

quote:

---

But a pair of buffties bum-blasting each other has nothing to do with morality.

---

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?

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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?

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

I'm not saying it isn't wrong... If they love the person, why not?

---

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.

/comics/AccentuateNegative/212941/

The Equal Rights Amendment died during the radification process. We should call this the Unequal Rights Amendment.

And just because your candidate is not a clone of every idea you have doesn't mean it is wrong to support them over a flaming weasle bastard.

I myself don't agree with a lot of people's choices they make. I may not agree with their choice or lifestyle, but if two homosexual people want to marry, let them. Marriage has become superficial anyway. No one cares any more it seems. Marriage has lost its meaning for a long time. Besides, in this country, we have rights (albeit that a lot of em have been taken from us) and people can't be descriminated against, no matter how wrong anyone thinks they are. People have a free will and will do whatever they please anyway, so what right does the government have in taking that much away?

I don't know if, or where I've posted my opinion on this topic, but here it is. I don't think homosexual marriage is right. Not because it disagrees with my religion, or because I dislike homosexuals.

The very concept of marriage, the ceremony, and the very meaning behind it, is religious. When you remove the religious text behind it, it ceases to be marriage, and becomes essentially a civil union. I am not against the idea of equal civil unions for those who do not follow the accepted idea of married couples. I think civil unions should be exactly the same, legally, as marriage. A judge or some other form of official could perform the ceremony and do the paperwork for it, and make it all legit. The biggest argument I hear from homosexual activists is that if one gets put into the hospital, the other *may* be refused access to his/her partner. Understandable, but I'm pretty sure that civil unions, even as they stand now, will allow for that. If not, then why not just upgrade 'em?

As for the "let's ban all marriages between people who aren't christian" crap, how is that even remotely the same? Religious beliefs and sexual preference are widely different topics. Saying you can't marry someone of your gender is more akin to saying you can't marry two people at the same time than saying you can't marry a catholic if you're protestant.

I personally can't believe this is such a big issue. Why is it so hard for both sides to agree to simple legal unions between two people? That way, you get all the legal rights you want, but you keep from stepping on the toes of religious people who would rather not feel their special vows have been violated or made less special somehow.

In essence, marriage is a religious ceremony, no matter how shallow it has become in the minds of many people. No church in state? Sure. Remove "in god we trust" from my money, tell that judge he can't make me swear on the bible before a trial, and take out every law that is based on our religious past (Murder? Sure, that's legal! Theft? Who cares? Public Nudity? Suuuure [actually, yeah, let's repeal those laws, now that I think about it]). But you get the point.

Again, I see nothing wrong with homosexual unions that give them the same tax breaks and rights as heterosexual couples, but I don't think that it should invade the sanctity of what so many in this country and others hold dear.

quote:

---

The very concept of marriage, the ceremony, and the very meaning behind it, is religious. When you remove the religious text behind it, it ceases to be marriage, and becomes essentially a civil union. I am not against the idea of equal civil unions for those who do not follow the accepted idea of married couples. I think civil unions should be exactly the same, legally, as marriage. A judge or some other form of official could perform the ceremony and do the paperwork for it, and make it all legit. The biggest argument I hear from homosexual activists is that if one gets put into the hospital, the other *may* be refused access to his/her partner. Understandable, but I'm pretty sure that civil unions, even as they stand now, will allow for that. If not, then why not just upgrade 'em?

---

Of course not. I'm not highly religious myself, and think these ceremonies are silly and unneeded, but if they are to exist, I think they should always be just as they were originally intended to be. If you get a religious marriage, you don't get a divorce. If you are not "Husband and Wife", you don't get *married*. You get a civil union with all the benefits of marriage, and none of the drawbacks. The only benefit you lack is the implied "God's Will" stuff, which I doubt most homosexual couples give two shits about anyway.

quote:

---

I don't know if, or where I've posted my opinion on this topic, but here it is. I don't think homosexual marriage is right. Not because it disagrees with my religion, or because I dislike homosexuals.

The very concept of marriage, the ceremony, and the very meaning behind it, is religious.

---

There are plenty of religions that perform same-sex marriages. Got a problem with that DX?

That wasn't meant as a slam. Carry on.

quote:

---

Does that mean my wife and I, who are of opposite sex and different faiths, and who got hitched in a civil ceremony, shouldn't be considered married?

Whatever your answer to that question, what is the difference between our relationship, and one certified in a ceremony by some religious official? If none, then do you retract your statement above?

---

quote:

---

There are plenty of religions that perform same-sex marriages. Got a problem with that DX?

---

Sorry Spanks, you posted that while I was still writing my last little rant.

Yes, I see that homosexual marriages are everything heterosexual ones are, the ones already performed are a touchy subject. I think it was irresponsibilty in SF, and before that, who can really do anything? I don't think they should be revoked, but I don't think the "damage" can be undone anyway. You can't really change them to civil unions, since that's what they already are anyway, essentially. In a religious context, they're already invalid. In a non-religious one, they're already as equal as possible. It's kinda a win-win situation, but neither side sees it that way.

Anyway, to answer the question, no, I don't have a problem with that, one bit. So long as the ceremony is different, then I don't care a damn bit. If your bible says "Okay, so, these two chicks started getting it on, and God was all like 'DAYM!'", then have at it. But if you're in a Christian church with a pastor performing your ceremony, I think it's only fair to say that it should be limited by the faith that performs it.

quote:

---

I am willing to aid the cause for completely equal civil unions for everyone, so long as it's two people. Not three people or a person and an animal. I would fight the system for the rights of two people to be unified civilly no matter what.

---

quote:

---

Why not three people? Seriously, why not? When you take religion out of the picture, what sense does it make to limit the number to two?

---

Here's the deal, DX. You're claiming that marriage is a religious affair, but you know that's not the case. When I get married, I don't want to say "life partner." I want to say, "Wife." I want to be able to talk about my wedding. I like the concept of marriage, because it stands for not just a legal bond, but a bond of love. It's not just something you say so you can get tax breaks. It's not religious to me. The word has meaning outside religion, and you're a dumbass if you don't think that's true.

Whether or not it ought to be that way is a different argument, and you're confusing the two. Yes, the actual symbol of marriage has no "real" meaning, but it still stands for different-faith couples (hell, my parents were married by a judge.) You're saying we should get rid of marriage in all legal talk, but that's not gonna happen, because it means so much to so many people in this country. Denying Gay marriage is not how we fix the problem of state and church being tied together in this way.

Marriage, outside of the religious and legal context, means a commitment to love someone until death. There is no room for love in marriage law, just tax benefits and rules concerning hospitals. This is what I hear when I hear arguments like yours:

"Gay people! You can be a civil union, but you can't get 'married' because marriage is a religious notion concerning a heterosexual partnership. However, religions that have marriage but no such rule about heterosexuality, um, don't count, apparently. Sorry. Try Canada. We don't want you here."

Best friends of mine can't get married. I wish I could get them on here and let them talk to you about it. Especially since they were married by a priest, but had it rejected by the state.

quote:

---

And finally, while two men could raise a child fine, I have problems believing that three men... would be able to raise a balanced child. Just a guess on that one.

---

Yes, Marriage has a meaning outside of religion, but it is still based in religion. The law regarding marriage in the US is still a *christian* based one. Again, I have no problem with equal rights. As I said before, I am not really that religious. I have my beliefs, but they don't involve gay people going to hell, or abortionists burning in a pit of fire. I'm a very loose christian, if you could even call me that. I still think that marriage, as a ceremony, should be restricted to a man and a woman. It's my opinion, and if you differ from that, it's your perrogative. What it comes down to, though, is that I've never heard of an established religion that holds a marriage ceremony that condones homosexual marriage. Christian, hindu, muslim, buddhist, jewish, none of these, as far as I know, do not support gay marriage.

What I'm not seeing here is *why* the idea of homosexual marriage being disallowed, while completely equal civil unions are fine is so bad. Spankling simply added to my argument. It's unfair either way, but I think it should be fair. I think marriage should simply be a way to attain the rights we know of today, one reseved for one man and one woman.

I understand the need for a ceremony around a loving relationship, and I'm not trying to invalidate the specialness of a gay relationship; I'm just trying to comprehend why it needs to infringe upon a very sacred, established ceremony, when there are other, easier avenues to venture upon.

quote:

---

True enough, but as I said before, it isn't a difference to secular or people who don't care, but why should we infringe upon the ideals of those who hold marriage dear? They have rights as well.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why not three people? Seriously, why not? When you take religion out of the picture, what sense does it make to limit the number to two?

---

To put it simply, complications in tax breaks, as well as other benefits of marriage/civil unions.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why not three people? Seriously, why not? When you take religion out of the picture, what sense does it make to limit the number to two?

---

To put it simply, complications in tax breaks, as well as other benefits of marriage/civil unions.

Also, don't you start defending the mormons now.

---

quote:

---

But when someone's ideals are blatantly discriminatory to another person or group, then that's a problem.

---

quote:

---

"Society's ideals are blatantly discriminatory against our religion because they force us to work on Sunday and on Holidays. Something must be done about this."

---

Some have touched on these subjects, but I wanted to explore them further with DX especially, since he seems to be the opposition here. By the way, I'm not attacking, you just seem to be the only one on the other side of the fence, sticking your tongue out and waving your hands about.

1. If a gay couple were "civilly unioned" and approached you, a ring on each of their fingers, saying they were married, would you laugh at them and tell them they weren't? Are they not allowed to use that terminology? If the answer to this is yes, proceed to 2, if not, skip 2, but provide a reasonable response, please.

2. My brother and his WIFE were "civilly unioned" by a judge in his chambers last October. They were not "married" because there was no mention of God in the entire ceremony. The vows were simple, and short. Are they not allowed to call one another "husband" and "wife"? Are they not allowed to use the "married" terminology because they are both athiests?

3. What does "Til death do us part" have to do with religon? I understand "Under God", but "Til death do us part" simply means what is stated, that they will love one another until the day they die. Are you saying homosexual couples are unable to love one another for that long of a period of time? Are they not allowed to grow old together, or should they be spouse hopping until the day they die, ala Jack on Will and Grace?

4. Do you actually know any homosexual couples, or are you just going off of the things that you see on TV shows? Some of them actually *gasp* believe in God! Holy wow, batman! As far as that goes, some Christians believe in incest!

Just some food for thought. I'm going to stop now, because I feel too strongly about this.

quote:

---

Here's the deal, DX. You're claiming that marriage is a religious affair, but you know that's not the case. When I get married, I don't want to say "life partner." I want to say, "Wife." I want to be able to talk about my wedding. I like the concept of marriage, because it stands for not just a legal bond, but a bond of love. It's not just something you say so you can get tax breaks. It's not religious to me. The word has meaning outside religion, and you're a dumbass if you don't think that's true.

Whether or not it ought to be that way is a different argument, and you're confusing the two. Yes, the actual symbol of marriage has no "real" meaning, but it still stands for different-faith couples (hell, my parents were married by a judge.) You're saying we should get rid of marriage in all legal talk, but that's not gonna happen, because it means so much to so many people in this country. Denying Gay marriage is not how we fix the problem of state and church being tied together in this way.

Marriage, outside of the religious and legal context, means a commitment to love someone until death. There is no room for love in marriage law, just tax benefits and rules concerning hospitals. This is what I hear when I hear arguments like yours:

"Gay people! You can be a civil union, but you can't get 'married' because marriage is a religious notion concerning a heterosexual partnership. However, religions that have marriage but no such rule about heterosexuality, um, don't count, apparently. Sorry. Try Canada. We don't want you here."

Best friends of mine can't get married. I wish I could get them on here and let them talk to you about it. Especially since they were married by a priest, but had it rejected by the state.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

"Society's ideals are blatantly discriminatory against our religion because they force us to work on Sunday and on Holidays. Something must be done about this."

---

There's a difference between saying "I believe this, and therefore I must do or must not do this" and "I believe this, and therefore you, who do not share my beliefs, may or may not do this".

---