• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Leads Support Against Gay Marriage

vauge said:
The Liberal Puke said:
And you are right I don't understand what homosexual is and I'm also glad that you do because it takes one to know one.
Click to expand...

LP, due to the rules of NO PERSONAL attacks.

Consider yourself WARNED.

:soap WTF????

I totally agree with LP, maybe his wording is bad, but if you go back and read through the topic it sure appears as that is what L finger is trying to say : we don't know what a homo is because we are not homo. Hence the "]
The Liberal Puke said:
And you are right I don't understand what homosexual is and I'm also glad that you do because it takes one to know one.
Click to expand...

OH shit! I bet I get a warning because I repeated the above huh? :damn
:thumbdown

















:boohoo: i'm gettin scared!! :oops:


:roll:
Click to expand...
 
Resident_Bitch,

For the record, I am in complete agreement with LiberalPUKE, bdh, and you as far as the definition of a homosexual through context of this thread. How can you be sexual without SEX!!? There is no such thing as a "lifestyle" - either you DO or you do NOT.

He clearly called LiberalFINGER a homosexual. Therefore attacking him.
This is not an threat on him or anyone else. This warning was per the rules of debatepolitics.

Calling someone a name without a factual reference is a personal attack and will not tolerated.

If LiberalPUKE did not mean statement in the manner above - he can correct/delete it and the warning will be removed.
 
OK time for CSA to chime in with his $.02. First off I consider myself to be a very tolerant person. I know many Gay couples if thats what you want to call them I personal call them the beaver bumpers and **** gobblers and yes I have called that to there faces and the BBs laugh and say I'm just jealous and the CGs just get a shit eating grin on there face and give me a teasing giggle. I have been around Homos since I was about 10 yrs old. I am a californian and my Mother is a hairdresser So of course I have been around a butt load of homos( no pun intended)
I am also comfortable enough in my own life and sexuality to not have any HOMOPHOBIA. There are others on this board that I think could be a little homophobia due to there unrelized potential of being CG however that could be a personal attack and I might get warned. (anyone up for a quickie)
SO back to the post at hand after explaining my unbiased opinion.
Should gays be allowed to be married. I am actually torn on this one. My gut instinct says hell NO! However the declaration of independece and the constitution state that all men are created equal and that everybody has the same rights. So If marriage is recognized by law how can you deny some citizens there due process. However if marriage is a religous belief between you, your spouse and god then do to case law the government needs to stay the hell out of it. You know the thing the liberals love to through in our face regarding separation of church and state. So first it must be decided what the definition of marriage is. Talk about a debate that should be a good one.
Now on to more pressing issues.
LP, due to the rules of NO PERSONAL attacks.

Consider yourself WARNED.

This is warning #1.

RULES wrote:

Personal attacks
Personal attacks will not be tolerated. This site is for political debate and news. Personal attacks tools are used by those who are losing or have already lost a debate. Personal attacks are not signs of intelligence.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the rules need to be changed. The admins want more people to frequent the board however censor freedom of speech. in my opinion sometimes a personal attach is warranted and needed and can be done rather intellingently. Liberal Finger was fishing for a personal slam in my opinion. By insinuating the board has stooped to a level unbecoming of such dignified posters as himself he was cruising for a fish to bite.

Interesting that it has stooped to this level. I believe that I have done an exceptional job of avoiding ad hominem arguments while enduring them myself. I have also had to sit and watch as individuals patted themselves on the back and talk about how messed up the homosexuals are when I'm not even sure they fully understand what a homosexual is let alone how one would recognize a gay man on the street.
Click to expand...
Another thing to take into consideration for the admins the majority of your posters at this point are us, a group of DIKHEADS, that get great amounts of enjoyment talking trash to each other and being brothers. So should we have a poll to allow freedom of expression and no censorship or shall we all leave the board and find somewhere else to play. mess with one brother and you'll lose the rest thats just the way it is.
 
Ok, I am guilty of HOMOPHOBIA. Can't stand them. Don't want anything to do with them. Not interested. I am scared that they will somehow force themselves on my family and my rights as an American citizen.

I too am comfortable with my sexuality - but that is not the question at hand.

Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Why? Because they screw with the moral fabric of society!! Giving them gay marriage will further envelope thier agenda - removing God completely out of the equation. That is my opinion.
 
I need to go back and read through this, but it appears that LiberalFinger has put forth well thought out arguments.

I'm personally against gay marriage, because well, I'm not gay. It's that simple. Some things should be kept sacrosanct, and marriage, in my opinion, is one of those.

I've heard the argument that "love is love, and it should not matter".

Marriage, however, is a recognition by the church, in the eyes of God. That by itself, leaves the option of "civil unions" to gay couples.
 
All the hype and homophobia, aside, let's explore a bigger issue. As it stands, government is bloated and becoming more bloated every day. I do not believe that an amendment to the U.S. constitution to ban gay marriage. I do believe that this country was founded on certain principals because the folks doing the founding at the time held said principals. I would speculate that they are break-dancing in their graves :monkey because society has come to this.

Why not leave it up to the states to determine if gay marriage is to be legal. Granted, that might cause confusion when a homosexual couple, considered legally married in one state, would move to another state where their union would not be recognized. The federal govt is (or should be) here only to fight our wars, protect national borders, and regulate interstate commerce, not legislate morality.
 
Why not leave it up to the states to determine if gay marriage is to be legal.
Click to expand...

OK, I could deal with that, but make it a vote and not an action item based on a leftist Judge trying to re-write the law.

Put it in the hands of the people, not the politicians either.
 
gypsy0032 said:
Some things should be kept sacrosanct, and marriage, in my opinion, is one of those.
Click to expand...

Forgive me for going off on a tangent, but this ties into my earlier statement:

doctor1 said:
Whatever the reason, I'm sure it's just being used as a stepping stone for something bigger and more ominous.
Click to expand...

The word sacrosanct got me to thinking about a similar word, sacrament.

I'm not Catholic, but my most favorite ex-girlfriend was, and she taught me a few things. Marriage is one of the seven sacraments.

The liberal courts with activist judges have already tried (and sadly succeeded) in forcing the Catholic church support things which are clearly against it's teachings. Is gay marriage going to be used as a stepping stone to do more harm to religious institutions? Will activist judges force the churches to perform gay marriages? Will activist judges force churches to stop teaching that homosexuality is not acceptable? I hope I'm wrong :-o
 
Will activist judges force the churches to perform gay marriages?
Click to expand...

Didn't the episcopal church ordain a gay bishop? (Please correct me if I'm wrong on the details. I remember a gay clergy member, a vote, and a helluva controversy)
 
So answer this question?

If folks want to admit it or not... the truth is that Marriage is a religious activity in every culture. There is a tradition of separation of church and state in this nation that for some reason is ignored when it comes to this subject.

The constitution protects the free exercise of religion and if those who act out in a homosexual way want to go through the religious ceremony of marriage they are free to do so in their churches. Government will never intrude on this right.

But here is where it gets complex. The truth is that there are institutional preferences given to married couples in this country. This "problem" will not be fixed by allowing civil gay marriage. There will still be "special" preferences given to couples simply because they are married. What about the 40 to 50 percent of the people who are either unmarried or single? They still do not get these preferences.

The issue here is not gay marriage... the issue is preference and in a free society preference should not be given to anyone by its governmental institutions. The best solution is not gay marriage. It is the elimination of civil marriage and eliminating all preferences related to it. The government should not be in the business of sanctioning a religious activity.

Civil marriage is simply another tax. It is a tax on religious activity. With the elimination of civil marriage we need to eliminate the IRS marriage penalty also... one of the preferences afforded those who are married in our society.
 
Wow.

I've commonly argued that gays should have the same rights, but I never considered the fact that perhaps straights shouldn't be given special treatment.

I'm going to have to think long and hard on this.

Thank you.
 
I think I will chime in as well.

MSR said:
The government should not be in the business of sanctioning a religious activity.
Click to expand...

You are correct, but consider what the marriage was all about when it was first included in the states constitutions. It was and is supposed to encourage marriage to complete and help maintain a healthy family structure. A license to make babies, if you will. Thus creating a healthy America. Without this, cousins and siblings would marry all in the name of religeon. It is a known fact that siblings and close cousins have potential for unhealthy babies. How would these issues be addressed if the government was not involved? Common sense of not marrying a sibling can be thrown out the window because common sense cannot be counted on.

Since Thomas Jeffersons famous statement (which some hold as true and a law) of seperation of church and state, how could the government advocate these institutions without religeon? Simple - regulate it without a religeous requirement at the local and state levels.

Marriage in this sense is not a religeous sactified institution, but a state sactified one. If one encourages religion in thier marriage voes, awesome. But, it is not a requirement for the government and should not be. I would personally be offended with a federal governmental requirement to marry in the name of allah, buddah, or mohammod. Let me decide that not the federal government.

MSR said:
Civil marriage is simply another tax.
Click to expand...

You are correct that it's another tax, but that tax for licensing is supposed to be for the local and state governments for administration fees. These are really not intended to make any money, but a way to keep the blood lines from mixing. We would be a strange and unhealthy society indeed if there were alot of brother and sister marriages making babies.

It is a tax on religious activity.
Click to expand...

How so? Marriage is supposed to be encouraged in our society. The real taxing is that it is fast becoming an institution that is no longer the norm.It is now considered normal to have a child out of wedlock. Years ago, this would simply not be publically acceptable. Just think, at one time, a marriage was not considered a success if there were no children within the first year.

With the elimination of civil marriage we need to eliminate the IRS marriage penalty also... one of the preferences afforded those who are married in our society.
Click to expand...

I agree that we need to eliminate the IRS marriage penalty. This is a way of saying 'tax the rich more'. It was assumed when this was entered into law that a relationship in a marriage is more stable and that money can be counted on due to that stability.
 
Since Thomas Jeffersons famous statement (which some hold as true and a law) of seperation of church and state, how could the government advocate these institutions without religeon? Simple - regulate it without a religeous requirement at the local and state levels.

Marriage in this sense is not a religeous sactified institution, but a state sactified one. If one encourages religion in thier marriage voes, awesome. But, it is not a requirement for the government and should not be. I would personally be offended with a federal governmental requirement to marry in the name of allah, buddah, or mohammod. Let me decide that not the federal government.
Click to expand...

Yet the arguments against same sex marriages are moral/faith based arguments. If one argues that the purpose behind marriage is procreation, then I would suggest that we live in a state where vasectomies should be illegal or steril individuals should not be married.
 
I am 100% for marriage, but I don't need the government to tell me when I am married or not. The legal system no longer requires marriages sanctioned by governmental bodies since the Lee Marvin case back in the 70's and thousands of judgements since.

Being that marriage really affords one no additional legal rights then there is no real reason to sanction civil marriage or the taxation of the marriage relationship. There is no reason for governmental bodies to keep records and charge the fee. The census bureau can do that.

There are millions of couples who live as husband and wife in this country and they are having children too, with out being married. From a religious standpoint marriage is the ceremony and the consummation, and no more. Once you consummate you are married in the eyes of God.

Therefore, I am pressed to understand governments roll in marriage. If I wanted to sleep with my sister how would the government stop me? (My sister is dead so that will never happen FYI)
 
Being that marriage really affords one no additional legal rights then there is no real reason to sanction civil marriage or the taxation of the marriage relationship.
Click to expand...

There are advantages to legal marriage that are not neccesarily provided by the government. Health insurance and other benefits are generally extended to spouses, but not same sex spouses. There are of course exceptions.
 
Yes in many cases this is true. But Free Market comes into play here. No one is forced to work for any company. Most major companies including the one I work for does provide these benifits. :roll:
 
Can I throw my hat in this one, too?

I would like to introduce the value of tradition to this debate. Marriage between a man and a woman is not merely a religious viewpoint, but a traditional one, as President Bush has referred to. As such is the case, we can, and perhaps, should, look at it in that light, as well.

The homosexual marriage bans do not take away rights, or prohibit organizations from giving benefits to homosexuals. What they do is protect those institutions who choose not to give homosexuals those benefits from a judicial system that would otherwise require them to provide them. In other words, it is a way of protecting previously established rights.

The constitution was not intended to determine the rights of individuals, but of government. If a majority of Americans want to prohibit our government from sanctioning homosexual or any other non-traditional marriage (including incestuous or polygamous marriages), then we have a right to stop government from doing that. As we saw on Nov. 2, it is clear that there are solid majorities who want to protect the traditional view of marriage from government.
 
I really don't care if homosexuals are or are not allowed to married. Not my problem. Personally I think we've got a lot bigger fish to fry. I find it interesting that Bush, on the Friday proir to the election, went on "Good Morning America" and told Charlie Gibson that he didn't favor a constitutional amendment and now he and Rove are starting to push the issue. I can't quite remember but it seems like you conservatives used to have a name for politicians who took one position when they needed votes and then changed it later. What was it? Oh, that's right a flip-flopper. Maybe all you guys who bought those "Kerry flip-flops" should Fed-Ex them to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
 
WKL815 said:
http://sayanythingblog.com/2004/10/26/bush-flip-flops-on-gay-marriage/

He didn't say he was against a constitutional amendment. He said he was FOR civil unions. No flip flopping - just an understanding of equal rights - maybe not as much as some would like...but it's there.
Click to expand...
You're absolutly right I stand corrected. Someone sent me an article that mis-quoted the President and I jumped on it. I should have verified the info prior to my post. I've gone and read the article you cited and have gone to the ABC site and read their transcripts. Again, you're right- I'm wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom