Bush Homophobic

bush is outlawing same sex marriages. i mean i'm not gay, but i do believe in equality, and what is this so called land of the free, if you can't marry who you want? isn't marriage the bond between two people who love eachother? yet because of one man being homophobic, the whole gay society in america cannot bond together. what kind of shit is that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/election/bl2004bush.htm
here's a link to some more info about bush being homophobic

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Legally I think that homosexuals should be allowed to get married to gain the benefits of marriage. Religiously that is up to the religion. If there is true separation of church and state then the church should not be able to dictate how homosexual marriage is handled in the legal system.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have only heard one reason why same sex marriage would be problematic, if a lesbian couple gets pregnant (through a sperm bank), and then they divorce, but the one partner that wasn't the mother refuses to pay child support, there is no DNA test to connect her with the child.

 

Wouldnt that be the same though if it was a man and a woman that couldnt have a child and went to a sperm bank?

 

OMG that is so nazi... how can you ban a certain type of marriage! that is so not fair... fuck bush and his homophobia... thats taking it too far.

 

Well, would you also allow a brother and sister to marry? ...a father and daughter? ...a mother and her son? ...a 17-yr old boy and girl? ...an 18-yr old boy and a 15-yr old girl?

If not, then aren't YOU also wanting "...ban a certain type of marriage"?

Baron Max

 

A brother and sister, father and daughter, or mother and son shouldn't marry because of the health problems their children would be likely to have. Making it illegal for them to marry doesn't really make sense since that doesn't stop them from having sex if they want to, and really they probably ought to be allowed to marry, but it's not an issue that I'm inclined to fight for too much.

Children are treated differently legally, and although I personally don't feel that the average 18-year-old is all that capable of making intelligent decisions either, it is good to have laws that protect minors from engaging themselves in legally binding contracts. Having minors unable to marry makes sense because it's not really discriminating against them since once they're old enough they can marry. There's a big difference between having to wait a few years to marry the person you love and never being able to at all.

 

There's no law to prevent a mother from drinking, smoking, or doing drugs while pregnant which will screw up the baby as well.

Hey, if a family wants to keep their sexual acts in the family, more power to them. I personally don't care to do it, but people should be free to do as they wish so long as they consent with one another. Regardless of age, sex, and whatever you can think of. But hey, I actually love freedom, just too bad those that go around CLAIMING they love it all the time, they don't allow it. Don't talk the talk, go out and actually walk the walk.

- N

 

We're NOT discussing consentual sex, we're discussing legal MARRIAGE between various individuals. There's a big, big difference.

Baron Max

 

But if one "fights" for the PRINCIPLE of legal marriage between gays and lesbians, then one must also understand that that same principle applies to MORE than just gays and lesbians. Otherwise, one is being prejudicial against/for only one particular group of people ....and then the PRINCIPLE will have lost all meaning.

Well, isn't that discriminating against a particular age group? Wouldn't that be the same principle as a company not hiring people because they're over thirty or over forty? ...and that's illegal in the USA, right?

Baron Max

 

And I never said there should be a law against people marrying close family members. I said it makes sense that they shouldn't.

 

Even if the principle is the same, the issues are different. I'm not fighting for the principle, since the principle is already there; I'm fighting for the legalization, aka the issue, and therefore it's different.

People over thirty or forty aren't going to not be over thirty or forty in the future. And yes, that's illegal, but it isn't illegal to not hire someone who's under whatever age they need people to be for the right kind of work. Not that legality is the basis for morality or anything, but the fact remains that there are seperate laws in place for minors and adults, and it's not particularly fair but then again I don't really care.

Anyhow, I'm not really sure if you're trying to say that minors should be able to marry and people should be able to marry their close relatives, or if you're just going for the slippery slope argument. If it's the first, I have to say I don't think you'll have a lot of success with your cause, but I'm also not so strictly opposed to your cause that I wish you failure, so have fun with it and good luck. If it's the second, you may be absolutely right that legalizing gay marriage will bring these other issues up. But gay marriage is not going to automatically make other forms of marriage legal, so I don't see what the problem is. The issues will come up, and be dealt with in whatever way ends up working out.

 

Interesting point. I never saw it that way. I have no problem with gay marriage but if viewed strictly in terms of right or wrong then allowing gay marriages but banning those mentioned above is wrong too, except for the last two.

The issue then comes down to two extra questions among others

<ul>
<li>Is marriage strictly a union of two consenting adults?
<li>Or, is marriage a union between two consenting adults as long as they appease society's norms?
</ul>

Can society be expected to be openminded about incest in the near future... I am sure no one in the 30s ever imagined the gay movement would come, so it isn't entirely out of question (wierder things have happened).

 

i dont think that america is a secular country so i am not at all suprised that bush implements homophobic policies.i was shocked to see religion enter into the election debates,just seems so weird,kerry said "well, we're all gods children bob",bush thanked god for the iraqi elections taking place.the christians voted him in,he's not gonna start pissing them off now.
with respect to incest,i think that will never be legal as it actively harms people and the species,the kids of incestual relationships are far more likely to have defects than non,(unless ive been lied to my whole life),and if this mixes with everyone else its not for the best,gay relationships are,at worst, a dead end in the family tree.that gay people aren't given the right to a civil marriage is sick.incest isnt good,look at the english royal family,all the privilidge in the world,they go to one of the best schools in england,have private tutoring and their academic results in general are very very average.and we still send prince phillip abroad to represent us.......

 

An ex fratboy and self styled Texan cowboy turned evangelical Christian republican homophobic?! No way! haha. Let's face it, Bush's crusade against gay marriage is nothing but a political tool to find some scapegoat to be angry at so that people forget to actually look critically at his massive failings. The punitive nature of this administration's policies toward homosexuals is just appalling.

 

Who said anything about kids or offspring? Or are you now, perhaps, suggesting that all people be tested and approved before they can have children in case they might have deformed/abnormal kids? And if something is "wrong" with them, that we prevent them from having kids?

And as to "actively harms people", the anti-gay crowd has been saying just such things about the homosexual lifestyle for years, yet you think that's wrong. Why? What's the difference? How can one be wrong and not the other?

That practictioners of incest aren't given the right to a civil marriage is sick, too, isn't it? If not, how is it so different to homosexuality?

I don't know ...but to me, if we grant homosexuals the right to marry, how can we prevent other similar groups from marrying, too? Or are we just going to admit that we're all just damned hippo-critics and let it go at that? Pick one group - say it's okay; pick another group - say it's illegal?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

What's the difference between sticking your head up your ass just a little, and a whole lot? Who cares? Perhaps we should take the issues as they come, rather than trying to invent one to discredit the other?

The fact is that no one is currently fighting for legal authorization of ancestral marriages, and if that ever genuinely came up then we'd just have to tackle it when it does. Denying homosexuals the right to marry does not prevent the other issue from arising, granting homosexuals the right to marry does not ensure that it will become an issue.

Right now you're doing nothing but jumping at shadows of your own creation so that you don't have to deal with the problems that are genuinely in front of you right now. Try to stay on topic, and not let your mind wander so far. Or should advocates of same-sex marriage begin conjecturing that if same-sex couples aren't allowed legal recognition of marriage that it will lead to atheists being denied marriage, and members of non Christian religions, and even interracial marriages? After all if the government is already in the business of revoking marriage licenses, then where does one draw the line?

Then again, maybe we could all keep a level head and treat the issue fairly without getting hysterical and trying to qualify every vaguely looming far-out fear that happens to skitter across our minds?

 

Marriage definitely has something to do with society. There are many societies around where western "no-no"s are the normal case. I just want to remind you that marriages consisting of more than two partners are possible (one man - x women; but also one woman - x men) or that marriages between 13-year olds also occur - such things are culturally defined.
If you look at all forms of marriage you will find that there is one unique feature: marriage partners have certain obligations towards each other (depending on culture, but the core of it is material provision for each other), but also towards society (here I am not sure: should I write "provision of a home to offspring" or "producing offspring"; however, there are also other obligations, for instance the inclusion of the partner's family into the equation, meaning caring for in-laws and therefore providing a safety net, etc.).

I would imagine that in former times marriage was NOT created to produce offspring (that's perfectly possible without marriage and the same applies to incest), but to develop a work-unit where each partner had a predisposition for a certain type of task; men doing more physical demanding work, women more intricate tasks. Such multi-task work-units were certainly very beneficial to everyone - hence the trend to institutionalize it.

Now: marriage between siblings and father-mother-children would be complete nonsense in a way, because by bond of family those people ideally care for each other already. When the father dies, the daughter inherits. Why marry?

Marriage between gays: if the partners complement each other (and that must be the case; otherwise they wouldn't be attracted to one another) why not?

 

No, Mystech, it's a matter of Constitutional law! If they make the law for homos, then it WILL BE the law for incest (and possibly other issues,too). See? You're the one who is being narrow and short-sighted, not me. Once that law is decided, that's it ...it's a Constitutional law.

"Perhaps we should take the issues as they come, rather than trying to invent one to discredit the other?"

Is that the way you take care of things in your life now? ...without regard to what those decision might mean for the future? Hmmm?

"Right now you're doing nothing but jumping at shadows of your own creation so that you don't have to deal with the problems that are genuinely in front of you right now."

Perhaps you should take lessons. For what ye sow today, ye might have to reap in the very near future ....so be careful what ye sow.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max