quote: “I BELIEVE MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman, and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other, and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that,” the president said in a wide-ranging news conference at the White House Rose Garden. Bush also urged, however, that America remain a “welcoming country” not polarized on the issue of homosexuality. “I am mindful that we’re all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take a speck out of the neighbor’s eye when they’ve got a log in their own,” the president said. “I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts.” “On the other hand, that does not mean that someone like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage,” he added.
I believe marriage to be a bond between two people who want to prove their love for each other, not between their gender.
posted
I was saddened to hear about the strings he attached to the African AIDS money -- that it not be used for birth control or birth control instruction, for example.
posted
Yeah, if you want to preserve marriage as a union between a man and a woman, it means that you are afraid of gay people.
Posts: 276 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
>> “I am mindful that we’re all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take a speck out of the neighbor’s eye when they’ve got a log in their own,” the president said. “I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts.”
“On the other hand, that does not mean that someone like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage,” he added. <<
...as a contradiction in terms.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It won't happen. I bet that Bush is just saying this for his conservative audience. Passing a federal law to define marriage is not going to happen during his Presidency.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, I'm not sure I could construct a logical argument without basing it almost entirely on my religious beliefs. Such an argument won't have any merit with someone who doesn't share my beliefs, so I don't think I'll waste my time.
In other words, I just wanted to shoot off my sarcastic one-liner without contributing anything to the conversation.
But I will say this: People throw around terms like "homophobic" and "bigoted" too often. There is a difference between believing that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman, and having actual fear of or hatred towards homosexuals. I don't fear or hate homosexuals.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should hope not. Maybe he feels threatened because we Canadians are now specifically allowing homosexual marriage after the recent Supreme Court decision.
My view is that there's no reason for heterosexuals to care one way or the other about the legality of homosexual marriage. It simply does not affect people who are heterosexual. Thus there is no reason to oppose it.
So I don't.
Edit:
I see what you're saying, Jon Boy, but the religious sanctity of marriage must remain separate from its legal definition. That's the way both your country and mine are supposed to work.
posted
That seems like flawed reasoning to me, Twinky. I'm sure there are lots of laws that don't affect me, but that doesn't mean that I can't or shouldn't oppose them.
But I think I'm going to stay out of this argument until I feel like I can construct a more logical argument.
[ July 31, 2003, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
The President merely said that while he understands that compassion for all sinners is a must for Christians, he also believes that as a Christian he should oppose sin.
Posts: 131 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't start, twinky, because Jacare will jump in here and dump his "no society makes laws without a basis in religion" argument on the thread, and it'll be all over from there.
This is really ridiculous, though. The only reason such a law would need to be passed, even from a conservative point of view, is because the will of the people is steadily turning towards equality for homosexuals and they would like to stop it for their religious constituency. That seems rather undemocratic to me. In more ways than one, I suppose.
posted
I for one disagree that it doesn't affect heterosexuals. Or are you saying that tax structures and insurance and social security and pension benefits are not a part of the equation, or that I as a heterosexual taxpayer would not be affected indirectly by any of those things? (Note, I'm not lining up on either side of this fence right now -- I'll see where it goes first -- but I have to disagree with your claim.)
posted
>> That seems like flawed reasoning to me, Twinky. I'm sure there are lots of laws that don't affect me, but that doesn't mean that I can't or shouldn't oppose them. << (Jon Boy)
Yeah, that's the best counter-argument to my position, really. But I don't mean for it to be taken as a reason to be applied to opposition of all laws; rather, I view it as a sort of "strike" against those who do actively oppose this one.
For instance, President Bush.
>> The President merely said that while he understands that compassion for all sinners is a must for Christians, he also believes that as a Christian he should oppose sin. << (Potemkyn)
I disagree. I don't think that's what he said at all.
>> “I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts.” <<
>> “On the other hand, that does not mean that someone like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage.” <<
Yes, it does mean that. If you don't grant homosexuals the same rights as everyone else, you're hardly "welcoming" them. Either the two statements contradict one another, or Bush does not believe that homosexuals can have good hearts.
When you use religious language in political statements you can land yourself in all kinds of trouble.
Edit:
>> Or are you saying that tax structures and insurance and social security and pension benefits are not a part of the equation, or that I as a heterosexual taxpayer would not be affected indirectly by any of those things? (Note, I'm not lining up on either side of this fence right now -- I'll see where it goes first -- but I have to disagree with your claim.) << (Pop)
I was wondering when someone would point this out. But no, the heterosexual's taxes won't change as a result of allowing homosexual marriage. Why would they? Homosexuals pay taxes too. The difference is that they would be eligible for marriage-specific tax exemptions, spousal benefits, and so forth. How much revenue this costs the government will depend on how many homosexuals there are and how many of them choose to get married. I suspect, but obviously don't know and can't confirm, that the revenue drop will barely be noticeable.
What it costs companies in terms of benefits, however, is another matter. Currently, employing a homosexual in a long-term relationship is cheaper than employing a married heterosexual. So why do companies employ married heterosexuals at all?
In terms of company benefits, yes, it costs them more, but only because the benefits are currently biased towards heterosexuals.
posted
What many anti-gay-Marriage people want is a law saying, "Marriage is only between 1 man and 1 woman."
Many people are fine with homosexual life styles as long as they don't use the term "married". President Bush does not say this. He seems to be equating homosexuality with sin, "I am mindful that we are all sinners..." but a minor sin as compared to other, unnamed things. That is where the gay bashing/homophobia tags come from.
I want to move beyond that, back to this idea that "Marriage" is for 1 man and 1 woman. What do we do with any couple that vow to spend their lives together, supporting each other, caring and working together to create something better than two indivduals, regardless of the sex of those two individuals?
Lets call it a Social Union. A Social Union is a state recognized marriage-like combining of two people into one greater social cell that has all the same rights and legal benefits, and responsibilities, as a married couple.
Fine. Then I will quit calling myself married, and just say I am Unionized.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It won't happen. I bet that Bush is just saying this for his conservative audience. Passing a federal law to define marriage is not going to happen during his Presidency.
That's what I thought too, Caleb, when I heard it on the radio this morning. Far right conservatives aren't all that thrilled with Bush, from what I understand. It looked to me like a plea to show he's on their side.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it absolutely repugnant that the President of the US would refer to religious reasons for any policy decision affecting the entire country.
Frankly, he's supposed to be thinking beyond the confines of his own biases,whatever they happen to be.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you don't grant homosexuals the same rights as everyone else, you're hardly "welcoming" them.
Is it possible that marriage isn't a right, or at least not a universal one? (This is a purely hypothetical musing that might be totally irrelevant.) And what if the "right to marry" carries the intrinsic meaning of marrying someone of the opposite gender?
[ July 31, 2003, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find it absolutely repugnant that the President of the US would refer to religious reasons for any policy decision affecting the entire country.
But isn't that what any politician does? Whether their beliefs are religiously based or not, they are making decisions based on personal beliefs, not necessarily universal, non-religious beliefs. Is it even possible to make policy decisions that are wholly non-religious?
quote:Frankly, he's supposed to be thinking beyond the confines of his own biases,whatever they happen to be.
This is another thing I have a problem with, just like labeling Bush a homophobe: you disagree with Bush's beliefs, so now they're not even beliefs anymore—they're biases.
[ July 31, 2003, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> And what if the "right to marry" carries the intrinsic meaning of marrying someone of the opposite gender? <<
Then it's discriminatory and thus unconstitutional, at least in Canada.
>> Is it possible that marriage isn't a right, or at least not a universal one? (This is a purely hypothetical musing.) <<
It depends on how you define "marriage," right? Religious marriage varies from religion to religion. Legal marriage, however, has a very precise definition, and if it stipulates that certain groups are barred from it, it is discrimintory.
We have to be very, very careful to keep the distinction between religious marriage and legal marraige. Unless my wife-to-be insists on being married in a church, mosque, synagogue, or whatever, I'll be getting marred outdoors on a nice sunny day by a Justice of the Peace.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Discriminatory" does not equal "unconstitutional." People under a certain age aren't allowed to marry; that's legal discrimination. If the law can discriminate on the basis of age, why not on the basis of sexual orientation?
Gah. I knew I should stay out of this thread. I told myself I'd stay out, and now look what's happening.
[ July 31, 2003, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
However, there is a good argument to be made that allowing younger children to marry is harmful. I have seen not a single good argument that allowing homosexual people to enjoy the legal status of marriage is harmful (I think you'd find most homosexual people would be okay with it having a different name; perhaps civil unions).
That is one of the largest problems I have with this stance of Bush's. It totally ignores the reasons most homosexual people have for wanting to marry (based on my experience, at least). The issue is over the legal rights and responsibilities entailed by marriage, not the title of marriage. He's making it about the title of marriage, which is a way of redirecting the problem so he doesn't have to deal with the real issues.
I've asked this question repeatedly before, and very few people have answered it, so I'll ask it again.
To all people who are against homosexual marriage: are you opposed to giving homosexual people a legal recourse that is identical under the law to marriage, except termed differently (civil union seems as good a title as any)? If so, why?
As a related question, if the government placed harsh and restrictive conditions on marriage, and promoted promiscuity with tax benefits, would you still get married?
I ask these questions because it seems to me many people who are against the marriage of homosexual people are afraid. Afraid that by the legitimization of homosexual marriage, their own commitment will be weakened. I am not saying this is true of all people who are against the marriage of homosexual people, but it seems to be the case for many, particularly the men who are against homosexual marriage. These people who are afraid feel that their own marriage will be cheapened by allowing homosexual people to marry. They fear a spiritual usurpation.
Yet, I do not think that it should matter to two peoples' marriage what anyone else in the world does. If hardly anyone got married and most lived in a sea of sex and condemned marriage as stupid and counter-produictive, would not each marriage still be special, and precious, and meaningful to those who took the vows?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy, the question that answers your question is:
WHY would you want to discriminate against homosexual marriage? There is no non-religious reason. Would you also support a law that made coffee (and other "hot drinks") illegal? Why not?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The issue is over the legal rights and responsibilities entailed by marriage, not the title of marriage. He's making it about the title of marriage, which is a way of redirecting the problem so he doesn't have to deal with the real issues.
That's what I wanted to say. Fugu said it better than I could have.
[ July 31, 2003, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Didn't Clinton already make a law about marriage being only between a man and a woman?
Yes and No. In 1996, with a democratic congress, the congress inacted the defense of Marriage Act. This act allowed any state to define marriage and not accept homo-sexual marriages done in other states. shortly there after more than 2/3 of the states redefined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The current argument is that this act is not constitutional. Until the a suit is brought before the Supreme Court and is ruled unconstitutional, it is law. So currently it is legal for a state not to honor a marriage based on sexual orientation.
Bush, was trying to get this out and dealt with before the election. He was saying this is what I believe and what I will try to do. What are you as a Democrat, going to stand for? It's a calling out, so to speak.
I believe that it will become a argued point during the next election and will be the death nail in the Democratic platform. They will lose the religous black vote as well as the catholic.
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah-- the religious black vote is more concerned with maintaining Affirmative Action than with homosexuality. And most Catholics don't give a whit about it either.
No change. This is a non-issue, as far as the next election is concerned. The next election is going to be all about defense and the economy.
posted
Instead of asking "why not gay marriage", shouldn't we be asking "why is marriage a part of the law at all" and "is there a similar compelling reason to include a new version of marriage today"?
I think that we should have to defend adding something to the law ... rather than having to defend NOT adding something to the law.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Geoff, does American law currently stipulate that marriage be between men and women, or is it simply interpreted that way?
Here in Canada, the laws were not gender-specific -- hence the Supreme Court decision allowing homosexual marriage, because there's no law against it here.
posted
With the Vatican coming out today and basically saying that any good Catholic would not support gay marriage it will not be a non issue. It is the hot topic of today. It may die out prior to the election. But I bet you will see it during the primaries.
As far as the Religious Black vote, It will depend on whether the protestant leaders voice their reservations.
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Vatican has also said that no good Catholic will support abortion or birth control, which is why the American Catholic church borders on apostasy. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
twinky- marriage is a State Law issue and not a Federal Law issue. Most states do define marriage as a legal union between (1) man and (1) woman.
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, let me say that I am very much in favor of homosexual people getting married. I think it will reduce much of the promiscuity and general emotional dishonesty that I perceive happens in the (especially male) homosexual community. Just my opinion.
Of course, this opinion flies right in the face of my (LDS) religious belief system. I really need to think about that.
But first, a few thoughts.
If you don't grant homosexuals the same rights as everyone else, you're hardly "welcoming" them.
Such an "all or nothing" approach might be counter-productive.
Calling people "homophobic" and "bigoted" is not going to facilitate the discussion and compromise that will be necessary as a society to work through these issues.
Now, let me try to explain how those against homosexual marriage may view things, given the fact that I am in favor of it, and therefore may not be the best spokesman for that side.
1. Marriage was instituted by God. Governments may regulate it, but God started it.
2. Family life was also instituted by God.
3. His preference would be the following: Mom and Dad, happily married bring children into the world, tenderly nurture them, and teach them about Him. Together, this family arranges and designs its life in a way that draws them closer to God and to eachother.
4. Sometimes through death, or divorce, or any number of tragedies, sometimes #3 just isn't going to happen. In that case, we do our best to make sure that people are properly nurtured and cared for and again drawn closer to God.
5. Other forms of "union" or "marriage" (especially the homosexual variety) will cheapen the overall attitude of society toward the divinely-ordained structure of marriage and family life. It won't necessarily affect any given marriage or family. But, an overall cavelier attitude of society toward the divinely instituted family structure will make this appropriate structure much more difficult to obtain or maintain.
6. After all is said and done, homosexual ACTS are a sin. People can feel free to engage in sin as they see fit. But I am a member of this society, and I don't want my society to outright condone the acts of people who are living in sin and who boldly flaut the laws of God.
7. I most certainly do not approve of anyone who would physically, emotionally, verbally, or otherwise attack a homosexual person. I would try to protect them to the best of my ability, if I were to be aware of such behavior.
Let the Rocks fly (at me). Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't worry, I'm not accusing Bush of homophobia. I just think he's wrong.
Marriage can't come from God if God doesn't exist. Since humanity as a whole does not (and IMO cannot, me being an agnostic) know whether or not Got exists, we ought to run our nations as if God does not exist. God should not figure into legal thinking. Ever.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Of course there are strings on foreign medical aid now, don't you know that Bush re-instated the infamous Mexico City Agreement? Bush is dangling money on a hook of his own morality to the world.
[ July 31, 2003, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
A great many people disagree about the rules that God puts forward. So I should amend my statement to include that.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you elect someone do you elect a man or his belief system also?
Those who say that tha man should act in the best interest of society outside religous beliefs are making a statement of belief themselves. When you elect a human to represent you you elect his beliefs or lake there-of. That is why we vote for people who appear to have the same beliefs as ourselves. So I would vote for someone who holds his religous beliefs in high regard, and is unwilling to bend. Twinky will vote for someone who put science and what you can see above an emotional outburst.
That is why the US is a representitive government.
posted
Scott: that only works if you include Islam as believers in God (which I do, but I suspect many people would not). Otherwise only 33% of the world believes in God (that is, is Christian).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
HDD, you can't get a perfect match, and I can guarantee you that the majority of America does not think birth control is evil, that is why the National Legislature has shot it down nearly every time in bill form.
Posts: 622 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
God should not figure into legal thinking. Ever.
I couldn't disagree more.
I am a member of this society. I believe in God. I have just as much right as anyone else to have my attitudes and opinions considered in the formulation of laws and policies of my society.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
HDD: no, we do not. We have a set of laws which govern which beliefs a politician is allowed to impose on other people. Most notable among these is the Consitution, which makes it explicitly clear that, no matter what lawmakers may believe/desire personally, certain things are not allowed.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's perfectly reasonable for God to have input into the legal process. Of course, I expect him to show up in person if he wants it done.
Heck, I'd settle for a high degree of agreement among his believers as to what he thinks.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No there is no such thing as a perfect match. That is why there are such things as re-call and terms. If the person is not they way they seem, you get rid of them. But you are going to vote based on electing someone who is similar to your beliefs whether they be religous or secular. or both.
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A great many people disagree about the rules that God puts forward.
The irony of this statement kills me. Sorry. I really don't mean to be rude. If I offend anyone, I'll apologize and edit this post.
Fugu, I think Scott was talking in a much broader sense, meaning that the majority of the world believes in a supreme being of one sort or another, not just the Judeo-Christian God.
posted
fugu, I limitly agree. Religion is a base for which people make judgements as to how they will vote. If you do not want someone to use his or her religion as a base then do not vote for them.
You are right that a politician cannot force me to believe the way they do, but they can base their judgements on their religous beliefs. They have the same right as you do to act in a way that is legal and in concordance with their religous views.
Posts: 1244 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and since when did God start marriage? Marriage is practiced in many cultures which don't believe in God (that is, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God) and never did.
Family life instituted by God? Bull-sh*t. Modern family life in the US draws extremely heavily on both classical (roman and greek) pre christian practices and german pre-christian practices.
Sorry if I sound insulting, but you can't make such blatantly unsupported statements and expect them to stand unchallenged.
WRT endorsing any form of homosexual marriage being an endorsement of sin, the law endorses divorce, yet I don't hear you protesting that (Jesus was pretty clear on that being a great evil, even as he barely mentioned homosexuality).
WRT not allowing homosexual marriage because it violates the Christian order of things, argue for it all you like, but it will not become any more Constitutional. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
