Bush supports constitutional amendmen to ban same sex marriage

[CptStern]

Bush supports constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage

President Bush rallied support Monday for a ban on gay marriage as the Senate opened a volatile, election-year debate on a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex weddings.

"Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure," said Bush, who raised the issue's profile with an event at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

Bush criticized judges who have overturned state laws similar in intent to the proposed legislation. "Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges," he said.

Traditional marriage, Bush said, is the cornerstone of a healthy society and the issue should be put "back where it belongs: in the hands of the American people."

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060606/NEWS01/606060332/1006

I dont think matters of human rights should be decided by the people. Should this ban push through I dont think even the staunchest patriots can claim the US as the country with the most freedom

 

[Sulkdodds]

"Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges."

lol?

Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to understand that democracy is invalid unless it extends the same universal rights to all people. Thus, a public referendum on whether gays should be able to marry is, if straights can marry too, fundamentally contradictory. :O

EDIT: Jesus, did I take a shot of f*ckin sesquipedazine this morning or something?

 

[The Monkey]

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060606/NEWS01/606060332/1006

I dont think matters of human rights should be decided by the people. Should this ban push through I dont think even the staunchest patriots can claim the US as the country with the most freedom

They will always believe that, I'm afraid. Even the so-called lefties.

 

[gick]

Ignorant assholes FTL

 

[DeusExMachina]

I read this at BBC a couple days ago. Horrible.

 

[Ikerous]

He's ****ing retarded...

How exactly is marriage not a state issue anyways?

 

[Raeven0]

They've gotta do something to rally their dwindling supporters just in time for November.

 

[theotherguy]

Exactley. Bush sees gay marraige as his only way out. He's sort of wagging the dog by taking attention off of his poor performance about the war and economy and other things and making his base focus on gay marraige and immigration for the upcoming election so that maybe they will vote more republicans into office.

this is prescisely what bush did a few weeks before 2004 election, he began trying to make gay marraige a serious issue in the mind of his conservative christian base. Republicans in Ohio even put an option for banning gay marraige on their presidential ballot just to get all of the conservetive christians to vote. Last election was the first election EVER where even the amish voted, and they said they voted purely on the basis of gay marraige.

 

[falconwind]

i state my view on this subject FAR too often... equality states that gay people should be allowed all the same rights and priviledges given to straight people, just as how all black people were given all the same rights and priviledges as white people. Thus marriage, should be open to both gay and straight couples.

This, of course, assumes that you care about equality or even think that gays and lesbians should be treated as equals under the law. I know that many anti-gay marriage supporters think gays should be treated a second-class citizens for living a 'deviant lifestyle' and should be fought against, rather than be accepted.

 

[Captain M4d]

"Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges."

I guess he hasn't seen the divorce rates.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization."

More so than democracy, apparently.

More so than science.

More so than freedom.

 

[Raeven0]

"Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization."

More so than democracy, apparently.

More so than science.

More so than freedom.

We may be backward-ass rednecks dying in droves of polio and smallpox and ruled by a cutthroat military dictatorship, BUT AT LEAST GUYS CAN ONLY MARRY GIRLS

GOD HATES FAGS OLOL

 

[gh0st]

what? bush wants to preserve marriage instead of redefining it to a minority lifestyle? im in love with a dog, why cant i marry it?

also, since when is marriage a "human right". it is a religious institution. civil unions are government functions. the homosexual movement only wants the word "marriage" to spite the religous.

I dont think matters of human rights should be decided by the people. Should this ban push through I dont think even the staunchest patriots can claim the US as the country with the most freedom

this is disturbing, what you say here. you completely undermine the democratic process. matters of human rights should NOT be decided by the people? if a civilization determines that one thing is right, or the other is wrong, then certainly the outcome of their thought should then be translated into law...

or perhaps you'd leave those difficult words and legal wrangling to JUDGES. those scary men in black robes who can tell us how to lead our lives.

or maybe you'd leave those tough issues of morality and the overarching pretexts of the word "freedom" to a big international organisation.

if the people dont decide what is right or wrong, who does?

 

[CptStern]

what? bush wants to preserve marriage instead of redefining it to a minority lifestyle? im in love with a dog, why cant i marry it?

not consentual but it's nice of you to compare bestiality and rape to a homosexual lifestyle

also, since when is marriage a "human right".

because it is part of the broader universal right:

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

it is a religious institution. civil unions are government functions. the homosexual movement only wants the word "marriage" to spite the religous.

no, most couldnt care less what they think ..it's about equality ..."separate but equal" wasnt ok back then, why is ok now?

this is disturbing, what you say here. you completely undermine the democratic process. matters of human rights should NOT be decided by the people? if a civilization determines that one thing is right, or the other is wrong, then certainly the outcome of their thought should then be translated into law...

so slavery should never have been abolished? how about segregation ..was that ok?

or perhaps you'd leave those difficult words and legal wrangling to JUDGES. those scary men in black robes who can tell us how to lead our lives.

you'd rather have joe-six-pack deciding yours? at least the judge understands legal precedent, human rights etc ..joe-six-pack is too busy shopping for a new pick up ..he doesnt have time away from his busy schedule to ponder life's greatest mysteries

or maybe you'd leave those tough issues of morality and the overarching pretexts of the word "freedom" to a big international organisation.

you mean like Haliburton, Bechtel, DynCorp, etc?

if the people dont decide what is right or wrong, who does?

you really think the people are qualified to decide?

 

[gh0st]

not consentual but it's nice of you to compare bestiality and rape to a homosexual lifestyle

both are fundamentally "incorrect" in that both sex with a dog, and with a similar gender are anatomically incompatible. i dont know where you got rape from, but proving or disproving the genuine love and affection for an animal and a man is something many people could argue.

who ever said i was going to have sex with the dog? marriage and sex are completely different.

because it is part of the broader universal right:

marriage is not a right. it is a priviledge afforded by our government. its the same principle as getting a drivers license.

no, most couldnt care less what they think ..it's about equality ..."separate but equal" wasnt ok back then, why is ok now?

of course. now you are putting words in my mouth. i never said or implied that "separate but equal" was ok. things cannot ever be equal, because to do so would doom society. we would have the blind driving cars, we would have people with no legs on skateboards. we would have people marrying dogs. it simply makes no sense.

do you think things can ever be completely equal?

so slavery should never have been abolished? how about segregation ..was that ok?

i never said any of those things. you are bringing my argument to its absolute extreme, and its false.

the difference between gay marriage and segregation, is that blacks at the time were denied essential rights of liberty and health. the gay movement is being denied one priviledge. one which they do not meet the requirements for, meet them any more than a blind person and an automobile.

also, it was the majority who ended segregation, and the majority who ended slavery. so perhaps youre statement about how the people should not decide human rights was false.

you'd rather have joe-six-pack deciding yours? at least the judge understands legal precedent, human rights etc ..joe-six-pack is too busy shopping for a new pick up ..he doesnt have time away from his busy schedule to ponder life's greatest mysteries

thats a nice stereotype of an american citizen. real classy. id rather have the average american dictate my policy than a judge who does not feel or experience what the common american does. i think the average american would.

you mean like Haliburton, Bechtel, DynCorp, etc?

if these corporations have the political clout to affect change in our government then more power to them.

you really think the people are qualified to decide?

the peoples qualifications are irrelevant. it is still up to them to decide law.

 

[Steel.Inferno]

Oh, is this bit of news that is causing the swarm of homosexuality topics?

Yay for encouraging deprivation of human rights in the land of the "free!"

And I have to go with Stern, "the people" are not fit to decide a damn thing. Too bad it's the only way or everyone screams oppression and tyranny, and good old monarchies get overthrown.

 

[gh0st]

wow what is with these people saying the people arent fit to decide anything? do you guys live in iran or something? i dont understand why you are so submissive, or why you want a judge to decide for you how to live your life.

its like me trying to use the courts to ban gay marriage. you guys would cry foul at my abuse of our judicial system. its all about the issues with you guys and never about the overarching problem of government: getting good policy passed in the ways our founding fathers meant for them to be.

 

[Yuri]

He's ****ing retarded...

How exactly is marriage not a state issue anyways?

Federal taxes and tax breaks for married couples.

Hoorah for our prejudice president!

 

[99.vikram]

Words do not describe what I'd like to you right now, gh0st :flame:

Hint: It involves the words "spleen" and "defecate".

Equality cannot be compromised, even at the cost of the majority.

For example, in India there are reservations for certain castes and tribes that were considered "inferior" in the past. The majority hates these reservations, but without them those communities could not compete on an equal footing.

 

[gh0st]

Words do not describe what I'd like to you right now, gh0st :flame:

Hint: It involves the words "spleen" and "defecate".

Equality cannot be compromised, even at the cost of the majority.

For example, in India there are reservations for certain castes and tribes that were considered "inferior" in the past. The majority hates these reservations, but without them those communities could not compete on an equal footing.

im scared.

i dont know your nations wonderful social structure works, so i cant comment. moreover you never actually made a point that relates to the topic so i couldnt respond properly, even if i tried.

homosexuals dont live on reservations. im not a fan of the reservation system here in america. homosexuals are not considered second class citizens or lesser beings in america. so... whats your point? i know its difficult but lets try REALLY hard to articulate ourselves properly.

 

[sinkoman]

Please, please, tell me what is right. I can't decide what is and what isn't!

That's what i'm basically seeing.

 

[99.vikram]

THIS is my point :-

Equality cannot be compromised, even at the cost of the majority.

 

[gh0st]

THIS is my point :-

thats for completely ignoring my previous posts.

the world is NOT equal. it is not fair. case in point: in our country, women are not allowed to serve on the front lines in battle. its not to exclude or deny the priviledge of defending ones country. its not to prejudice against them.

the blind arent allowed to drive. men arent allowed to have multiple wives, people arent allowed to have sex with a monkey.

the right to vote can be taken away for a crime. the drinking age is 21. we have these systems in place for safety/moral/ethical reasons that society has determined.

"equality" and "fairness" translate directly into communism. that economic system was proven to perform pretty poorly in application.

 

[Yuri]

Ugh, why are you back, gh0st? You do nothing but contribute to the general shittiness of the discussions here...

How many bitching whiny PM's and IM's to Munro did it take you, exactly?

 

[gh0st]

Ugh, why are you back, gh0st? You do nothing but contribute to the general shittiness of the discussions here...

ill wait until you answer my assertions in previous posts. but if struggling valiantly to insult me is what gets you off, go right ahead.

oh yeah.. and i was banned for a month. i never pmed munro or have even spoke to him. i never will. i came back of my own accord. its been several months since i was banned.

 

[Ludah]

Because God knows that same-sex marriage would cause families across the 'States to implode.

I just can't help but remember the last time the term "activist judges" was thrown about.

 

[Yuri]

ill wait until you answer my assertions in previous posts. but if struggling valiantly to insult me is what gets you off, go right ahead.

oh yeah.. and i was banned for a month. i never pmed munro or have even spoke to him. i never will. i came back of my own accord. its been several months since i was banned.

Could've sworn it was permenant

Ah well, I'll just wait patiently for that golden moment.

 

[sinkoman]

thats for completely ignoring my previous posts.

the world is NOT equal. it is not fair. case in point: in our country, women are not allowed to serve on the front lines in battle. its not to exclude or deny the priviledge of defending ones country. its not to prejudice against them.

the blind arent allowed to drive. men arent allowed to have multiple wives, people arent allowed to have sex with a monkey.

the right to vote can be taken away for a crime. the drinking age is 21. we have these systems in place for safety/moral/ethical reasons that society has determined.

"equality" and "fairness" translate directly into communism. that economic system was proven to perform pretty poorly in application.

You're an idiot.

There are no laws against women to war.

No laws against blind drivers.

Your arguments are pretty much null.

Not to mention unfairness comes about from conflicting interest.

Man wants to ream a monkey, and ****s it up the ass.
Monkey doesn't like man-buttsecks.

Law is passed to stop the action from happening.

Man wants to have sex with a women. He slams her while she's duct taped to a lightpost.
Women doesn't want to have sex.

Conflict of interest, law is passed.

NOW, a man wants to marry a man. So he does it.
The other man, also wants to marry a man.

No conflict of interests, no reason to ban the action.

Idiot.

 

[gh0st]

are you being serious? if you are ill respond i dont want to waste my precious life.

 

[sinkoman]

are you being serious? if you are ill respond i dont want to waste my precious life.

Are you being serious?

'Cause your post is a gargled slur.

 

[gh0st]

NOW, a man wants to marry a man. So he does it.
The other man, also wants to marry a man.

just because 2 people agree to do something to each other doesnt make it right or legal. if i want to kill you and you want to be killed its still murder.

the argument goes beyond 2 people and whatever arrangements they want to make with themselves.

your extremely simplistic view of the issue isnt doing anyone good so why even have it?

 

[sinkoman]

just because 2 people agree to do something to each other doesnt make it right or legal. if i want to kill you and you want to be killed its still murder.

But there is discussion of passing laws that would allow such acts.

While we're on the same peice of "evidence", what of pulling a person from life support?

 

[gh0st]

But there is discussion of passing laws that would allow such acts.

While we're on the same peice of "evidence", what of pulling a person from life support?

ideally you would follow the persons will. a lot of people (at least after schaivo) have changed their will to encompass that possibility. after that, it should be up to their immediate family in my opinion.. government should stay out of it entirely. love interests should stay out of it entirely. i think that entire debate is a stupid one.

 

[sinkoman]

ideally you would follow the persons will. a lot of people (at least after schaivo) have changed their will to encompass that possibility. after that, it should be up to their immediate family in my opinion.. government should stay out of it entirely. love interests should stay out of it entirely. i think that entire debate is a stupid one.

What the hell are you talking about?

I mean litteraly. You're rambling about god knows what.

You just said

It's their decision. It's the families decision. Government shouldn't say stuff about personal life. Love has nothing to do with it. I think that what I was just arguing about was stupid.

Seriously. You just agreed with me, disagreed with me, agreed with stern, and then dropped an argument that you brought up.

I'm starting to wonder if you're drunk.

If you were trying to say that the whole "life support" argument is a stupid one, then you're basically brushing the problem under the rug and hoping it wont grab your leg on the way to the coffee table.

Get away from my supporting evidence and start attacking my arguments. You're derailing the whole ****ing thread.

 

[Raeven0]

...Wasn't gh0st the one who explicitly stated that he doesn't really give a damn about anything said in here and only posts to cause trouble?

Well, I still hate homophobes, whether they give a damn or not. :imu:

I don't think he's even made a point in this thread ("I hate gay people" does not count as a point). Maybe he doesn't have one to make. :imu:

 

[Manhack #5678]

rights?

I see a pattern here, theres quite a few posts that are saying "gays deserve the same rights as straight people". Truthfully, they have exactly the same rights. If this should pass, then a straight man couldnt marry a man, just like a gay person couldnt, and visa versa. So the whole thing of saying they need equal rights isnt so much of an argument, because they have them, just want extra rights.

 

[CptStern]

I see a pattern here, theres quite a few posts that are saying "gays deserve the same rights as straight people". Truthfully, they have exactly the same rights. If this should pass, then a straight man couldnt marry a man, just like a gay person couldnt, and visa versa.

wtf are you talking about? are you saying they have to prove they're gay beforehand? how do they do that?

So the whole thing of saying they need equal rights isnt so much of an argument, because they have them, just want extra rights.

wow that's some really screwed up logic you're using there ...becoming equal (as in having the same rights as married couples) means they're somehow getting extra rights?


I really believe this issue should not be debated by people who have nothing more than personal conviction to back up their statements ....if anything you're just showing the rest of us how truely ignorant some of you are

live by these words:

"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" - sometimes attributed to Mark Twain

 

[99.vikram]

This was debated extensively in the Homosexuality and Censorship thread. And yet people post that being gay is "just wrong". >_<

 

[VictimOfScience]

Fecking BS that is nothing more than a political move. The senate just bloked it BTW. Story.

 

[99.vikram]

Fecking BS that is nothing more than a political move. The senate just bloked it BTW. Story.

There is still justice on Earth!! :ecstatic: