Bush goes anti-***..

Forcefeedback

Diabloii.Net Member
OnT

If im interrupting please skip this.

I live in a small country where most people are from protestant christian church. We had some time ago put into effect a law change which allows ***-marriages to be registered and shortly after the protestant church allowed the ceremonial marriage in church.

Doesn't this mean mundane constitutional laws broke the laws of god for a time (if only short time)? Anyway I think Pidder is right in his first intepretetation(sp) that G.W.B. is effectively forbidding entirely ***-marriages. Think about it in the churches point of view. There are no reasons to allow ***-marriages if there is no support from the goverment (allowing inheritance(sp), adoption).
 

llad12

Diabloii.Net Member
SaroDarksbane said:
???

Willfull ignorance? Explain plz.
You really believe that:

Although for every piece of evidence that supports an old earth, there's another that supports a young earth.


Take a class in Geology and go on a field trip.
 

jimmyboy

Diabloii.Net Member
Actually, Bush knows exactly what he is doing.

Matrimony have always been under state jurisdiction. The only way for Bush to force all states to conform to his believes is to force a Consitutional amendment. Bush already controls a conservative congress. Dick Chenney is working on controlling the Supreme Court. Hate to say it, but Bush and his cronies may just pass this one through.
 

Steel_Avatar

Diabloii.Net Member
Forcefeedback said:
If im interrupting please skip this.

I live in a small country where most people are from protestant christian church. We had some time ago put into effect a law change which allows ***-marriages to be registered and shortly after the protestant church allowed the ceremonial marriage in church.

Doesn't this mean mundane constitutional laws broke the laws of god for a time (if only short time)? Anyway I think Pidder is right in his first intepretetation(sp) that G.W.B. is effectively forbidding entirely ***-marriages. Think about it in the churches point of view. There are no reasons to allow ***-marriages if there is no support from the goverment (allowing inheritance(sp), adoption).
God's law is irrelevant. Their god, not necessarily mine.
 

rodigee

Diabloii.Net Member
What's wrong with the version of amendment that he supports? All it does is define the word marrige and allow for states to sanction civil unions to homosexual couples.
 

Anakha1

Banned
rodigee said:
What's wrong with the version of amendment that he supports? All it does is define the word marrige and allow for states to sanction civil unions to homosexual couples.
Do you honestly think Bush is in favour of even a civil union between homosexuals? He'd rather have them disappear completely. He's infringing on the civil rights on homosexuals by denying them equality with heterosexual couples.
 

rodigee

Diabloii.Net Member
Anakha1 said:
Do you honestly think Bush is in favour of even a civil union between homosexuals? He'd rather have them disappear completely. He's infringing on the civil rights on homosexuals by denying them equality with heterosexual couples.
I'm not Miss Cleo so I can't speak for what is going on in his head, but the version of the amendment that he supports does what I stated.
 

Akira

Member
You don't have to be miss cleo to tell what bush is thinking.

article said:
In a statement released Wednesday night, President Bush said the ruling was "deeply troubling."

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," Bush said.
 

Steel_Avatar

Diabloii.Net Member
rodigee said:
What's wrong with the version of amendment that he supports? All it does is define the word marrige and allow for states to sanction civil unions to homosexual couples.
How about because the Amendment process is not supposed to be used in this way? Only once out of 20 odd Amendments was the process used to legislate morality. It was also the only Amendment to ever be repealed. It's an abuse.

It would legislate discrimination, to boot.

Marriage is defined as being between two people. There's a reason why we have words like polyandry and polygamy. But Bush (and other anti-*** marriage people) are saying that these two people have to be a man and a woman. Clearly discrimination on the basis of gender. This was (essentially) the argument accepted by the Canadian Supreme Court.
 

Anakha1

Banned
rodigee said:
I'm not Miss Cleo so I can't speak for what is going on in his head, but the version of the amendment that he supports does what I stated.
No, but you'd have to be pretty deaf, blind and unconscious to not know what Bush's stance on homosexuality is. He'd like it to be wiped out.
 

guspasho

Diabloii.Net Member
cleanupguy said:
Also, there is the Green party factor involved as well.
Not so much this year. The Greens are much more willing to vote Democrat then vote Green this year than they were last election, because they realize that Democrats aren't as bad as Republicans (as they had colored the competition last election.) Also, Nader has said he is giving up running for the Greens, and that he doesn't want them to be too closely-associated with them, because the Greens are more than just the guys who support Nader every four years. So all signs point to Greens voting Democrat.
 

Sukkoi19

Diabloii.Net Member
For me, the issue really has nothing to do with homosexuality. The issue here is freedom of choice. In my mind, as long as your activities dont infringe upon mine or anyone elses rights, then under the Constitution you are guarenteed to practice them. I believe I referenced that last part off "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". When people talk about Homosexuality and legaslated morals like murder, pedophilia, incest and so on, they forget that all those activities are infringing on the rights of other individuals while *** marriage does not.
 

Stevinator

Diabloii.Net Member
In this thread, and the previous one, no one has been able to definitively tell me teh difference between a civil union and a marriage. it seems to me that since civil unions allw all the same rights and responsiblities as a "marriage" then the difference is semantics. I think civil unions get teh same tax breaks and get to see their spouses in teh hopital and all that etc, etc. so why fight for the word marriage? Whatever church oyu get married in is going ot call it a marriage, so there is no "spreate but equal" issue tere...it's merely a different name.

i think some states may not grant equal rights, so that is an issue, but even if bush makes this constitutional amendment, it will set up the precedent of civil unions being the same thing with a different name. We all know it won't end there--even if they're able to pass it.

if oyu want to read my other post---I think it's a great idea....not just because it's mine either. there's a perfect solution to this...and some reasons why it won't ever happen.

http://forums.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=142516
post #22
 

Stevinator

Diabloii.Net Member
Steel_Avatar said:
It's because a long time ago, separate but equal was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
well, i don't think this is a seperate but equal issue. anyone seeking a *** marriage is not denied any rights...they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want...I see no problem with calling a same sex marriage something different--since it is different, as long as they give them the benfis they deserve. obviously, the solution i proposed earlier is by far a better solution than merely giving in and calling it marriage...or not giving in and calling it civil unions. I'm just trying to get a handle on why there's all this hub-ub over semeantics. especially when there are so many real issues that we could be discussing during this election.

like taxes, or why dems say the economy is doing terrible when it's not, or bush deciding to trick a bunch of mexicans into getting themselves kicked out, or kerry flip flopping on all kinds of issues, fair trade vs. free trade, social security, etc. etc.

i think if started talking about other issues we might realize that neither of these candidates are all hat great, and if we elect kerry to kick out bush we're still stuck with a terrible platform. bigger government, and special interests.
 

Draconis

Diabloii.Net Member
If the word is so unimportant, why are so many people so desperate for a homosexual, state-recognised union not to be called a marriage? Taking into account the secular nature of marriage, both historically and legally.
 
Top