Pres. Bush calls for gay marriage ban in Constitution

[RZetlin]

Bush calls for gay marriage ban

It comes after a court in Massachusetts ruled in favour of gay weddings, and thousands of same-sex couples married in San Francisco earlier this month.

Mr Bush said he wanted to stop activist judges from changing the definition of the "most enduring human institution".

Will the troops will come to arrest the married gays?

[Eface]

no, because there is no oil there

[Valcrist]

well :rollseyes:

[l3illyl3ob]

Originally Posted by Eface

no, because there is no oil there

oil is a nice objective, but even nicer is pleasing your fellow party members. Republican are right-wing anti-gay religous fanatics that the vast majority of whom are greatly against gay marraiges. Bush being the republican he is, is trying to get congress to ban gay marraiges. Considering the house and senate are republican, it could very well pass onto the states if such a proposed amendment is passed.

[Zer0Soul]

Next anything, but christianity will be allowed..


*edit* Anyonelse see this being made into a movie?

The Passion of Bush?

[Kaiser Sigma]

World domination man !!!

[Zer0Soul]

...Omg..that's it!!!

Bush was watching Pinky and the brain..and finally formed a idea..

[destructicator]

remember that no one is free when others are opressed.

[Zer0Soul]

What if the person was chained to the wall with like 6 other people, then he was set free. He's technically free, until he realizes that they are going to kill him to set a example..

[dpence]

I am actually for it. Same sex marriages are both imoral and a sin. I am not against gay people, if that is what they want. BUT, A marriage is a union before God and anyone approving what amounts to blasphemy (by bringing such a thing in front of god) should think twice. It isn't a question of repression, but more a fact that someone has to draw the line between what is decent and what isn't. In this case, same sex marriages should not be allowed. If they want to live together or whatever, that's fine. But the actual union , in my opinion, is a slap in the face of ANY decent thinking person.

[Zer0Soul]

The thing is. Does any man speak for god truely? I mean speak with him inside of them. It be like me saying videogames are a form of the devil. You shouldn't play them. I see things as that. We all have our ideas of gods and religion. We all should be free to worship them and feel them in our own way.

[dpence]

I don't disagree with that. BUT, saying this is acceptable, then what? Then you also have to allow people the freedom to marry animals? I mean there has to be a line drawn. And the majority of people really do not think it is acceptable. Someone has to make that decision.

[Drake Dagow]

Go Bush, all the way..... I hope it just doent cause him the election...

[Clements]

Originally Posted by dpence

I don't disagree with that. BUT, saying this is acceptable, then what? Then you also have to allow people the freedom to marry animals? I mean there has to be a line drawn. And the majority of people really do not think it is acceptable. Someone has to make that decision.

People like you denied women the right to vote. People like you segreted white people and black people so that they couldn't even sit on the same park bench. Denying homosexuals of their freedom to marry another that any other heterosexual person can is wrong. It's descrimination. THAT'S A SIN TOO. At least in my book.

Homophobics = fascists.

[Gamer1]

even though i don't like the idea of homosexuality. (god created adam and eve; not adam and steve)

but, gays and lesbians are still people!!! discrimination like this is not the way to go. i support civil unions (giving gays and lesbians equal protections rights under the law like marriage) but i am just against the changing the word marriage.

[Zer0Soul]

If you look at today's world compared to the way it was. Yet, we've made large leaps. Here's a fun fact for you. Can you guess how many people from the age of 13 - 21. Are actually tried and true christians. You'd see a very small percentage. Most don't know what to believe in or go to church if they do. They just float. I think in the end the next generations of senators and polaticians will be for the better. They will be open minded.

[_E_]

which is brings up the question: What is marriage? and for what purpose is it for?
IMO ( and putting aside my religous believes ) , if gay marriage doesnt fit the purpose of the known "traditional" marriage,..then the whole point of gay marriage is useless. Its not going to matter if they got married or not since in either case, they would live with each other and only that

Yours,
-Elly

[Ryos]

A copy and paste is more effort spent than anyone "in the know" does researching this sort of thing.

The institution of "marriage" has often been limited throughout history. Marriages have been prearranged or prevent individuals from marrying those deemed unworthy of marriage for whatever reason, be it through state borders, familial borders, religious borders, soci-economic borders, racial borders, and more. What makes a "marriage" between a couple of the same gender any less acceptable than any of these fictitous borders? Can only a man and a woman love each other? I think not.

As far as the entire religious argument goes, that entire argument is fallacious at best. Taboo has its source in picking certain phrases to boost one's argument while ignoring many others. I like to recall a certain powerful homily that truly describes how such narrow-minded thinking is so horribly outdated. A military chaplain, the Sunday following the slaying of Matthew Shephard (if you don't know, he was the gay American killed by a couple of rednecks precisely because he was gay), had but one thing to say. Holding up a newspaper, he asked, "Would Jesus want this?" That was the entire homily. Whenever I hear the unfounded claims brought by Christians that homosexuality is one of the most horrible abominations in the eyes of God or whatever nonsense, I recall this. You see, the presumption is founded in the Hebrew Bible. Would radical Jesus, the Jesus who would rather be struck than strike back, concur with such drivel? No. That's precisely why he makes such an interesting fellow, because he was unafraid to stand up to the convention of his day. He was compassionate to all beyond all reason. And this is true compassion, not the insane destruction of private liberties.

[Demigod]

Originally Posted by Gamer1

but, gays and lesbians are still people!!! discrimination like this is not the way to go. i support civil unions (giving gays and lesbians equal protections rights under the law like marriage) but i am just against the changing the word marriage.

I agree here. I think a civil union would be the best way to go. Marriage is one of our longest-running institutions and it would be a shame to change it now. I think it all comes down to fairness and respect, but not necessarily the same treatment. Homosexuals deserve to be respected and treated as normal people, but you don't have to change the definition of marriage for that.

[cowfez]

So what you're saying, demigod, is that the definition of a word is more important than the rights and liberties of a significant proportion of the population of the U.S.?
This argument is a pretty lame way of trying to hold power over people who have nothing to do with you!
What is the necessity in keeping any two consenting people from marrying?
How does it effect you?