Gay Marriage and President Bush

[bluemarble]

I'm all for gay marriege, equal rights to all right? Yep yep. Good stuff.

[Panache]

Well on topic I (being a bush fan personally) do agree that this is somewhat a distraction to the things that are happening in the war. But really whats wrong with a distraction from war? I mean you can only critisize someone so much right?

I will desist in discussing the morality of gay marriage as that is not the topic at hand(or at least it is not suppose to be) and it offends people apparently but if you do wanna discuss it with me (which I doubt) go ahead and pm me.

[John]

[quote name='Gavin][size=1']On a slightly more secular level, I oppose homosexual marriage coming into the Republic of Ireland because it would mean I would be legally obliged to accept that such an custom would be right in the face of my own beliefs.[size=2][/quote] Nuuuuuu, the point isn't to get you to accept homosexuality as [i]ok[/i], but to get you to accept that [i]other people[/i] consider it ok. The point here is that no matter what you think is right or wrong, not everyone else thinks that. Therefore, you're not really voting for or against homosexuality, but for or against whether people should be able to set their own moral and ethical boundaries. Your stance seems to be that people should have their boundaries set for them, against their will. That smacks mightily of a theocracy.[/size][/size]

[Claire]

[FONT=Arial]It's amazing how hypocritical the whole US system is. People may be free to practice their own religion, or write what they want without fearing execution for their beliefs. The church and state are separate, yet we can't give people their basic rights because of their sexual preference. Crap like this is everywhere, and everyone is subject to it. After the Christians and other people have been banned from saying "Merry Christmas" to people in schools and workplaces, the ultra religious try for a law against gay marriage. I personally don't have any problem with homosexuality anymore...rather, I don't think I ever did. It doesn't make sense how we can be so blind to things like racism and homophobia, which are so constant in society. The government is supposed to grant basic rights to every citizen. So, why doesn't it?[/FONT]

[Gavin]

[quote name='John]Nuuuuuu, the point isn't to get you to accept homosexuality as [i]ok[/i], but to get you to accept that [i]other people[/i'] consider it ok. The point here is that no matter what you think is right or wrong, not everyone else thinks that. Therefore, you're not really voting for or against homosexuality, but for or against whether people should be able to set their own moral and ethical boundaries. Your stance seems to be that people should have their boundaries set for them, against their will. That smacks mightily of a theocracy.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]A valid point John, except in the case of the Republic of Ireland we're having gay marriage made legal without consulting the voting population, it's not as if the vast majority of Irish people want gay marriage and we on the religious right are waving the canes in anger, this is a case where people are generally against the idea on religious/moral grounds. As for the theocracy bit, if it works... ;) [/SIZE]

[Caine]

[QUOTE=Gavin][SIZE=1]I was personally dreading when this nasty little topic would rear it's ugly head again, as all it does is prove a divisive issue between the religious right and liberal left. There is no winning either side of this debate because generally neither side will budge on their opinions, and why should they if they feel they're correct.

Personally I oppose granting homosexual marriage on religious grounds, I'm a practicing Roman Catholic and so my major objections to the idea of granting a same-sex couple the right of marriage stems from the fact that I believe the institution of marriage to be a purely religious practice between two members of the opposite sex. Now while this may sound hypocritical to those who feel I'm not being "Christian" and I really do dislike it when people make those kinds of comments because they're as based in ignorance as people describing homosexuality as a curable disease, the opposition to homosexual marriage comes directly from the Holy Father himself, and was staunchly opposed by his predecessor Pope John Paul II. Again this may simply sound like a case of regurgitation, in that I'm simply repeating the line of the Church but I happen to agree wholeheartedly with the line being taken, in that it is my religious belief that such a perversion of the holy institution is wrong.

On a slightly more secular level, I oppose homosexual marriage coming into the Republic of Ireland because it would mean I would be legally obliged to accept that such an custom would be right in the face of my own beliefs. The very fact our own Justice Minister is attempted to sneak the laws in without a referendum by the population, because he knows it would be soundly beaten, is equally disturbing as it indicates the beliefs of the majority of the country are secondary to the wished of the Minister for Justice. Those facts aside, it seems to be rather more distasteful today to be a practicing member of Catholicism as to be homosexual.

I don't oppose homosexual rights, or rather that is to say I bear no ill-will towards people who are homosexual, but the idea that they wish to distort one of the major institutions of many religions to suit themselves seems just as wrong as denying them that right in the first place. If this is really about giving them the same legal rights as a married heterosexual couple then that's another issue, but if I must I will protest any attempts for a gay couple to degrade a church in Ireland with their so-called marriage ceremony.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]


no, no, no ,no ,no, no.
Let me get this straight, you wish to impose a limit on other people, because if you don't impose that limit [i]they[/i] are being intolerant of [i]your[/i] beliefs?
I believe you are confusing state marriages with religious ones. The RCC can marry or not marry whoever it chooses to. The government (at least in the US) was founded on equality and religious tolerance, and so should act based on tolerance, not the whishes of one group. State marriages do not take place in a church, and have very little to do with religion
Its hard for me as an American to see this as an assault on marriage, because degrading marriage any further is pretty much impossible. The word has almost no meaning here. Maybe in Ireland things are different, but in order for me to understand how you see this as degrading I'd have to know how you view marriage.
The issue may be divisive, but that is exactly why it must be faced. We cannot simply turn our backs, we must face reality and deal with it. We must debate it, because if we don't then our views truly can't change, and we will always be divided.



Finally, did it ever cross your mind that since you admit that its wrong to deny them that right, maybe we shouldn't?

[Gavin]

[QUOTE=Caine]no, no, no ,no ,no, no.
Let me get this straight, you wish to impose a limit on other people, because if you don't impose that limit [i]they[/i] are being intolerant of [i]your[/i] beliefs?[/quote]

[SIZE=1]Rather straight forward isn't it ? The very fact that today being religious seems to equate you immediately with intolerance of other people and their beliefs, despite the fact that they are equally intolerant of yours is something of an oddity isn't it ? However as I have said I oppose homosexual marriage on religious ground primarily because I think it's wrong, it's funny that somehow my beliefs are automatically wrong because other people disagree with them.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Caine]I believe you are confusing state marriages with religious ones. The RCC can marry or not marry whoever it chooses to. The government (at least in the US) was founded on equality and religious tolerance, and so should act based on tolerance, not the wishes of one group. State marriages do not take place in a church, and have very little to do with religion
Its hard for me as an American to see this as an assault on marriage, because degrading marriage any further is pretty much impossible. The word has almost no meaning here. Maybe in Ireland things are different, but in order for me to understand how you see this as degrading I'd have to know how you view marriage.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]I can understand the differences, and really what you're talking about are civil unions and marriages which in my own mind are two quite separate entities. Civil unions are government sanctioned "pairings" for the lack of a better word, having no religious segment to them. A marriage is the joining of a man and a woman together in the eyes of God in His church presided over by a member of the clergy, and is not legally recognised by the State until a marriage certificate is acquired. Those are the differences effectively, although civil unions are usually referred to as marriages.

As I said giving homosexual couples the right to civil union is a different topic altogether as there is no religious segment to the joining. It is a commitment under the eyes of the State only.

I understand how it would be hard for you to see how this could be an assault on marriage given how badly twisted marriage has become in the United States where roughly 50% of all marriages end in divorce and you can effectively be married by anyone. I don't think the figure is that high here in Ireland and generally marriage is still seen a religious ceremony with legal standing. Basically marriage isn't seen as a joke here yet, it's still regarded as something to enter seriously and with a bit of pre-thought.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Caine]The issue may be divisive, but that is exactly why it must be faced. We cannot simply turn our backs, we must face reality and deal with it. We must debate it, because if we don't then our views truly can't change, and we will always be divided.

Finally, did it ever cross your mind that since you admit that its wrong to deny them that right, maybe we shouldn't?[/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]Yes but the major problem is that people's views never change, it's always going to be divisive until one side gets enough support to simply overwhelm the other. I've always found it strange that one something that is wrong from the point of view of the religious right gets into law, the debate on it dies immediately, as if to say "It's over, you lost". As I recall one of the southern states of the U.S. rebanned abortion a while back, although it escapes me at this moment which state it was.

I didn't actually say that it was wrong to deny them that right, I said it would be as wrong to deny me my right to prevent the distortion of my religious beliefs and the institutions that are a part of those beliefs. There is a difference.[/SIZE]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR=SeaGreen]First of all I think it?s wrong for the government to try and modify the constitution all for the sake of forcing their moral views on the population. I always understood that the very foundation of the USA was to have religious freedom and that includes having different beliefs where being gay/lesbian is acceptable. [quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']I didn't actually say that it was wrong to deny them that right, I said it would be as wrong to deny me my right to prevent the distortion of my religious beliefs and the institutions that are a part of those beliefs. There is a difference.[/SIZE][/quote]Ignoring some of the current discussion, since it would take me to long to address every point, and some have already been addressed. But I don?t understand how gay marriage is distorting your religious beliefs. Honestly that just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.

There are lots of religions that are different than yours, have different marriage practices than yours and yet how are gay marriages distorting your beliefs and yet say the practice of another religion like the LDS/Mormon does not? Each one seems to go on the basis that they are the correct way to be married. In the eyes of the LDS/Mormon church marriages performed by your church are not valid and I would assume it?s the same from the other side of the coin so to speak.

So again I ask you why would gays getting married distort your religion? It would to me simply be another belief practiced most likely by people who are not a member of your religion who like you have the right to live by their own beliefs. Which in this case is the belief that gay/lesbian marriage is okay. If you go by what you are saying, then for a very long time we have been perverting others beliefs even to the point of denying them the right to have them. [/COLOR]

[John]

[quote name='Gavin][size=1']A valid point John, except in the case of the Republic of Ireland we're having gay marriage made legal without consulting the voting population, it's not as if the vast majority of Irish people want gay marriage and we on the religious right are waving the canes in anger, this is a case where people are generally against the idea on religious/moral grounds.[size=2][/quote] Ok then, let me strip down my argument to its real point: you want to take a human right away from a group of people rather than tolerate a belief conradictory to your own. That's not how democracy (or Christianity or any vaguely related religion) works. Which leads me nicely into...[/size]

[/size][quote name='Gavin][size=1']As for the theocracy bit, if it works... ;) [/size][/quote] [b]Theocracy never, ever works or has worked. It's a codeword for tyranny.[/b]

[2010DigitalBoy]

[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]I apologize in advance for any feelings I am about to hurt[/COLOR].

To anyone who wishes to cut off gays/lesbians right to be married: **** you.

How the hell would you like it if I stepped up to you and told you that you couldn't marry the person you love because someone doesn't like it? Would you push your tail between your legs and accept it? Why the **** should anyone else?

By the way, what in the hell happened to 'seperation of church and state?'

And I really would like to know where someone finds the capicity to judge someone based on their sexuality. That, my friends, is DESCRIMINATION, the downfall of human society -- the thing that causes more hatred than any other thing -- and I don't know about you, but to me [B]that is the[I] ultimate [/I] sin[/B].

[Gavin]

[quote name='John']Ok then, let me strip down my argument to its real point: you want to take a human right away from a group of people rather than tolerate a belief contradictory to your own. That's not how democracy (or Christianity or any vaguely related religion) works. Which leads me nicely into...[/size][/quote]

[SIZE=1]Good, because it's about time people actually said exactly what they mean, which is what I'm going to do right now. Gay people are [b]not[/b] the majority in Ireland, they are a tiny, tiny minority, those who support gay rights are [b]not[/b] the majority, they are a minority as well. Last time I checked, in a normal democratic country, minorities didn't have the right to tell the majority how to think or what was right or wrong. And being "Christian" a term warped by the Americans too, has nothing do with it.[/SIZE]

[quote name='John][b']Theocracy never, ever works or has worked. It's a codeword for tyranny.[/b][/quote]

[SIZE=1]Which leads me to raise the example of Vatican City, a city which I have visited and [B]is[/B] a theocracy and [B]works[/B]. Is it a tyrant's nation ? No. Theocracies do not work when corrupt, immoral men take charge.[/SIZE]

[Raiyuu]

[font=trebuchet ms][quote name='Tical][font=verdana']I apologize in advance for any feelings I am about to hurt.[/font][/quote][color=red]Apologising in advance doesn't make it okay to post sweary tirades. Apart from Avenged666fold, who seems to have taken his leave from the thread now, the debate is progressing in surprisingly civil tones, and I'd quite like it to stay that way. So we'll have no more of this "**** you" and "why the ****", if you please. Standing up for your beliefs is one thing, but you're just making your 'side' of the debate appear reactionary and intolerant.[/color]

I'm politically liberal and non-Christian, so I probably don't even have to say that I support the rights of homosexuals to have their union recognised. But I can also see where Gavin is coming from. There are issues to be hashed out with semantics, I think. Basically, for a Roman Catholic, 'marriage' is defined as a union between to members of the opposite sex, right? So two men, or two women, declaring their union, is by definition NOT marriage.

In England homosexual couples can be recognised by the State as partners. Because, before this law was introduced, one partner could die unexpectedly and the other would have no claim (by law) over their estate, or even funeral arrangements. If a man's wife died unexpectedly, however, the State would recognise that they had pledged their lives to each other. It was screaming "double standard!"

I'm not sure what England's stance on the gay [i]marriage[/i] issue is, but 'civil partnerships' seem to please the non-radicals of both sides. Obviously the fundamental Christians and other parties opposed to homosexuality [i]in general[/i] still kick up a fuss, but we won't shut them up until being gay becomes a capital offence.[/font]

[DeathKnight]

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1]Good, because it's about time people actually said exactly what they mean, which is what I'm going to do right now. Gay people are [b]not[/b] the majority in Ireland, they are a tiny, tiny minority, those who support gay rights are [b]not[/b'] the majority, they are a minority as well. Last time I checked, in a normal democratic country, minorities didn't have the right to tell the majority how to think or what was right or wrong. And being "Christian" a term warped by the Americans too, has nothing do with it.[/SIZE][/quote]

[color=crimson]In a normal democratic country (ideally, that is) equality and freedom is stressed at the expense of irritating the "special" people who are opposed to granting certain minorities (because of skin color, religion, sexual preference or whatever) rights that should be granted to all men and women equally.

I hope your government remains sensible and grants the freedoms discussed in this topic to homosexuals instead of reverting to draconian, theocratic nonsense just because the 'majority' of it's citizens are traditionalists.[/color]

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1]Which leads me to raise the example of Vatican City, a city which I have visited and [B]is[/B] a theocracy and [B]works[/B']. Is it a tyrant's nation ? No. Theocracies do not work when corrupt, immoral men take charge.[/SIZE][/quote]

[color=crimson]You're not seriously suggesting that we should look to that tiny, specially administrated city-state as an example, are you?

[b]All[/b] theocracies (ones that have a [i]real[/i] country to oversee/deal with :rolleyes:) inevitably tyrannize or persecute portions of their population (dissidents primarily) justifying it as a crusade against 'heathens'. [/color]

[Papa Smurf]

[QUOTE=Gavin][size=1][/size][size=1]Civil unions are government sanctioned "pairings" for the lack of a better word, having no religious segment to them.

A marriage is the joining of a man and a woman together in the eyes of God in His church presided over by a member of the clergy, and is not legally recognised by the State until a marriage certificate is acquired.[/size][/quote]
Government sanctioned pairings, eh? Then marriage has never existed when you look at things realistically. Even the "divinely ordained" "marriages" of British Kings were more civil unions than marriages, because I guarantee those Kings didn't exactly use religion to improve their marriages. ~_^

[quote][size=1]it's still regarded as something to enter seriously and with a bit of pre-thought.[/size][/QUOTE]
And I don't think that would change in gay marriage here in the United States. Marriage is almost a complete joke in America because of morons, whores, and celebrity "marriages."

[Caine]

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']Rather straight forward isn't it ? The very fact that today being religious seems to equate you immediately with intolerance of other people and their beliefs, despite the fact that they are equally intolerant of yours is something of an oddity isn't it ? However as I have said I oppose homosexual marriage on religious ground primarily because I think it's wrong, it's funny that somehow my beliefs are automatically wrong because other people disagree with them.[/SIZE][/quote]
I'm not sure I understand you here. I know many religious people. I am religious in the sense that I have a religion (Roman Catholic) and I follow it as best as I can. I know people who are more religious than I am. I do not automatically assume they are bigots. You say that it is intolerant of others for them not to follow your beliefs, and I simply do not follow this logic.



[QUOTE][SIZE=1]I can understand the differences, and really what you're talking about are civil unions and marriages which in my own mind are two quite separate entities. Civil unions are government sanctioned "pairings" for the lack of a better word, having no religious segment to them. A marriage is the joining of a man and a woman together in the eyes of God in His church presided over by a member of the clergy, and is not legally recognised by the State until a marriage certificate is acquired. Those are the differences effectively, although civil unions are usually referred to as marriages.

As I said giving homosexual couples the right to civil union is a different topic altogether as there is no religious segment to the joining. It is a commitment under the eyes of the State only.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe it. Is the entire problem simply semantics? For the purposes of any posts I have made on this topic, "marriage" means a legal union between two people unless I explicitly state otherwise. It has nothing to do with what those people did in a church/temple/mosque/whatever. This began as a debate over the "Defense of Marriage Act" It is a US Government thing. It has nothing to do with the Church. Pope Benedict has no official say in what happens with it. It is about what you call civil unions. The Church can do as it pleases, I think this entire debate has been about the legal, state sanctioned marriages which have no relation to the ones performed by an ordained minister of the Catholic Church.

[QUOTE][SIZE=1]Yes but the major problem is that people's views never change, it's always going to be divisive until one side gets enough support to simply overwhelm the other. I've always found it strange that one something that is wrong from the point of view of the religious right gets into law, the debate on it dies immediately, as if to say "It's over, you lost". As I recall one of the southern states of the U.S. rebanned abortion a while back, although it escapes me at this moment which state it was.[/QUOTE][/size]
Debate may fail to change people's views, but a lack of debate doesn't even stand a chance of doing so.

It was South Dakota, which despite the name is actually in the north

[QUOTE]I didn't actually say that it was wrong to deny them that right, I said it would be as wrong to deny me my right to prevent the distortion of my religious beliefs and the institutions that are a part of those beliefs. There is a difference.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]


ahem

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1]Rather straight forward isn't it ? The very fact that today being religious seems to equate you immediately with intolerance of other people and their beliefs, despite the fact that they are equally intolerant of yours is something of an oddity isn't it ? However as I have said I oppose homosexual marriage on religious ground primarily because [b]I think it's wrong[/b'], it's funny that somehow my beliefs are automatically wrong because other people disagree with them.[/SIZE][/quote]


Again, you mean marriage in the religious sense, and I believe the rest of us have been talking about it in the legal and state-sanctioned sense. In the US, I believe marriage is the term which is used for what you refer to as civil unions

[Retribution]

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1]Which leads me to raise the example of Vatican City, a city which I have visited and [B]is[/B] a theocracy and [B]works[/B']. Is it a tyrant's nation ? No. Theocracies do not work when corrupt, immoral men take charge.[/SIZE][/quote]
[size=1]Oh, right, except for the small fact that the Catholic Church has indeed been relatively corrupt up until the last hundred years or so. The selling of indulgences, the Church owning property, the vast amounts of wealth, all of these scream of corruption. Sure, the Church has been pretty good as of late, but for the last thousand years or so, it's been a corrupt entity that commanded more than just religious authority throughout Europe. Theocracies are corrupt unless there is another body keeping them in check; in modern times, I would assume that globally concerned people are that body.

In any event, I'm a staunch liberal who doesn't care much for those on the right wing (Please note I speak only of their beliefs, not their self-worth). I wholeheartedly support all efforts for gay marriage/civil unions, and I hope it's only a matter of time before our nation moves past this 1950s conservative mindset.

PS: Very sorry for rehashing anyone's points. I [admittedly] only scanned the thread, however the first page was indeed scary for me. ;)[/size]

[Fasteriskhead]

Well, this discussion has gotten pointless rather fast. And by "pointless" I don't mean sillyor lacking in meaning, I mean we've lost sight of what we were supposed to be talking about. What is the purpose of a discussion of this kind? "Self-expression"? To "win," i.e. to show oneself off as the more wise and moral person and reveal all the flaws of the others? Nonsense. The purpose of discussion is to have what is discussed [i]reveal[/i] itself to us more fully. The question is where we're basically focusing our attention, on what is to be clarified or on something else.

Okay, cards on the table. Do we even know what we're talking about here? The topic is "Gay Marriage and President Bush," or specifically the current efforts of Bush supporting an amendment that would make gay marriage illegal and illegitimate. More widely, we're discussing an attempt to define an absolute boundary for what kind of marriage is acceptable. Now, there's been a lot of discussion in this thread about rights, about objections to others' lifestyles, about the role of government in personal choice, about "sins" (not Sin with a big S), especially about "beliefs," and I think there's even one or two posts that drop the L-word (errr... love, not lesbians). All of this is important. But have we even started on the question that all of this is really about, namely, [i]what is marriage?[/i]

Or maybe this is a pointless question to ask. After all, everyone already knows what marriage is, and we can point to the white dresses and bouquets to prove it. But then, why do we get confused when we try to define it? If we're at all honest, we can maybe get out "marriage is a union" before we have to stop. We might say that a marriage between a dog and a television isn't really a marriage - except that in a certain sense it [i]is[/i], it's just one that's gone wrong and is disallowed. So maybe the question is pointless not because everyone already knows what marriage is, but because everyone's own definition is "different" and we can't make sense of everyone else's "subjective" "beliefs." And now we've been relieved of the burden of asking or discussing anything as there's really no such thing as discussion, just overgrown monkeys shouting at each other (with some monkeys being more polite than others).

But maybe this isn't right (obviously, I hope it isn't). Maybe the reason why those on the religious right are so concerned with legally defining marriage is because they've understood better than most of us (although in a completely stupid way) that for the most part we've actually forgotten what marriage means. This ignorance on our part is not going to be helped by adding a new section to the highest document in U.S. law, nor even by some return to "traditional values." We have to go back to the source, i.e. the topic of our current discussion.

So finally we may have to ask: what is marriage? A joining-together between people in love? A social construct serving a useful function, to reproduce and create kinship ties? A religiously-sanctioned ceremony which justifies (i.e. makes righteous) an earthly couple? A "legal contract," as silver_blade says, between citizens and the state? None of these are really wrong, but we get nowhere by saying that they're all correct. If we're going to understand at any greater depth, we have to try and "catch" marriage in a more fundamental way. This can only begin to happen when we [i]pay attention[/i] to marriage. Which means: paying attention to how the word slips out of our mouths, what the ceremony means, how married couples and their friends/relatives think and behave, and maybe most importantly, the HISTORY of this word's appearance - Shakespeare didn't think marriage the same way we do, for instance. I'm maybe cheating a little by not saying anything beyond this, but this is enough to start with.

A sensible person will probably know immediately that this entire post is just pretentious longwinded "postmodern" crap. The real issues are about RIGHTS and PERSONAL BELIEFS and THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT, and have nothing to do with BS bad philosophy like "what marriage is" or whether or not we "pay attention" to it. We only waste time with that kind of thing... right?

[Sara]

[color=#b0000b][size=1]I think that in the United States, the word "marriage" is used for two different things, thus giving the impression that those two things are intrinsically linked. [i]They are not.[/i]

The word [i]marriage[/i] is used to describe a legal contract, recognised by the state.
The word [i]marriage[/i] is also used to describe a holy contract, recognised by the church.

We should not assume that because these two things use the same word, they are the same thing. They are similar, and they often overlap. However, they serve different functions.

Holy Matrimony is a state entered into by a couple, before God and with the blessing of their pastor. It deals with "loving, honoring, and cherishing," and entering into that state involves a church official and a church ceremony.

Legal matrimony is a state recognised the government. It deals with the legal status of a couple, and the rights and privileges they are entitled to. Entering into that state involves a government official, a marriage certificate, and a witness.

Whether or not any given church recognises, performs or allows same-sex holy marriage is a matter of that church.

Whether or not the government recognises, performs, or allows same-sex [i]legal[/i] marriage is a matter of civil rights.[/color][/size]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[QUOTE=The13thMan][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]So, i'm sure you've all heard that Bush is trying to get a new ammendment banning gay marriage. I'd just like to know what you guys think about the whole ordeal.

I've heard some people say that they believe that all the attention on gay marriage is just to distract people from issues like the war in Iraq or maybe the energy crisis we're currently in. What do you think?

Also i'd like to ask you guys what you think of President Bush. I think he comes off as a real moron when he's on tv, i can barely stand the way he talks. He's always got that ugly smile on his face and he keeps trying to crack lame jokes. My impression is that most of the world really dislikes Bush. [/COLOR] [/FONT][/QUOTE]Well it?s certainly nothing new. The last attempt to get this through to the next process of a final vote fell short in 2004 and it?s no surprise that two years later that it failed yet again. In only two years the supporters only managed to pick up one more vote. It still doesn?t guarantee that it will then pass the final vote. To me it?s a waste of time and an insult to the foundation of the USA, which is supposed to maintain a separation of church and state.

Although I am deeply religious and feel that such marriages are wrong, I cannot in good faith approve of a law that would attempt to enforce my morals or values on others or the morals of other religious beliefs either. People have the undeniable right to make their own choices and decisions. Especially when it concerns the right to believe or not believe as you see fit.

I cannot help but be reminded of how throughout history the so-called definition of marriage has changed to fit the current political situation or desires of the people. From the business arrangement where a woman was her husbands property until she gained the right to vote, to the blacks being denied the right all together by virtue of being slaves, to even when I was a child and interracial marriage was being disputed. Even as late as 2000 Alabama still had a ban on interracial marriage 33 years after Loving v Virginia made such discrimination unconstitutional coast-to-coast.

Personally I am very disappointed in Bush. The government has failed to alleviate gas prices. Turmoil in Iraq continues and approximately 70% of Americans are unhappy with Bush. I can?t help but see a historical response to these issues in the form of a witch-hunt for scapegoats on whom we can project our rage and impotence.

[The13thMan]

[QUOTE=PaganAngel][sarcasm]Thanks for, y'know, listing reasons and stuff. Really speaks strongly about how opened minded you are.[/sarcasm]

I think this is so ridiculous. Love is love, and the government has no right to interfere with that. If I'm not much mistaken, we are all "endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and [b]the pursuit of happiness[/b]." Ah, but I guess it's not the first time our country's been hypocritical about that. Slavery rings a bell.[/QUOTE]
[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]I don?t think that?s a plausible argument, stating the unalienable rights. What if killing people made somebody happy? So is it alright now? Of course not, there are laws against it because we believe killing is wrong. If we believe homosexuality is wrong, we should have a law against it. [/COLOR] [/FONT]

[quote name='PaganAngel']If it were up to me, I would leave it for the states to decide. There's absolutely no reason for Congress to step in because, simply put, gay marriage isn't hurting anyone. Bush is just diverting all the hate over Iraq and such somewhere else, trying a last-ditch effort to be a hero... but with 47% of Americans supporting gay marriage, don't you think he'd reconsider?[/quote]
[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]How do you know gay marriage isn?t hurting anyone? I guess it matters mostly on your religious beliefs. If gays go to hell, then yes indeed it is hurting people. Of course there?s no way to determine rather they actually go to hell or not. I personally don?t know whether they do or not. I?m just saying.
[/COLOR] [/FONT]

[QUOTE=Caine]On the judgement day, the Lord will judge us by what standards? How we treat the lesast of his people, or whether or not we are gay?
God tells us not to judge, so you condemn a group of people. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, an many more do not believe in the same religion you do. Will you condemn them for not following God's word as well? If you claim homosexuality is an affliction, the why do you crusade against it? Shouldn't you care for the ill?[/QUOTE]
[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]I think the first step in caring for the ?ill? in this case is raising awareness of the ?disease? to begin with, which is exactly what he?s doing. And, you ask sarcastically whether you think God will judge us based on our sexual preference or not, that?s ridiculous. There?s no way for you to know what God will say, and who?s to say both aren?t absolutely wrong and evil?

Ultimately there can only be one absolutely right religion. Others can come close, but not right on. Whether God decides to punish the people who are not of the right faith is something we won?t know until He tells us. [/COLOR] [/FONT]

[quote name='Prons']I also think most people hate Bush just because they love bandwagoning. Music, mvoies, pretty much the entire media is saying "Oh that Bush is a moron hick" and the masses say "Yeah? YEAH! That Bush is so stupid!" I don't really care about politics, but I think anti-bush is just a big bandwagon.[/quote]
[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]It might be a bandwagon, but it?s not like it started from nothing. If you?ve ever seen Bush deliver a speech then it should be very easy to see why everybody is on the bandwagon. I myself am on it because of what I saw, not because I?m conforming to the masses. Now, I do think there are people that are jumping on the ?bandwagon? just because everybody else is, but who the hell cares about those ignorant losers? I sure don?t. And I seriously doubt any of those people would post on THIS site. [/COLOR] [/FONT]

[QUOTE=Cygnus X-1][COLOR=Sienna]It's not even a matter of being homophobic or not, it's a matter of equality and tolerance. Those two words are tossed around a lot these days, and a lot of the time they're not used properly, but basically we could use both of those right now. Even if you don't like gay people, why should they have less rights than you? It's illogical. It's exactly what happened with Women and what happened with Blacks. Havn't we learned yet that everyone deserves equal rights?

I know a lot of Christians don't like gays by default - but who gave you the right to decide what other people should believe, or how they should act, or what they should be allowed to do? Everyone should have equal rights, no matter what you think of them individually.kthnxbi.)[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]We should all start out with equal rights until we do something wrong, like killing people. The argument is whether we believe homosexuality is alright or not. Oh, and by the way, I?m not comparing murder to homosexuality; I?m simply stating it as an example. [/COLOR] [/FONT]

[quote name='DeathKnight][color=crimson]Again, you're [i]almost[/i'] understanding but not quite. Black people and homosexuals were/are both persecuted for matters that are pretty much irrelevant- skin color for one and sexual preference for the other.[/color][/quote]
[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange] Skin color is irrelevant, yes, but sexual preference is nothing like skin color. Sexual preference does matter, I believe. The way I see it, if god was alright with homosexuality there would only be one sex. Why make two sexes if one sex is all we need? Ah, but there is no way to tell what God?s thinking, we can only speculate. [/COLOR] [/FONT]

[quote name='Amelia][FONT=Arial']It's amazing how hypocritical the whole US system is. People may be free to practice their own religion, or write what they want without fearing execution for their beliefs. The church and state are separate, yet we can't give people their basic rights because of their sexual preference. Crap like this is everywhere, and everyone is subject to it. After the Christians and other people have been banned from saying "Merry Christmas" to people in schools and workplaces, the ultra religious try for a law against gay marriage. I personally don't have any problem with homosexuality anymore...rather, I don't think I ever did. It doesn't make sense how we can be so blind to things like racism and homophobia, which are so constant in society. The government is supposed to grant basic rights to every citizen. So, why doesn't it?[/FONT][/quote]

[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]I totally agree.


Ok, I got to the third page of all the posts and was just like: ?poop?? I really didn?t feel like reading and commenting anymore, so I?ll just end my post now with my last thoughts.

There is no absolute way to determine whether homosexuality is alright or not. That is why there is such a big argument over it all. That is why I can?t stand on one side of the fence with a 100% of my self. I can see how religious people disapprove of homosexuality and can agree with it, but I can also see how other people are fine with it. The thing is, marriage is just marriage, no big deal nowadays. I think it should be fine for homosexuals to get married, and I think the government should have no say in the matter. But whether I believe homosexuality is alright or not is not determined by my stance in the matter of gay marriage and neither is it up for debate in this topic. ^L^

Later. [/COLOR] [/FONT]

[Albert Flasher]

[QUOTE=The13thMan][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]

There is no absolute way to determine whether homosexuality is alright or not. That is why there is such a big argument over it all. That is why I can?t stand on one side of the fence with a 100% of my self. I can see how religious people disapprove of homosexuality and can agree with it, but I can also see how other people are fine with it. The thing is, marriage is just marriage, no big deal nowadays. I think it should be fine for homosexuals to get married, and I think the government should have no say in the matter. But whether I believe homosexuality is alright or not is not determined by my stance in the matter of gay marriage and neither is it up for debate in this topic. ^L^

Later. [/COLOR] [/FONT][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=Sienna]
I fail to see the logic behind your arguement againts gay marriage. Murder is wrong because, well, murder involves KILLING PEOPLE. Ending lives! It's not even comprable. Homosexuality is the result of various changes in the balance of horomones (Just like everything else these days) that happens at birth. Why shouldn't they recieve the benifts that heterosexual cuples get? There simply is no reason - ****, you don't even have to call it marriage if you feel like, just give them the same benifits of a union. Make up a new name and a new procedure if your of that mind, but there is no reason to deny homosexual couples the benifts that heterosexual couples receive.

And now, I shall finish on a qoute from a Van Halen song, Why Can't This be Love

[CENTER]
[B]
Its got what it takes
So tell me why cant this be love
Straight from my heart oh tell me why
Cant this be love[/B][/CENTER][/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[quote name='The13thMan][FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]There is no absolute way to determine whether homosexuality is alright or not. That is why there is such a big argument over it all. That is why I can?t stand on one side of the fence with a 100% of my self. I can see how religious people disapprove of homosexuality and can agree with it, but I can also see how other people are fine with it. The thing is, marriage is just marriage, no big deal nowadays. I think it should be fine for homosexuals to get married, and I think the government should have no say in the matter. But whether I believe homosexuality is alright or not is not determined by my stance in the matter of gay marriage and neither is it up for debate in this topic. ^L^[/COLOR'][/FONT][/quote]
[size=1]The only choice that matters as far as it being 'absolute' is yours, and I believe that it is possible for one to believe it an absolute truth that homosexuality is wrong/right. 'Absolute,' in this context, is a completely internal thing. For me, it is an absolute truth that homosexuals are equal to me and deserve equal rights. For me, we are both entitled to human dignity, and the denying of civil unions for homosexuals is denying them of their dignity as humans.

I also think you nailed it perfectly on the head in the second half of your paragraph. What is important is not what you believe personally, but what you believe the law governing everyone should be. I, for instance, may be opposed to the idea of two men being partnered, but if I can push aside my personal views and realize that it is only my religion standing between me and acceptance, I can be pro-gay marriage. If that made any sense whatsoever.

In retrospect, this was a long-winded, roundabout, and relatively pointless post. Very sorry.[/size]

[The13thMan]

[QUOTE=Cygnus X-1][COLOR=Sienna]
I fail to see the logic behind your arguement againts gay marriage. Murder is wrong because, well, murder involves KILLING PEOPLE. Ending lives! It's not even comprable. Homosexuality is the result of various changes in the balance of horomones (Just like everything else these days) that happens at birth. Why shouldn't they recieve the benifts that heterosexual cuples get? There simply is no reason - ****, you don't even have to call it marriage if you feel like, just give them the same benifits of a union. Make up a new name and a new procedure if your of that mind, but there is no reason to deny homosexual couples the benifts that heterosexual couples receive.

And now, I shall finish on a qoute from a Van Halen song, Why Can't This be Love

[CENTER]
[B]
Its got what it takes
So tell me why cant this be love
Straight from my heart oh tell me why
Cant this be love[/B][/CENTER][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]I said i do believe they should be given the rights as everyone else. What i didn't say is that homosexuality is alright.

Pretty much my point was that things are made into laws because we, as a people, believe that it is wrong. If we believe homosexuality is wrong, then there should be laws placed against it.

I personally don't like your tone, mister. All those capital letters and exclamation points, veeeery threatening. YOU BETTER WISEN UP MISTER!!! See, see how that felt?? Didn't like it didya? Ooooo, and i see some asterisks too, i wonder wonder what you said. Four letters....was it buck? Duck? Muck?? I'm at a loss...You completely misunderstood what i said. I even said that i wasn't comparing murder to homosexuality. Did you even read my entire post? Or were you too enraged to even get that far?


[/COLOR] [/FONT]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']The only choice that matters as far as it being 'absolute' is yours, and I believe that it is possible for one to believe it an absolute truth that homosexuality is wrong/right. 'Absolute,' in this context, is a completely internal thing. For me, it is an absolute truth that homosexuals are equal to me and deserve equal rights. For me, we are both entitled to human dignity, and the denying of civil unions for homosexuals is denying them of their dignity as humans.[/size][/quote]
[FONT=Century Gothic] [COLOR=DarkOrange]When i say absolute i mean it through the eyes of god, basically. In some cases there are absolute rights and wrongs, i just thought it was a shame that there's no way to tell unless God himself came from heaven and told us. I wasn't talking about absolute in the internal sense, not at all.

I'm for gay marriage, it's just that i still appose homosexuality.

Later.
[/COLOR] [/FONT]

[Sandy]

[QUOTE=Cygnus X-1][COLOR=Sienna]
Why shouldn't they recieve the benifts that heterosexual cuples get? There simply is no reason - ****, you don't even have to call it marriage if you feel like, just give them the same benifits of a union. Make up a new name and a new procedure if your of that mind, but there is no reason to deny homosexual couples the benifts that heterosexual couples receive.
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

This debate has made a few quite interesting turns, but let me freshen the conversation up with an example:

In my remote country of Finland, the rights of the homosexuals have advanced to the point of us being allowed to enter a "registered relationship". Registered couples have [I]most[/I] of the legal rights of married couples, except the right to adopt and the right to automatically take the partner's last name.

Also, the majority of the Evangelic-Lutheran Church of our country is against blessing registered relationships in a church, but as an atheist, I'm not least bit bothered by that.

Now tell me, exactly how does this type of registered relationship actually hurt anybody? It's not a religious marriage, although it shows that the parliament and legislation is accepting gay people as a part of the community.

Please, people, we are not criminals, we are not psychically ill, we don't carry an infectious desease! We are just being ourselves! Why deny our rights as humans?

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]Now some of you already know my stance about homosexual acts. They are wrong and they are forbidden by God, and technically speaking, from a non-religious point of view, homosexuality is unnatural, and therefore should not be promoted and encouraged.

Gay marriage encourages homosexuality. It condones it, and gives the message that it is okay when clearly it is not. Now, I'm not going to sit here talking about the "moral reasons" why its wrong, just the technical ones. The first technical reasons is because males and females are designed to mate with the other gender.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[size=1]Now, I'm not going to bother rebutting the rest of your post, but this part got me. :p

You talk about homosexuality as if it were something that could possibly be discouraged through the forbidding of civil unions. You can't 'convert' a gay person, and any measures taken to do so would end in futility. Allowing civil unions wouldn't be promoting or [B]en[/B]couraging people to become homosexual, nor would denying gays the right to a civil union [B]dis[/B]courage them from being gay.

Sure, you can pull out the "It ain't normal!" card, but [i]who cares[/i] if it's not normal? I thought that we had transcended the 1800s style of thinking where if it's unnatural, it must be wrong. So two men aren't [i]supposed to[/i] live together because they can't reproduce. As previously mentioned, there are plenty of sterile, straight couples, and no one has a problem with them. And couldn't you say that humans flying around or making tons of steel float on water is unnatural? It's just such a subjective term, and it's a pretty flimsy defense to hide behind.[/size]