George Bush Comes Out

[onejayhawk]

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...

Two ponts. It is ONLY a word? What are laws made of? If there is a more loaded term in the legal lexicon, I would like to have it ppointed out.

Secondly, While historically marriage has been performed by priests, and institutued by God, it is not primarily a religious thing. It is an enourmously convoluted legal thing, which has centuries of decisions and thousands of volumes of law devoted to it, and its various branches. For example, several hundred years ago, England a law was passed to require certain contracts be in writing to be valid (Statute of Frauds), which exists throughout the common law world to this date. In the very first form, the law required that contracts for marriage, and dowery, must be in writing. Some of these contracts have had more legal consiquence than treaties signed by two monarchs. This is just the point of the pencil. There is MUCh more.

Religions the world over endorse and enact marriage. It is not Christian, or even monotheistic. It is done in the most backwards of tribes, sometimes by the tribal chief, sometimes by the tribal priest, and sometimes by both. IMO this has two basis. One is the oath, which is also universal, and the other is the invokation of the diety's blessing. It is a mistake to equate it with Christianity.

I have mixed feelings about same sex unions. I have no mixed feelings about same sex marriage. I stronly oppose the second.

J

 

[Johann MacLeod]

Originally posted by 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.

Well, that's nice and dandy but there are thousands of word whose original meanings are changed, if your going to fight semantics then I expect you to use every English word in its original meaning. Your argument is fundamentally flawed if you're only intention is to protect the language.

 

[Smidlee]

Originally posted by 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.

for once i agree with you . Bush shouldn't be ashame to take a stand but of course what i understand this is a easy one since the polls still show the majority of americans is againest gay marriage. it harder to brain wash the older generation than it is with the younger generation especially those who grew up before TV ( even before they had electricity and running water). I had many elders ( even atheist) say the worst thing ever happen to this country(USA) was TV. I had one elder say that before TV people(& families) was more closer but today people are more isolated especially with computers.
I personally believe these elders may be right and don't see them morons who doesn't know anything. ( of course i know there are two kind of elders : 1) those who grow older and wiser ,2) those who just grow older )well , i guess only time will tell

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I think you totally missed my point

 

[smalltalk]

Originally posted by 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.

As fas as I know, it is just one. Sigh. As so often, Bavaria steps out of line. But don't blame me, I didn't vote for our gov't.

I guess, the basic idea here was, to make the procedure more profane, like registering your car, instead of a ceremonial act.

 

[Eklektikos]

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 can see your point, but I think that the issue is a bit more complicated given some christian denominations' ambiguous line on homosexuality or even acceptance of it. When you have the head of a major worldwide denomination like the Anglican communion openly supporting the installation of actively homosexual bishops, the religious argument for reserving the term "marriage" solely for heterosexual unions seems somewhat weakened.

 

[Speedo]

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

Absolutely. God forbid that the man have any personal opinions on anything.

 

[MrPresident]

While I see no reason for homosexuals to get married (why should they not suffer like the rest of us?) I do have a problem with the fact that this is a court decision. I would much rather the people decided than judges. I say put it to a vote.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by MrPresident
While I see no reason for homosexuals to get married (why should they not suffer like the rest of us?) I do have a problem with the fact that this is a court decision. I would much rather the people decided than judges. I say put it to a vote.

Basic rights shouldn't be object to majority votes, otherwise we can have a vote about black people's right to vote etc., and though that would be true Democracy that would also be pretty awful.

 

[bobgote]

It's a hard topic, but surely there can be some kind of same-sex civil union which doesn't involve the church.

personally I don't think it should happen, same-sex marriages, but that's probably just my background and religious/personal beliefs talking. In the end it's something the whole society has to decide on and accept, so in the end, my minority group may not play much of a part.

And George Bush has as much right to express an opinion as anyone.

also @ Ponthius: come on, that was far too easy. it didn't need to be said, i preferred the humour implicit in the title.

 

[WillJ]

George Bush Comes Out

Hmm, I was expecting this to be a thread about George Bush finally announcing that he is gay.

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
I think you totally missed my point

I think he totally got the point, and you totally missed the reposte.

Originally posted by bobgote
It's a hard topic, but surely there can be some kind of same-sex civil union which doesn't involve the church.

Marriage does not involve the church, except as an after thought. Marriage is a state function, which licenses church officials to act as agents and witnesses.

J

 

[GrandAdmiral]

If gays wanna get married oh well let them. I don't really care. But I don't see why they would want to. Marraige has always had to do with a man and a women, bride and groom. Its like the Chinese wanting to celebrate the US's independance day. If anything its just symbolic of their rights and wanting to be treated like normal couples. If people are offended by it, too bad. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it should be law. My only problem with Bush on this is that he goes around preaching democracy and freedom and most of the stuff he supports would be more welcomed and unilateraly supported in a communist nation.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by Peri
What do you think of this latest uttering by the Leader of the Free World?

I've always scoffed at the idea the the President of the United States is the leader of the Free World, and now we see why.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by MrPresident
While I see no reason for homosexuals to get married (why should they not suffer like the rest of us?) I do have a problem with the fact that this is a court decision. I would much rather the people decided than judges. I say put it to a vote.

Judges are not creating the law, they are upholding it. The Constitution is the ultimate legal authority in the USA and other countries that have one and the people, whether by referendum or via elected representatives, cannot make laws that are contrary to the Constitution.

 

[Akka]

I'll just said again what I said earlier :

Marriage : legitimate union of two persons under the conditions of the law.

'nuff said.

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by sysyphus
Judges are not creating the law, they are upholding it. The Constitution is the ultimate legal authority in the USA and other countries that have one and the people, whether by referendum or via elected representatives, cannot make laws that are contrary to the Constitution.

That's not true even in theory. At least not in common law countries. Judges are constantly making law. In fact the phrase "made new law" is high praise in legal circles. It means that the parties presented a case which in some fashion could not be resolved by either precedent or statute, so the Judge, or the Justices, had to create new law to cover the situation. The most notorious case is Roe v Wade, where the Supreme Court created a right to privacy.

In legal parlance a conservative judge is one who does this carefully and reluctantly, while a liberal judge is one that writes new law readily and actively. The political inclination of the judge may have nothing at all to do with his judicial inclinations. Some very conservative Supreme Court Justices were very liberal on the bench. For the most part, the reverse is not true for some reason.

J

 

[sysyphus]

So what constitutional provision is the one under which judges "make laws"?

 

[Zarn]

A civil union for homosexual couples is something that I'm fine with...

Marriage among atheists in general is something I don't like but would tolerate. I am already tolerating it with heterosexual atheists. I really don't see a difference between them and homosexual couples.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Zarn
Marriage among atheists in general is something I don't like but would tolerate.

You must have missed my post : marriage is the legitimate union of two persons under the condition of the law (or at least it is what says my dictionnary).
There is nothing intrinsequely religious in marriage, it's just a social and recognized union.

Marriage, at the base, is a LEGAL and SOCIAL union. NOT a religious one.