Bush and the banning of "gay" marriages.

[John Doe]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 01:32, 26th Feb 2004:
Oh I did. And I'm delighted to learn that I'm a Godless liberal.


One thing Liberals are terrible with is a sense of humor.

-John Doe.

[Haunted]

here here

[Greebo]

[s]Unregisted User John Doe wrote on 01:39, 26th Feb 2004:
One thing Liberals are terrible with is a sense of humor.

-John Doe.


Any chance of avoiding ad hominems?

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

[Guest]

[s]Haunted wrote on 05:54, 26th Feb 2004:

The majority vote is the way to go though and if the majority want to allow homosexual marridges then by all means. BUT until such a time the law must be protected.

The word is 'marriage'. Anyway, this is wrong, because democracy cannot be used for the majority to repress or withold rights from a minority.

The majority being against the giving of this right is unimportant. A parallel case would be if the majority of America wanted to withhold the right to marriage from a particular ethnic group.

[Guest]

[s]Unregisted User John Doe wrote on 00:35, 26th Feb 2004:
I don't agree with adoption, though, as children raised by gay parents are more likely to be gay--- thus indicating, since genetics has shown no hereditary cause for homosexuality, that this may be more of a "nurture" than "nature" issue.

Rubbish. I've never seen any kind of study which would support this claim.



Many people, self included, follow the school of thought that rights are not given to people by States, but by God, and that states are stewards of the people who live beneath them and are expected to follow a certain framework.

For me, that happens to be a Christian framework,

But why should everyone else be forced to live by your view of the state and/or rights, to the extent that it impinges on their freedom?



Saying that "marriage is between a man and a woman" falls COMPLETELY outside of this ban, seeing as it is more a societal matter with religious underpinnings rather than legislating a religious preference or religious law. It's a societal thing, an ethical thing.

I disagree. Marriage is not necessarily religious in any way- it does not have to have 'religious underpinnings'.





1) Marriage is not a right, not even under the constitutional amendment of free association (first amendment.)

But the right to equality is there, and as the law stands, there is no equality.
[/i]

2) Remember that America is a democracy, a representative one, by population--- more so than the parliamentary system you have here (Wednesday's Telegraph was talking about this.) I'm a big fan of Democracy, personally... and the way that this gay marriage thing is being forced on the American public is remarkably undemocratic.
[/i]

In a democracy, the majority does not have the right to oppress a minority. In America and the UK, this is what is happening with regards to homosexuals and their right to marry.

[Donald Renouf]

[s]EviLTwiN wrote on 11:17, 26th Feb 2004:
I wasnt talking about not liking their opinion, I was talking about not liking them insulting me.

Who has insulted whom, really? Go back and read.

Comparing me to those who wouldn't sit on a bus with a black person is a little extreme - I think you must be getting the idea that I'm some sort of rabid homophobe. Naturally one doesn't broadcast one's opinions all the time when the only result is that people get offended and het up about them, as you have yourself so ably demonstrated. Also, it would simply be tactless, when one has (or had?) so many gay friends. I just felt in this case that someone ought to voice a different opinion on what seemed to be a rather one-sided thread.

Where did this whole religion issue come from, anyway? I never mentioned it. It is actually possible to oppose the idea of gay marriage without being a frightful ranting fundie, you know - though that is a concept some people seem to have trouble grasping.

Also, the Chambers Dictionary gives the following definition for bigot: "a person blindly or obstinately devoted to a particular set of ideas, creed or political party, and dismissive towards others". I don't think that I fit that description.

Oh, and while I have the dictionary open...
civilised: "(having) advanced beyond the primitive savage state; refined in interests and tastes; sophisticated, self-controlled and well-spoken".

[i][s]Edited to put in quotation from EvilTwin

[jennyo]

"... don't agree with adoption, though, as children raised by gay parents are more likely to be gay--- thus indicating, since genetics has shown no hereditary cause for homosexuality, that this may be more of a "nurture" than "nature" issue. "

So...what about gay people with straight parents? Why are they gay? And will boys whose mothers are single parents grow up thinking they're women? Pardon my confusion... *SARCASM ALERT*



[hr]On a rainy day when the wind gets wild
My untamed mind wakes up -Tagore

[Donald Renouf]

The whole anti-adoption thing is just silly.

[Al]

[s]Unregisted User equality advocate wrote on 00:53, 26th Feb 2004:

Anyone who thinks of gays as somehow 'immoral' is most likely bigoted or stupid, as there is no logical reason for this opinion.


But morality is not based on logic. Besides, your post is as bigoted as anything else that has been written on this thread so far.

[hr]
Life is too important to be taken seriously.

[Anon.]

[s]neutrino wrote on 02:28, 26th Feb 2004:
But I think this is just you trying to distract people from your inherently flawed position on gay marriages and the morality of homosexuality.

I was just asking the question to see what people thought.

The idea that marriage should be redefined (and I think that this would be a redefinition from its current meaning)as a contract between any consenting parties of adult age is a position I'm perfectly willing to accept. However, it must then also be open, not only to persons of the same sex, but to siblings, parents and their children, more than two people, and probably to corporate bodies as well. Only then would "marriage" be free from any restraint of culture or prejudice.

I just wasn't sure that everyone would be happy with that.

[Greebo]

There are valid biological reasons for not allowing parents and their sons/daughters and for not allowing brothers and sisters to reproduce - namely that the resultant offspring have a significantly higher risk of genetic defects.
Having said that - if they wanted to marry and not have kids, then I guess there's no valid argument against that.

Polygamous marriages: sure why not? So long as all parties are fine with that.

Not sure why you included corporate bodies though.

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

[David Bean]

I believe the best evidence suggests that homosexuality arises from some kind of hormonal imbalance in the mother's womb, and that the likelihood of this occurring is mainly random, but has a genetic element to it as well. Hence, it might be more likely for children born of gay ancestry to be gay, but there's no case whatsoever for saying that a child adopted by homosexuals is any more likely to be gay than anyone else.
I'm intrigued by John Doe's assertion that rights 'are given' to people by God, not by states. Presumably that'll be why it DIDN'T take thousands of years for ideas of democracy and human rights to flourish, why NO earlier societies practiced barbarism, and why ALL STATES IN THE WORLD are now entirely civilised in their treatment of individuals (including, for instance, protecting the rights of minorities).

When will people learn that the UK, the USA, France and the like are NOT representative democracies: we are representative LIBERAL democracies. Note the subtle placement of the word 'LIBERAL' there if you're having trouble telling the difference; it signifies that we do respect minority rights and pursuits, irrespective of what the majority thinks about them.

Finally, it strikes me that Bush seems to be a little confused about what the Constitution actually is. It exists to set up and explain how the country works, not to ennumerate laws and moral judgements, and so an amendment forbiding gay marriage has absolutely no place in it at all.

[hr]"And all the people rejoiced, and said: 'God save the King! Long live the King! ...May the King live forever!'" - Handel, 'Zadok the Priest'

[Anon.]

[s]Greebo wrote on 12:09, 26th Feb 2004:
There are valid biological reasons for not allowing parents and their sons/daughters and for not allowing brothers and sisters to reproduce - namely that the resultant offspring have a significantly higher risk of genetic defects.

I thought marriage was being redefined as having nothing to do with reproduction, as would be the case with gay couples. So "biological reasons" are irrelevant.

Regarding corporate bodies - why should an association of individuals have fewer rights than a single individual? Though I haven't really thought about that, which was why I said "probably".

[Greebo]

[s]Anon. wrote on 13:12, 26th Feb 2004:
I thought marriage was being redefined as having nothing to do with reproduction, as would be the case with gay couples. So "biological reasons" are irrelevant.

It never has been anything to do with reproduction, if it had then infertile couples would be stopped from marrying. I was just pointing out reasons to stop family members reproducing, as I said, if they aren't going to reproduce then there's not a valid argument to stop them marrying.


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

[Amaunet]

In my opinion

1) Marriage is a sacred contract between two people
2) Love does not know gender,race or political viewpoints

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"


Surely love would come under this category- and this is taken from the Declaration of Independance, which pre-dates mr bush by about 228 years.

Having read a trasncript of Mr Bush's speech, he seems to think that one of the main arguments against Gay Marriage is the fact that it hasn't happened before,-yet how many things are used my mr bush on a daily basis that havent been around for twenty, ten or even a hundred years?


As for Gay adoption- i honestly see no reason against it- apparently the state is crying out for good, stable loving couples to adopt- a homosexual relationship can be just as loving and stable as a hetero-sexual one.
As the previous poster suggested that
as children raised by gay parents are more likely to be gay--- thus indicating, since genetics has shown no hereditary cause for homosexuality, that this may be more of a "nurture" than "nature" issue.

and children of "straight" couples are more likely to be hetero-sexual? Unlikely.
Surely it would be better to grow up in a household where, even though both parents were of the same gender, the child knew it didnt have to feel uncomfortable about its sexuality- where hetero or homosexuality is not viewn as something unatraul.

The most important thing in a marriage is love- and as i previously mentioned- love, in my opnion, is still love -regardless of the gender of either parties involved.

[Guest]

[s]Greebo wrote on 12:09, 26th Feb 2004:
There are valid biological reasons for not allowing parents and their sons/daughters and for not allowing brothers and sisters to reproduce - namely that the resultant offspring have a significantly higher risk of genetic defects.
Having said that - if they wanted to marry and not have kids, then I guess there's no valid argument against that.

I think this increased risk of genetic problems actually puts same sex incest in a more defensible moral position that heterosexual incest relationships.



Polygamous marriages: sure why not? So long as all parties are fine with that.

Not sure why you included corporate bodies though.




God knows why corporate bodies were included- . But the marriage laws should be made considerably more liberal than they are at present.

[exnihilo]

[s]Unregisted User John Doe wrote on 01:39, 26th Feb 2004:

One thing Liberals are terrible with is a sense of humor.

-John Doe.



Not sure I follow this, John. Are you saying because I didn't laugh at your pathetic insults my arguments are invalid? I can assure you, I have a highly developed sense of humour - but there is a difference between that which is laughable and that which is funny. It might also be worth remembering, incidentally, that anywhere outside your fundamentlist paradise across the Pond "liberal" is not deemed an insult.

As for rights given by God? That's an interesting theory and one which could only be espoused by a country where people think the world was created in recent times and Jesus spoke English. Most of your rights were given to you by the British, not God. It was to take a long time before you became more liberal about that than we. We just didn't crow so much about our freedoms - possibly because we're not trying to hide the deeper seated repression of our Society?

And, oddly, I'm not Godless, though you probably think I am - I'm Jewish. And marriage, you utter ignoramus, predates the existence of Christianity by thousands of years. A scale of time I'm sure you have real difficulty imagining.

[stan-drews]

I don't believe that majority rules is the best way to decide on issues such as this. It may be that a majority would be opposed to gay couples being allowed to marry (though I don't belive it is) however, why should anyone presume to have the right to tell another how to conduct their own lives when that will have no effect on anyone else. No-one would find it acceptable if a man and woman were told they could not marry just because other people didn't want them to, so why should gay couples have to accept this?

I cannot believe that a ban on gay marriages could stand up in any court either here or in the US (or in many other countries) given the assurances of equality (supposedly) guarranteed under the Universal Decleration on Human Rights, the US Constitution and Human Rights laws, etc.

I don't know if anyone has asked yet, but are there any challenges to change the law in the UK to allow gay marriages?

And on the issue of adoption, perhaps in the currnt climate a child adopted by a gay couple would be teased(perhaps worse) but is this not better than having no steady home at all? and whether they grow up to be straight or gay, they will most probably be more open-minded about everything, which can only help them in life.

This is an issue that affects a lot of countries, the US is only being singled out as it is a hot topic there just now. I hope it does not offend. Equally, the US is not the only country to be two-faced in its dealing with others. We in Britain all too easily accept our involvment in the major industry of exporting arms and military equipment. By building these weapons we have a role in the end reslut.

Perhaps George Orwell had it right when he came up with the name 'Ministry of War', it certainly goes beyond defence.

Anyway, I strayed from the issue.




Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

[The Cellar Bar]

[s]exnihilo wrote on 14:22, 26th Feb 2004:
Not sure I follow this, John. Are you saying because I didn't laugh at your pathetic insults my arguments are invalid? I can assure you, I have a highly developed sense of humour - but there is a difference between that which is laughable and that which is funny.


Don't worry about that accusation too much, exnihilo. That in itself is standard practice from that side of the debate. Usually preceded by an insult that is then laughed off when someone takes exception to it. But a job has very definitely been done on John Doe. It's usually later in life that it's offered up. Just try laughing uproariously at the fact that Bush's IQ is said to be 96 and see just who has sense of humour.

As for separtation of Church and State
Madison's "Who are the Best Keepers of the People's Liberties?" (1792)
“But mysteries belong to religion, not to government; to the ways of the Almighty, not to the works of man. And in religion itself there is nothing mysterious to its author; the mystery lies in the dimness of the human sight.
So in the institutions of man let there be no mystery, unless for those inferior beings endowed with a ray perhaps of the twilight vouchsafed to the first order of terrestrial creation.”

Which is basically Madison's way of saying that anyone can believe in any particular Deity, God or Omniscient Being they want but government is more concerned with Logic and Reason so keep it out of anything we spend money on or pass laws on.

Or Thomas Jefferson
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaininga free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."

or Jefferson again
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
Note the word "superstition" from a Founding Father.

They had no doubt that religion and persecution was a hallmark of the Church being involved in the government of Man and had no inclination to repeat that mistake in a New Country. Especially when it came to "young minds". Education was to be built on rational thinking not incantation and they had no inclination to spend money on schools where "superstitions" were taught rather than hard, logical thinking. "Teach what you want in your home or place of worship" - just don't pollute our government with it.

Talking of young minds, one of the best I've come across recently was the fresh faced pubescent 14 year old girl who gave the prayer at a recent football match in Texas which called upon God to reveal His Light to all CATHOLICS and HEATHENS".

Looks like a job has been done on that young mind as well!!

[EviLTwiN]

[s]Donald Renouf wrote on 11:47, 26th Feb 2004:
[s]EviLTwiN wrote on 11:17, 26th Feb 2004:[i]
I wasnt talking about not liking their opinion, I was talking about not liking them insulting me.

Who has insulted whom, really? Go back and read.

Comparing me to those who wouldn't sit on a bus with a black person is a little extreme - I think you must be getting the idea that I'm some sort of rabid homophobe. Naturally one doesn't broadcast one's opinions all the time when the only result is that people get offended and het up about them, as you have yourself so ably demonstrated. Also, it would simply be tactless, when one has (or had?) so many gay friends. I just felt in this case that someone ought to voice a different opinion on what seemed to be a rather one-sided thread.

Where did this whole religion issue come from, anyway? I never mentioned it. It is actually possible to oppose the idea of gay marriage without being a frightful ranting fundie, you know - though that is a concept some people seem to have trouble grasping.

Also, the Chambers Dictionary gives the following definition for bigot: "a person blindly or obstinately devoted to a particular set of ideas, creed or political party, and dismissive towards others". I don't think that I fit that description.

Oh, and while I have the dictionary open...
civilised: "(having) advanced beyond the primitive savage state; refined in interests and tastes; sophisticated, self-controlled and well-spoken".

[s]Edited to put in quotation from EvilTwin


I just went back and read as you suggested. I was insulted, by a comment saying that I just blindly called someone a bigot, when I didn't. Whereas the other person was insulted by my opinion. There's a big difference there, since what they said was wrong, and thats a fact, since i did think carefully about it. However what I said was my opinion, and I gave arguments to back it up.

I never insulted a person until they insulted me. Before then I insulted an opinion. And that was only my opinion, which I am entitled to... ie. it is bigoted to hold that view. And i even gave a reason true to the dictionary definition.

Where is the problem?

Also, I don't think you're a "rabid homophobe", I simply think your opinion on gay marriage is bigoted. ok?

And I think someone against gay marriages quoting the definition of civilised is kind of ironic, especially as it was aimed at implying I'm not

Each to his own i guess.