Things i dislike about george w bush

[Brian in Boston]

Chris...

Ultimately, I think that everyone is going to have their own definition of what constitutes a "marriage". I know that for my wife and I, it is intrinsically tied to the sacred. Without God, we'd look at any partnership as not being a "marriage" per se. At least by our definition.

Does that mean that we wouldn't respect the commitment to one another of two atheists who were joined in a civil ceremony before a Justice of the Peace? No... not at all. We wouldn't consider it a "marriage" by our definition, but we wouldn't judge them as being "beneath us" because of it. We wouldn't judge them at all. It's their business.

I guess that's the bigger issue for me. I don't understand how it is that certain factions of our society/government feel that they should be allowed to dictate/legislate morality to others on this issue. As long as another couple's partnership - "marriage", "civil union", "domestic partnership"... what have you - doesn't infringe on our own, then... quite frankly... it's none of our business. And it certainly shouldn't be of concern to the government, except where issues such as taxes, benefits, etc are concerned.

I just get wary the minute the government starts defining a marriage. Conceivably, what starts as a "legal, domestic partnership between a man and a woman", could someday become a "legal, domestic partnership between a caucasian man and a caucasian woman". I mean, where does it all stop?

Brian in Boston

[winters in buffalo]

...and with that we are done. Please avoid further embarassment, and lets just leave it here. BiB again, full of insight and wisdom.

I don't he did anything to end the debate, he merely provided a set of definitions (which I think he did very well) to distinguish between a religous marriage and a legally-recognized civil union.

[Shizznick]

Kind of interesting watching the evolution of a thread.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

[Brian in Boston]

My goal wasn't necessarily to end the debate. However, given the definitions that I came up with, I believe I do call into question the government's right to legislate parameters for "marriage".

After all, if - by my definition - marriage is a sacred commitment before God, shouldn't the government avoid pronouncements on the institution under the idea of the "separation of church and state"?

I also don't think it is all that strange for me to be invoking the idea of "marriage" being a sacred institution, since those who are arguing against the idea of homosexuals being able to enter into marriage, most often attempt to wrap themselves in the cloak of Judeo-Christian standards of morality.

Those who want the government to "ban" gay marriage, are asking the government to impose these Judeo-Christian standards of morality in spite of the separation of church and state. Which begs the question, if its okay in this instance, why not just eliminate the whole idea of a separation, and establish a State Church? Which potentially leads to a day when the government is trying to tell you how to worship.

No thank you.

Brian in Boston

[JQK]

No one is saying to institute Judeo-christian standers on anyone. Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. If it's not a man and a woman, it's not a marriage. It has nothing to do with God or religion. No one is instituting a Ste Church. You're trying to make a point by scaring people into things that won't, and can't, happen, you're making arguments that have no basis. Stop fear-mongering, and use facts for once.

[-kj]

No one is saying to institute Judeo-christian standers on anyone.

Actually, a majority people in opposition to giving equal coupling rights to homosexuals give religious reasons as their argument.  Certainly seems like a way to enforce religious beliefs through civil law.

If the basic problem is with the term "marriage," then name ALL marriages something else.  Leave marriage for religion, and let the government choose a new term for the contracts that two people enter into, which is what current civil marriages are.

[JQK]

Man and Woman unions are marriages. Same Sex unions aren't. It not just about names, it's about added benifits, government taxes, alot goes into what is or isn't a marriage, and none of it is religious. People choose to get married at town hall by a judge, it's not religious, it's legal. Marriages have to be legal, wether they are done in a church or have a religious ceremony makes no difference, it's all about the law.

[CC97]

It not just about names, it's about added benifits, government taxes, alot goes into what is or isn't a marriage,

But shouldn't everyone have the opportunity to enter into a marriage and get these added benefits no matter what their sexual orientation?

Just because something is by defination doesn't mean it's set in stone.

One day we will look back and laugh at how foolish we were for not allowing homosexuals to marry, much like we do about not letting women vote, and different races use the same water fountain.

[Shizznick]

A buddy of mine is a divorce lawyer. He's all for gay marriages and business it will bring him.

You notice how lawyers benefit from everything? After a nuclear war only lawyers, cockroaches and Keith Richards will be around.

[CC97]

A buddy of mine is a divorce lawyer. He's all for gay marriages and business it will bring him.

You notice how lawyers benefit from everything? After a nuclear war only lawyers, cockroaches and Keith Richards will be around.

And Dick Clark will look younger than ever.

[JQK]

But shouldn't everyone have the opportunity to enter into a marriage and get these added benefits no matter what their sexual orientation?

Just because something is by defination doesn't mean it's set in stone.

One day we will look back and laugh at how foolish we were for not allowing homosexuals to marry, much like we do about not letting women vote, and different races use the same water fountain.

Homosexuals should be able to be bonded together by civil law, but they should not be married, nor get the benifits or drawbacks that marriage brings.

[-kj]

Homosexuals should be able to be bonded together by civil law, but they should not be married, nor get the benifits or drawbacks that marriage brings.

So, how can people be "bonded by civil law" without getting any of the benefits/responsibilities of the union?

[JQK]

See, this is a really tricky area, trying to define whenre civil unions end and marriage begins, in a legal sense anyways, and i'm no lawyer....

I wish i could really discuss this further, but until i read up more on this issue, i'll have to abstain from the conversation...

(Going to read up, get educated on this issue, Be back soon)

[Brian in Boston]

J. Quincy King...

Here's a fact. Despite predating Judeo-Christian organized religion, the first marriage ceremonies were nevertheless religious in nature. These ceremonies raised the coupling of a man and a woman above the level of procreation for procreation's sake. They sought to infuse what had been a largely carnal relationship between the males and females of our species, with a sacred meaning. By the time of the rise of the Jewish faith, marriage was seen as having been instituted by the "One God". Look no further than Genesis 2:18-24... "Marriage was instituted in Paradise when man was in innocence."

I'll take you at what seems to be your word, that so far as you're concerned, marriage is simply a civil contract entered into by a man and a woman. Fine. You are entitled to your definition, just as I am entitled to mine. However, if you're going to attempt to tell me that the "gay marriage" issue in this country has been debated completely devoid of Judeo-Christian overtones... well, John you either haven't been paying close enough attention or you're purposely being insincere.

The longest and loudest cries against "gay marriage" have come from the conservative Christian right. No one has argued longer or louder against the prospect of "marriage" or "civil unions" for homosexuals than the leaders of our nation's churches. Those politicians who are like-minded on the issue have been more than willing to ally themselves with these religious leaders and, yes, wrap themselves in the cloak of Judeo-Christian values.

Am I saying that the rise of a "State Church" is inevitable? No. Am I even saying that it's likely to happen? Probably not. But I do know that for a country whose government supposedly calls for a separation of church and state, I've heard an awful lot this past year about how prayer in public schools would be wonderful, depictions of the Ten Commandments being removed from court houses is tearing at the fiber of our nation and allowing gay marriage is going to give rise to a modern Sodom and Gomorrah. And an awful lot of conservative politicians - including our President - have made noise about how wonderful it would be to legislate morality. If you don't think that morality is going to be of the Judeo-Christian variety my friend, just explain to me what type of morality it's going to be: Buddhist? Zoroastrian? Dare I say it... Islamic?

You'd think that the leaders of this country would have bigger fish to fry than "protecting" our straight man-woman marriages from the threat of the gay variety. What exactly is the threat? I notice that you ignored the most pertinent part of my posts, so I'll ask again: No matter what your religious persuasion (even if you're not particularly religious), if you and your spouse are committed to each other, how the hell can what someone else is doing in their relationship bother your marriage?

I also notice that you chose to ignore my statements about the hypocrisy of both George W. Bush's and Mitt Romney's position on the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling. Why was that? Maybe, because it can't be refuted, huh? When a court ruling comes down in their favor, they just keep their mouths shut... but, God forbid that "activist judges" should take an issue like this into their hands and rule against "Dubya" on an issue of "morality".

Oh, and what about my assertion that the Republicans, who supposedly want to downsize "big government" and get it out of our lives when it comes to health care/affirmative action/welfare/gun control/etcetera, don't seem to mind legislating control of our lives in the areas of abortion rights/term limits/gay marriage. Let me see if I get this straight: government shouldn't be making decisions for you... unless we're talking about the decisions that Republicans want to make for you.

Bottom line: the economy's in the toilet, our deficit is the largest in history, the "weapons of mass destruction" have not be found, Osama Bin Laden's still on the loose... so the electorate is starting to get upset. George "Dubya" is starting to see his popularity erode. So he and the Republicans have to embrace a "hot-button" issue that will take the public's attention off of the current administration's gaffes.

And you have the audacity to accuse me of bringing up issues that are nothing more than "scare tactics" without basis in reality. Trying to convince the people of this country that "gay marriage" is going to undermine the trappings of our morality is what I'd call "fear-mongering". I'd also call it pathetic. Particularly for a President.

Brian in Boston

[JQK]

The longest and loudest cries against "gay marriage" have come from the conservative Christian right. No one has argued longer or louder against the prospect of "marriage" or "civil unions" for homosexuals than the leaders of our nation's churches. Those politicians who are like-minded on the issue have been more than willing to ally themselves with these religious leaders and, yes, wrap themselves in the cloak of Judeo-Christian values.

When did i ever say Religious people weren't against marrage? I never said the argument was devoid of religious referneces or religious reasoning, but i am trying to debate it under what is right with the law.

Am I saying that the rise of a "State Church" is inevitable? No. Am I even saying that it's likely to happen? Probably not. But I do know that for a country whose government supposedly calls for a separation of church and state, I've heard an awful lot this past year about how prayer in public schools would be wonderful, depictions of the Ten Commandments being removed from court houses is tearing at the fiber of our nation and allowing gay marriage is going to give rise to a modern Sodom and Gomorrah.

Seperation of church and state is not legislated, it is not part of the constitution. It is a good thing to have, the government has no right to tell you what to believe, or to MAKE you believe. But what harm comes from prayer in school if a student so desires? What's wrong with the ten commandments, the basis for western law, in a courthouse? Seperation of church and state has been hijacked, and used to produce fear in the weak minded, telling them the government is out to make a State Church, and to make everyone believe the same thing, which is [horse excrement]. You seem to feel like you're on moral highground, telling everyone they CAN'T believe in what they want, because it's wrong. You force you're belifes on others, but since you don't have a religion, you feel it's ok to do. A belief is a belief, and you have no right to tell anyone what they can or can't do. If a kid what's to pray in school, they should be able to. God forbid a non christian was to be stopped from praying in school, the uproar would be amazing. the ACLU would be in there, defending their right to pray.. not for a christian though. If you're white, a man, and christian, you have no more rights in this country... you're not allowed to...

You'd think that the leaders of this country would have bigger fish to fry than "protecting" our straight man-woman marriages from the threat of the gay variety. What exactly is the threat? I notice that you ignored the most pertinent part of my posts, so I'll ask again: No matter what your religious persuasion (even if you're not particularly religious), if you and your spouse are committed to each other, how the hell can what someone else is doing in their relationship bother your marriage?

It cheapens the institution of marriage. Let's say you work your whole life, you save up money, and the one thing you've wanted since you were young, was a Jaguar... the car, not the animal. Now you finally buy it, it means more to you than most anything, and it's special because not everyone can get a jaguar, it's special to you, it means more. Now Jaguar sayins they are loweringtheir prices, and everyone in your neighborhood now has a Jaguar too. It makes yours less special, it doesn't mean as much, it has cheapend it's significance. Not everyone can get married. Men and women can get marries, not men and men, or women and women. THey don't meet the marriage criteria. Even in ancient Greece, where homosexuality was the norm, and encouraged, marriage was still between a man and a women. Marriage is more than just a tradition, it's part of our nature, it's in our genes, men and women get married, that's it.

I also notice that you chose to ignore my statements about the hypocrisy of both George W. Bush's and Mitt Romney's position on the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling. Why was that? Maybe, because it can't be refuted, huh? When a court ruling comes down in their favor, they just keep their mouths shut... but, God forbid that "activist judges" should take an issue like this into their hands and rule against "Dubya" on an issue of "morality".

You libs are STILL pissed over the election that Gore tried to steal. Even with all the disputed ballots counted, Bush still won. Let it go, man, let it go.

Oh, and what about my assertion that the Republicans, who supposedly want to downsize "big government" and get it out of our lives when it comes to health care/affirmative action/welfare/gun control/etcetera, don't seem to mind legislating control of our lives in the areas of abortion rights/term limits/gay marriage. Let me see if I get this straight: government shouldn't be making decisions for you... unless we're talking about the decisions that Republicans want to make for you.

Republicans are for smaller governemt. Republicans don't want to be in peoples lives, but liberal judges have taken it upon themselves to legislate unjustly when they have no right too. They are judges, they enforce and interpret the law, they don't make their own laws. The problem is that is exactly what some of these leftis judges are doing. So to stem the tide, the legislative branch must take back some of it's power from the judicial branch, and make the laws what they were, before the socialist actavist judges tried to usurp he government. I'd rather the legislative branch make the laws than the radical left judges

Bottom line: the economy's in the toilet

Whoa... now... wait... wow.... Do...do you just take the [excrement] that the democratic party feeds you, or do you look up things for yourself? Because that statement right there, makes you lose ALL credability. You now have none. The economy is growing, it is prospering, jobs are rising, stocks are rising, what exactly about theeconomy is bad? The dollar is recovering against the Euro, there... i just.. wow...

Just because you keep saying it, doesn't mean it's gonna be true..... wow... I expected better of you BiB baby, but that line about the economy. wow.. it just makes me think all you are doing is regurgitating political election [cowpatties] that John Kerry and Howard Dean are spewing... Reearch my friend.. research... you'll see you're on the wrong side of the economic issue....

**[brackets] denote Mod Edit.

Edited by SyPhi - Feb 12/04 12:19 am

[zer0dotcom]

I've been watching this one for quite awhile, I wanted to think things through before weighing in. It's more legnthy than alot of other things I post, please bear with me.

I do not hold anything against those who as gay, lesbian or bisexual. In the grand scheme of things, I think there are more importnat matters in life than one's sexual preferences. That said, I have no problems with same sex couples, or their desire to be together and take some form of vow to each other. It's hard enough in the world today to find happiness, if two people are happy with each other, then I don't see why they can't, married or not. In my Soc of Eduction class, a huge aruement broke out after someone made the comment that people who are not straight cannot succeed in our society. That I dissagree with. I have friends who are not straight who are doing much better in life than I am. Thus ensued a heated debate that ultimatle left alot of people very hot under the collar

However, I disagree with calling it a marrage. Marrage has always been a religious intistuion, and I don';t think that it's fair or right for governments to impose onto religions. Calling it a union or another name is no problem for me, but marrage is a stretch.

This discussion has reminded me of a case that happened at home in Oshawa, and I'm sure that many of you have heard of it. An Oshawa teenager at a Catholic Highscool wanted to take his boyfriend to the prom with him. Obviously, this was a no-no with the school, so he went to court to sue. During the course of things, he dyed his hair blue and seeing his boyfriend looking several years older didn't really help his case. It made it look more like a grab for attention.

In the end, he won his case, and got to take his boyfriend to prom.

That I totally dissagree with. If this was another religion other than Catholic, this wouldn't have happened. If this was a Public school, this probubly wouldn't have even been known about outside of the school. I don't think that the government should be able to tell a religion how to behave or what they should and should not accept.

I respect the beliefs of all religions, and I respect the lifestyle choices that people have, and I beleive that as a scoiety we'll have to figure out a way for everyone to co-exist, because neither side is going anywhere

(just to add, I don't care how people live their lives, thats up to them. Live and let live)

[CC97]

I've been watching this one for quite awhile, I wanted to think things through before weighing in. It's more legnthy than alot of other things I post, please bear with me.

I do not hold anything against those who as gay, lesbian or bisexual. In the grand scheme of things, I think there are more importnat matters in life than one's sexual preferences. That said, I have no problems with same sex couples, or their desire to be together and take some form of vow to each other. It's hard enough in the world today to find happiness, if two people are happy with each other, then I don't see why they can't, married or not. In my Soc of Eduction class, a huge aruement broke out after someone made the comment that people who are not straight cannot succeed in our society. That I dissagree with. I have friends who are not straight who are doing much better in life than I am. Thus ensued a heated debate that ultimatle left alot of people very hot under the collar

However, I disagree with calling it a marrage. Marrage has always been a religious intistuion, and I don';t think that it's fair or right for governments to impose onto religions. Calling it a union or another name is no problem for me, but marrage is a stretch.

This discussion has reminded me of a case that happened at home in Oshawa, and I'm sure that many of you have heard of it. An Oshawa teenager at a Catholic Highscool wanted to take his boyfriend to the prom with him. Obviously, this was a no-no with the school, so he went to court to sue. During the course of things, he dyed his hair blue and seeing his boyfriend looking several years older didn't really help his case. It made it look more like a grab for attention.

In the end, he won his case, and got to take his boyfriend to prom.

     That I totally dissagree with. If this was another religion other than Catholic, this wouldn't have happened. If this was a Public school, this probubly wouldn't have even been known about outside of the school. I don't think that the government should be able to tell a religion how to behave or what they should and should not accept.

I respect the beliefs of all religions, and I respect the lifestyle choices that people have, and I beleive that as a scoiety we'll have to figure out a way for everyone to co-exist, because neither side is going anywhere

Yeah but this marriage is outside the school, so that really has nothing to do with it  

Gays have the same rights as every other person in this country, they should be able to get married whether YOUR religion says so or not.

What is this?  The 1850s?

[zer0dotcom]

I didn't think that they were  ???

[CC97]

I didn't think that they were  ???

no they weren't married, but your point is invalid, that's what i was tryin to say.

In other words, it's not like gay people are trying to get married in a church.

That'd be an understandable problem.

[zer0dotcom]

I was trying to point out that the state shouldn't impose beliefs on a religion, and vice-versa, but I see where you're coming from