Banning gay/lesbo marriages?

Sektor31 · Post by **Sektor31** » 2003-08-01 05:08pm

What's your view on this?

My opinion, as a hetero, is that they should just let them tie the knot and leave it like that, what's bothering Bush about the personal affairs of two men/two women?

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-08-01 05:15pm

As a hetero myself too i`m all for gay marriage,let them profit of the joy that divorce brings.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-08-01 05:17pm

Sektor31 wrote:what's bothering Bush about the personal affairs of two men/two women?

a. His own personal bigotry, probably stemming from his religious beliefs.
b. The religious right who account for a large part of his political and financial support.
c. Combination of both a and b.

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2003-08-01 05:18pm

Sektor31 wrote:what's bothering Bush about the personal affairs of two men/two women?

Bush is a religious fundy. And, as Lady Tevar pointed out in another thread, it's hypocritical for a conservative to increase the size of federal government, when in theory a conservative is against that. So I think we can rule it out as mere political principle, and probably religiously motivated.

People should be allowed to marry whoever they want, regardless of gender. Anything else is discrimination.

And in the case of "civil unions," which I think some states allow, it raises the question: could a heterosexual couple get a civil union instead of a marriage? And if they could, why can't a homosexual couple get married?

And if the heterosexual couple can't get a civil union, then it's just more of the same old "separate but equal" bullshit.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-01 05:18pm

A Constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage (which Bush stated that he wants the other day) is the dumbest fucking thing I've heard, ever. Why the fuck do we have to go through all the bullshit required to amend the Constitution just so that we can deny states the right to allow something for which there is no reason to oppose for anyone not knee-deep in outdated religious dogma? Unfortunately, this amendment is probably hot electoral property, and won't be going away.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-01 05:21pm

when in theory a conservative is against that.

In theory you're mistaken. Bush made no attempt to pretend that he would not preside over expansion of federal power during his campaign; the fact that he supported the Prescription Drug Benefit is proof of that. Conservatives can no longer oppose increasing the size of the federal government through social programs and get elected at the national level.

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2003-08-01 05:34pm

Durran Korr wrote:
when in theory a conservative is against that.
In theory you're mistaken. Bush made no attempt to pretend that he would not preside over expansion of federal power during his campaign; the fact that he supported the Prescription Drug Benefit is proof of that. Conservatives can no longer oppose increasing the size of the federal government through social programs and get elected at the national level.

I was unaware of that. Thanks.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-08-01 06:07pm

Sektor31 wrote:What's your view on this?

My opinion, as a hetero, is that they should just let them tie the knot and leave it like that, what's bothering Bush about the personal affairs of two men/two women?

Ontario rules same-sex marriages are okay.
Bush tries to ban it and put it in the US Consitution.

Scary.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-08-01 06:56pm

well the defence of marriage act basically makes same sex marriages illegal already, but the reason for them doing this is that they are afraid of homosexuals, probably becuase they fear that it will spred or some garbage like that.

Its an excuse for people who think they aer better than other people to separate themselves from others and oppress the others. Nothing more

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-01 07:16pm

Bush tries to ban it and put it in the US Consitution.

Fortunately, I highly doubt this will happen. I doubt it would even get through Congress, but even if it does I doubt even further that 38 of the states are going to be stupid enough to get on board with such a retarded amendment.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-08-01 07:20pm

The only reason I can think of why someone would want to outlaw gay marraige would be a religous one, and since the First Amendment says that Congress shall not make a law respecting the establishment of a religion, then perhaps a ban on gay marraige might violate that amendment. I say we just redefine marraige as the union between two people, regardless of gender, legalize homosexual marraiges, and move a bit futher into the 21st century. But, until the day comes that a significant majority of the population supports gay marraige, politicians would have no choice but ot either remain silent on it or oppose it in fear of losing support.

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2003-08-01 07:30pm

Personally; if gay/lesbian marriages were legal universally; I think that any and all overpopulation problems would quickly dissapear. You see, in my own personal beleif homosexuality is Gaia's population control. Ever notice how you find more gay people around crowded urban centers?

So to further psychoanalyze bush, banning gay marriages is also a way for the U.S. to try and enforce its will upon the world, as population is still in some way <forced> by christian mores to expand, especially in the U.S. Unhappy marriages caused by marriages of closeted queers with a heterosexual mate (yes a few still exist) also can create more children likely to join the military. Of course, the same sort of children are also produced by the idiotic theory of "abstinence till marriage" also purported by the religious right. Whoah. I just got disturbingly too in depth for myself.

<steps back and shudders>

Anyways, I shall return when the disturbing truth has finished settling in my mind.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-08-01 07:30pm

Durran Korr wrote:Fortunately, I highly doubt this will happen. I doubt it would even get through Congress, but even if it does I doubt even further that 38 of the states are going to be stupid enough to get on board with such a retarded amendment.

Who ever said it has to go through? Even if it fails Bush and company get credit for trying, and social conservitives have one more means to use 'family values' scare tactics against their opponents.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2003-08-01 07:34pm

--In my personal opinion the state should not be involved with marriages or civil unions. What possible need is there unless you believe married people should be favored/punished (neither case makes sense to me)? People should be able to determine exactly what their relationships are without interferance or coersion (things like master/slave excluded of course).

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-01 07:39pm

Nova Andromeda wrote:--In my personal opinion the state should not be involved with marriages or civil unions. What possible need is there unless you believe married people should be favored/punished (neither case makes sense to me)? People should be able to determine exactly what their relationships are without interferance or coersion (things like master/slave excluded of course).

That is my position, essentially, but as long as the state offers the advantageous civil union of marriage, it should not be limited to heterosexuals.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2003-08-01 07:42pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Nova Andromeda wrote:--In my personal opinion the state should not be involved with marriages or civil unions. What possible need is there unless you believe married people should be favored/punished (neither case makes sense to me)? People should be able to determine exactly what their relationships are without interferance or coersion (things like master/slave excluded of course).
That is my position, essentially, but as long as the state offers the advantageous civil union of marriage, it should not be limited to heterosexuals.

--I was under the impression civil unions were punished currently (at least in the tax arena).

Singular Quartet · Post by **Singular Quartet** » 2003-08-01 07:45pm

The Conservatives, besides being religously opposed to this, also believe that there is something out there called "The Gay Agenda" which is, in certain circles (read: KKK) believed to be linked to the massive Jewish conspiracy to rule the world.

Grante,d I could also be making this up, but as a friend of mine once said,

10% is not enough!
Recruit! Recruit! Recruit!

Granted, she always was a weerid one, but cool none the less...

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-08-01 07:53pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Bush tries to ban it and put it in the US Consitution.
Fortunately, I highly doubt this will happen. I doubt it would even get through Congress, but even if it does I doubt even further that 38 of the states are going to be stupid enough to get on board with such a retarded amendment.

I didn't say it get thorugh (if it did...

) but the fact that Bush is pushing for it, and he has a far amount of support on it.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-08-01 08:00pm

Singular Quartet's friend wrote: 10% is not enough!
Recruit! Recruit! Recruit!

Of course, alienate yourself from the general population, be descriminated against at almost every turn, take verbal abuse by otherwise nice people, be called an abonomation by the religious community, risk physical violence against yourself, or even risk death. Sounds like fun! Where do I and my fellow straight humans sign up?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-01 08:07pm

Nova Andromeda wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
Nova Andromeda wrote:--In my personal opinion the state should not be involved with marriages or civil unions. What possible need is there unless you believe married people should be favored/punished (neither case makes sense to me)? People should be able to determine exactly what their relationships are without interferance or coersion (things like master/slave excluded of course).
That is my position, essentially, but as long as the state offers the advantageous civil union of marriage, it should not be limited to heterosexuals.
--I was under the impression civil unions were punished currently (at least in the tax arena).

To an extent, yes. However, there are advantages; in the event of a separation, you may have a legal claim to some of your spouse's property, which you do not have otherwise, and you also have a claim when your spouse passes away. Some companies also offer benefits like health insurance and stuff to the partners of employees.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-01 08:11pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Of course, alienate yourself from the general population, be descriminated against at almost every turn, take verbal abuse by otherwise nice people, be called an abonomation by the religious community, risk physical violence against yourself, or even risk death. Sounds like fun! Where do I and my fellow straight humans sign up?

Why, all you have to do is bend over and..

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-08-01 08:28pm

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-01 08:36pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:http://www2.latech.edu/~tbw005/BoardIma ... a_Homo.jpg

He~ey!

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-08-01 08:40pm

Bush is a fucktard who seems hell-bent on becoming what he says he hates the most: A Right-Wing Religiously-Motivated Terrorist. That's right. Terrorist!

Fuckin hypocrite.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-01 08:43pm

BECOMING? I thought he already was, isn't it terrorising people what was happening to gay couples in texas thanks to the antisodomy laws?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Banning gay/lesbo marriages?

Banning gay/lesbo marriages?

Re: Banning gay/lesbo marriages?

Re: Banning gay/lesbo marriages?

Re: Banning gay/lesbo marriages?