Bush and the banning of "gay" marriages.

[grousefanatic]

[s]Sleigh wrote on 02:01, 25th Feb 2004:
[s]grousefanatic wrote on 00:51, 25th Feb 2004:[i]
I can say that I know some straight men that can reel off a list of their conquests too. I just don't see that as a reason. Not that I'm against gay marriage you understand - go for it. Interesting how everyone seems keen to point this out in this thread isn't it?And watch Will and Grace? Dear God no. It's just not funny.


Not to be getting at you Sleigh, but we were just saying that it is more stereotypical for gay men to be able to list their many many conquests, as with the lack of official civil union or whatever, it is somehow deemed more acceptable to sleep around though I also know quite a few straight men who do too (I even saw an episode of Trisha where three guys boasted about bedding 100 girls each in one year - shocking). As for Will & Grace, I supposde it depends on your sense of humour but I do find it funny, very funny; I even think I'm becoming more like Will everyday, though from my point of view, that's not bad thing

[Josie]

I agree that it should remain between a man and a women, but that is just for religious reasons. And if you think about it marriage was created by the church not the government. No government would have came up with something that would limit the amount of taxes they can collect each year. I am for people having equal rights though. The only reason i draw the line at marriage is because if gay people are allowed to get married then they are allowed to adopt children. I think as a sociaty we expose children to too much already. I am American by the way. I think the best way to go about it is see what the people of the U.S. want. Not just what the president wants. It should be an issue that is left for the people to decide...too many people feel too strongly on this issue. Whether or not i agree with it, if it is what the people want then i will be happy with the decision. But it has been proven that 70% of Americans are against gay marriage.

[Bush 2004 Voter]

For the record U.S.Sen. John Kerry (Democrat-Massachusetts) is also opposed to homosexual marriage.

President Bush's actual view, according to spokesman Scott McClellan, is that President Bush looked favorably on granting hospital visitation rights, insurance benefits and even civil unions, but that individual American states would not be required to recognize civil unions from other states.

Source: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040224/323/emtuh.html

Vice President Cheney has one daughter that is openly a Lesbian, and it is my understanding that he also supports civil unions in principle also.

Despite rather misleading reports on Channel 4 News, President Bush cannot change the Constitution. He can ask Congress to do so, but has no role in the process. It takes a 2/3 majority vote in both the House of Representative and the Senate (both elected) to begin the process. Then 3/4 of the American 50 state governments must approve the ammendment. This is a little different than the Prime Minister changing the unwritten British constitution because he thinks it is a good idea.

Having just looked up Scotland's marriage law for a friend who is getting married this spring, Scottish law also prohibits marriage between same sex couples. Perhaps concern closer to home would be in order?

Finally, as a US Citizen and a Republican I can say I just received my postal ballot yesterday and cast my vote for President Bush in my state primary election. Unlike here, I didn't have to pay to join the party and I also was consulted on candidates from President right down to state assembly members, local Clerk of Courts, Recorder, County Treasurer, Officers of the Court, and Medical Examiner. Again, perhaps introducing a little more democracy into British public life should be on the agenda.

[Eliza]

Bush definitely believes what he's saying is right, as disgustingly discriminatory and self-righteous as it is (not that this sort of thing is at all surprising, coming from President Bush). He's alienating a small minority (gay republicans -- yes, there is such a thing) while playing to the religious right, which is a much larger minority. At the same time, though -- separate but equal has been overruled long ago in American courts, so separate and unequal really doesn't stand a chance. Besides that -- getting amendments made to the constitution takes a hell of a lot more than Bush has -- a 2/3 majority in the Senate? Not gonna happen, not with the Senate as it is right now -- and ratification by, what, 2/3 of the States? As disgusted as I am by the fact that there's even a debate as to whether homosexual unions hurt the "sacred institution" of marriage, I really don't see a ban on gay marriage ever actually getting into the constitution.

But, like I said -- the fact that this is even a topic for debate makes me a little ashamed to be American. How a union between two people who love each other, especially people who have been faithful to each other for decades without the formality of marriage (like these women here: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object.cgi?ob ... allerypage) can be detrimental and yet Britney Spears's 55 hour marriage isn't a mockery of the institution is beyond me. Especially since homosexual unions have an infinitely lower divorce rate.

So, yeah. End rant.

[tintin]

"perhaps introducing a little more democracy into British public life should be on the agenda."

So George Bush is the legal and above-board President of America, then?

We are more democratic in our public life than you. America is well-known for its internal repression under a facade of "freedom".

[Donald Renouf]

I agree with Bush on this.

[Donald Renouf]

The original subject, I mean, not what "tintin" just wrote. Just to clarify.

[Wong]

Why?

[hr]You would not feel sadness if you never tasted joy
That's the curse of humans - born in passion, you destroy

[Donald Renouf]

A civil partnership is just two people who live together, or whatever, and what they do together in private is their own business. A marriage, however, is a publicly recognised sexual relationship. And although to do so is terribly unpopular nowadays, I still believe that sex between two people of the same gender is inherently wrong, and should not be officially sanctioned by the state, or any other public body.

[Setsuna]

Sex is overrated. Marriage should be about love. I'd much rather marry a good friend than a good shag.

Until then tho...

[EviLTwiN]

its scary to think we live in a so called civilised country and still get posts like these. In 50 years time you'll be looked apon in the way we look apon those who wouldn't sit at the same end of the bus as black people.


THE main factors here are:

1) marriage isnt a religious invention. it is practised in (almost) all cultures, of all religions, and its earliest roots had nothing to do with the church. Religious people somehow think it is theirs, but it isnt. Thats just the result of days gone by when the church ruled the country. Thank god those days are past.

2) why should gay people call it a civil union? by the definition of marriage it is a marriage. Marriage has been intertwined with religion for a long time, but it isn't dependant on religion. Its offensive that religious people say gays should call it a civil union.
If you're so bigoted that you dont want to see your "hijacked" version of religious marriage tainted by gays, then you can bloody well make up a new name for religious marriages.


How about:
MARRIAGE: for anyone who wants it.
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS UNION OF BIGOTS: for people who don't like gays or have an offensive and ignorant concept of what marriage actuallly is and where it came from.

I bet you dont like that now do you. So stop being offensive and prejudiced and doing it to other people.


And finally many married people dont ever have sex for other reasons. They are still married. You can keep on creating our own definitions of marriage so as to hijack it for your religion, but its complete crap.

[hr]IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwintrooper.jpg IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwinsaint.gif IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwinold.gif

http://www.the-leaving.com

[neutrino]

[s]Donald Renouf wrote on 11:23, 25th Feb 2004:
A civil partnership is just two people who live together, or whatever, and what they do together in private is their own business. A marriage, however, is a publicly recognised sexual relationship. And although to do so is terribly unpopular nowadays, I still believe that sex between two people of the same gender is inherently wrong, and should not be officially sanctioned by the state, or any other public body.



So, because of your own moral beliefs- which can only be backed with arguments from religion, by the way, because every other argument against homosexuality fails- you want to deny people a basic right- equality.

I think 'gay marriage' should be allowed, and as soon as possible. I've seen no decent argument as to why it shouldn't be.

[Greebo]

[s]Unregisted User Josie wrote on 23:55, 24th Feb 2004:
I agree that it should remain between a man and a woman...

I am for people having equal rights though.

Slight contradiction going on there.


And if you think about it marriage was created by the church not the government. The only reason i draw the line at marriage is because if gay people are allowed to get married then they are allowed to adopt children. I think as a sociaty we expose children to too much already. I am American by the way. I think the best way to go about it is see what the people of the U.S. want. Not just what the president wants. It should be an issue that is left for the people to decide...too many people feel too strongly on this issue. Whether or not i agree with it, if it is what the people want then i will be happy with the decision. But it has been proven that 70% of Americans are against gay marriage.


Majority rules has always been one of the worst possible ways of creating laws and suchlikes - if the statistic (which is questionable, by the way, http://www.npr.org/news/specials/polls/ ... /dec03.pdf says 56% against, others say similar, but I digress) said "70% of Americans are against interracial marriage.", people would be up in arms.

If you think marriage was the creation of the church then you are sadly mistaken I'm afraid:
http://www.wlu.ca/~wwwpress/jrls/sr/iss ... fai.r.html
"People of the early Church brought their own pre-Christian laws and customs on marriage into the Church."

Not to mention the many tribes, who are/were untouched by christian missionaries etc, who had marriage ceremonies before contact with the so called modern world e.g. the !Kung people of the Kalahari Desert:
http://kyky.essortment.com/kungsanpeople_rftw.htm
"eligible for marriage" ; "the husband and wife"

Exposing children to too much already? So you mean 'exposing' them to people who are gay is a bad thing? That's insane! Are you trying to deny gay people exist or something? Given that the majority of children in need of adoption remain unadopted, surely it would be better to give those kids the chance to have a family.
http://archive.aclu.org/issues/gay/parent.html
"Recognizing that lesbians and gay men can be good parents, the vast majority of states no longer deny custody or visitation to a person based on sexual orientation...Under this approach, a person's sexual orientation cannot be the basis for ending or limiting parent-child relationships unless it is demonstrated that it causes harm to a child -- a claim that has been routinely disproved by social science research."

[hr]
http://www.greebo.org.uk - Loadsa drunken photos and suchlikes.

[Shackleton]

[s]Pilmour Boy wrote on 17:15, 24th Feb 2004:
As I'm sure most of you have heard, today Bush announced that he will back a constitutional amendment limiting the definition of "marriage" to being between a man and a woman.

Here is the speech, as reported on both sides of the pond.

The BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3518117.stm
Sky News:
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,3 ... 88,00.html

CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/ ... index.html
Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112314,00.html

I was talking to an American friend of mine last week, and she told me that she expected this to be a big thing in the run up to the election in November. The thing to remember with this is that not only is Bush acting on instinct here, he is also being electorally canny, with a policy that will attract a non-core Republican group- black Christians.


I'm not sure how much this will help him. Bush voted against affirmative action, another key issue to African American voters. Plus, several hundred African Americans protested during MLK day when Bush visited MLK's grave.

[EviLTwiN]

i would say that exposing a kid to people who think gay marriage is a bad idea, is bad for the kid...

[Saki]

Bush and anyone else who spouts this "marriage was invented by religion" crap should go and learn somee history. The Greeks had marriage, the Romans had marriage, in fact every pre-Christian civilisation that we know anything about, also had marriage. Marriage indubitably predates religion and it definitly predates the American Christian right's twisted version of it.

[EviLTwiN]

yup.

you know, thinking about my post a bit more, i think i was harsh to call the anti-gay-marriage people bigoted...

i think stupid would be a better word, and they therefore indirectly hold a bigoted view.

[hr]IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwintrooper.jpg IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwinsaint.gif IMAGE:www.red-llama.com/avatars/eviltwinold.gif

http://www.the-leaving.com

[flossy]

Anyone notice the picture in today's Telegraph above the article about the banning of gay marriages?
It appears as if George W Bush is leaning in to kiss Arnie-- definite tiltage to avoid a clash of noses.....

Floss
[Fight the Rent Rises-- squat in your room!]

[Pilmour Boy]

[s]Saki wrote on 14:15, 25th Feb 2004:
Bush and anyone else who spouts this "marriage was invented by religion" crap should go and learn somee history. The Greeks had marriage, the Romans had marriage, in fact every pre-Christian civilisation that we know anything about, also had marriage. Marriage indubitably predates religion and it definitly predates the American Christian right's twisted version of it.


I thought that the Romans and Greeks had religion? Not Christianity, but it was still religion, wasn't it?

[hr]
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Prophet Tenebrae]

They did but marriage was unassociated with religion until a much later date - well into the Mediaeval period it was still primairily a method of land transaction, regardless of religious association.