George Bush Comes Out

[Peri]

Following a ruling by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that to deny same sex marriages is a violation of the Constitution, GWB has come out against this decision.
What do you think of this latest uttering by the Leader of the Free World?
Do people have the right to have their relationship officially recognised regardless of their sexuality or should only heterosexual couples be entitled to these rights?

 

[Jeratain]

1. George Bush and everyone else is entitled to their opinion. I have no issues with him coming out to say he is against it - that is his right, even as "leader of the free world."

2. Civil unions will eventually become a reality throughout the western world.

 

[andrewgprv]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20031118/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

I was about to post this link as a thread but I'll just add it here.

The opponents of homosexuals' equal rights call their cause the Defence of Marrage, as if marrage needs defending. If I were to marry the man I love this is somehow going to threaten the marrage of heterosexuals around the nation??? A name like Defence of Marrage is a mask for the ugly beast of hate. They might as well drop the act and simply state that they think gays are evil and not worthy of a normal life.

 

[gael]

Bush talks the talk, but his head is up his arse.

The man should not be in charge of a country that prides its self on freedom and democracy.

Hes disgraced your country and all it stands for. Get rid of him before he does any more damage.

 

[Double Barrel]

I say let gays get married and be miserable like the rest of us!!

 

[eyrei]

To begin with, I have a couple of gay friends, one of which is married. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

However, there is some validity to the argument that homosexuals should not be allowed to 'marry' in the old sense of the word. Marriage, while technically a legal union, is also considered by most Christians to be a religious union, and that is where their argument comes from. In a religion that considers homosexuality a sin, it does not make sense that gay unions would be allowed. As someone said above, they are entitled to their opinion.

I think the best solution is to use another word to describe the legal union of a gay couple. It is, after all, only a word. Let the Christians have it...

 

[EdwardTking]

Equal rights is one thing, but demanding to unilaterally change the meaning of the the english language and impose your ideas for change on others is almost fascist. The word marry has always involved a man and a woman since the separation of the english language from its germanic roots 1300 years.

The words marriage, marry, married, husband, wife mean very specific things to 400 million english speaking people.

Who are the Massachusetts supreme court to dictate what those words should mean to the rest of us?!

I have no problem with giving legal, religious or social recognition
to long term homosexual partnerships; but their attempting to steal the english language in such a way is dishonest.

Remember a MacDonald is a Scottish gentlemen or descendant of such and is not a hamburger!

Red is a colour and is not owned by the communists.

And marriage involves a man and a woman, not two men and not two women.

The homosexual community claims to be especially talented, in which case let it invent and agree upon the use of some separate totally new terminology for its relationships etc, rather than parasite on that used by heterosexuals for centuries.

 

[Mescalhead]

He has the right to have his opinion, but gays should have the right not to be patronized because a president bases his morality on archaic superstition.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by eyrei
To begin with, I have a couple of gay friends, one of which is married. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

However, there is some validity to the argument that homosexuals should not be allowed to 'marry' in the old sense of the word. Marriage, while technically a legal union, is also considered by most Christians to be a religious union, and that is where their argument comes from. In a religion that considers homosexuality a sin, it does not make sense that gay unions would be allowed. As someone said above, they are entitled to their opinion.

I think the best solution is to use another word to describe the legal union of a gay couple. It is, after all, only a word. Let the Christians have it...

Agreed. I would even argue that the word 'marriage' should not be used in a legal sense at all - that it is, in fact, a Christian word. Why not use a totally different word not only to describe homosexual legal unions, but also heterosexual legal unions.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by eyrei
However, there is some validity to the argument that homosexuals should not be allowed to 'marry' in the old sense of the word. Marriage, while technically a legal union, is also considered by most Christians to be a religious union, and that is where their argument comes from. In a religion that considers homosexuality a sin, it does not make sense that gay unions would be allowed. As someone said above, they are entitled to their opinion.

I think the best solution is to use another word to describe the legal union of a gay couple. It is, after all, only a word. Let the Christians have it...

The problem is that the non-religious "life-partnerships" of heterosexuals are (at least here) already called marriage as well.

And to be honest there is no reason why the Christian religion should have a monopoly on it. Jews, Muslims, Buddist and also Atheist do get married. If some people see the word as a divine part of their particular religion that is their problem, because factually it is not.

When secular marriages where introduced the Church(es) already fought against it and lost to freedom. That should be the same here.

After all, and that is the decisive point, legalizing "gay marriages" would only mean that gays can get married legally in secular terms, it doesn't mean any Church is forced to hold marriages for gays if they consider it a sin.

There is no monopoly on marriage, so when it comes to equal rights the result should be obvious.

 

[andrewgprv]

So if marrage seems to be owned by christains why is that Muslims, Hindus, Budhists, Atheists marry? And if marrage is a christain instituion what is it doing in the law books in the first place? Well because christains do not own marrage. Marrage is a common human practice despite culture or religon. Christains do not own marrage and thus they should not be allowed to deny people of it.

 

[eyrei]

We are already forced by political correctness to use alternate terms to describe things that are found offensive by even small numbers of people. Since homosexual marriages are found offensive by a large chunk of the population, why shouldn't we use a different word to describe it?

 

[andrewgprv]

It was once considered offensive by some to drink from the same fountain as a black person. Should those people who were offended be accomodated?

Personally I would be happy with a "civil union" and I would see it as a compromise, but I still think that it is not equality.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by eyrei
We are already forced by political correctness to use alternate terms to describe things that are found offensive by even small numbers of people. Since homosexual marriages are found offensive by a large chunk of the population, why shouldn't we use a different word to describe it?

1. Using political correctness as an argument should make you bite yourself.

2. The renaming of things due to political correctness is done because people feel offended by things they are called by others (like the infamous N***er). If people are offended by the word Catholic even political correctness wouldn't go as far as forcing Catholics to change the name of their religion (I hope...).
So what you call yourself or something you do is nobody else's business as long as noone else is somehow included in that name (the "N**ger killers" would obviously have to change their name).

 

[eyrei]

The point I am trying to get across is that marriage is only a word, and since we change words and their usage for other reasons, usually because someone is offended by said word or phrase (in this case 'gay marriage'), why shouldn't we come up with a term to describe the union of homosexuals that doesn't offend people?

 

[Hitro]

There actually is something called "Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaften" (registered life partnerships) in some German states (or just one?) since recently. But that is, I think, because it doesn't exactly equal the rights and duties of a (secular, legal) heterosexual marriage.

Anyhow, I don't think that would archieve anything. First of all non-gay Atheists could still get "married" why religious gays couldn't, which wouldn't make any sense if you justify the use of words along the lines of religion.
And, which is far more important, that "compromise" would hardly be accepted by anyone. The gays would still feel discriminated against (after all it has much symbolic meaning) and the fundamentalists would also be against it because it would still legalize gay partnerships. After all preventing that is the true aim of theirs, and not the changing of some word.

 

[Sims2789]

we should etmediately de-segregate marriage(aka allow gays to marry). but segregationists such as Bush want to mix the church with the state and prevent us from doing so.

 

[Comraddict]

this is third post on same topic. will you guys post on all three to make your word heard

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

George Bush Comes Out

I applaud this brave decision. I always suspected it, and I'm glad that Mr. Bush has finally worked up the courage to admit it.

 

[JollyRoger]

If Bush were really serious about using the state to sanctify the institutuoion of marriage, he would work on criminalizing divorce. How many in Congress that he seeks to work with have proven they don't respect the sanctity of marriage?