Bush attacking the Gay Community again.

[Guest InuYasha]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5044428.stm

 

We're mired in Iraq, our elderly may not have sufficient health care, and gas is over $3 in most of the country. How does Bush plan to deal with this? Clinton bashing is old, and doesn't get them play in the media anymore, so they have to go back to an even older stand-by: BAN GAY MARRIAGE!!!

 

Get a clue, Bush. Everyone with half a brain can see through your smokescreen. Unfortunately, the part of the country lacking more than half a brain are the exact people who will be fighting for this; like dogs on a dying deer.

[SuperJerk 0]

Mr Bush said: "Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."

 

Nice to see that actual long term research, in which the welfare of children raised by hetero sexual couples was compared to the welfare of children raised by same-sex couples, was done. I'm also glad we have a President who can back up his arguments with facts instead of vaguely worded and unprovable generalizations.

 

Can someone please offer evidence that allowing two men or two women to marry affects anyone besides the two men or two women who actually get married?

 

"A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people."

 

Did someone forget to inform me that the Constitutional amendment process now includes national referendum? Because it seems to me that, if this amendment passes, communities that DO want to enact gay marriage through the democratic process will not be allowed to. He is attempting to expand the role of the federal government to include regulating marriage law, which has always been a matter left to the states and local communities.

 

"An amendment to the constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice," Mr Bush said.

 

Is there some epidemic of federal courts ruling that gay marriages MUST be recognized that I'm unaware of?

[Guest The Satanic Angel]

If San Francisco=federal courts, then yes.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm guessing that was actually done at the municipal level with the support of the majority of the city's population.

[Guest]

Gay marriage doesn't bother me unless it would directly affect me, which is extremely unlikely. If it got to the point where I had a kid and they saw men or women getting married on television or kissing during a commercial, then I'd have a problem with it, which is also unlikely. Little kids don't need to see it. I didn't say I liked or didn't like them, but I'm sure it's easy to draw a conclusion.

 

Leave it to the states.

 

I already know what someone's response will be in regard to the kissing, but I'm too tired to even cover that.

[SuperJerk 0]

If it got to the point where I had a kid and they saw men or women getting married on television or kissing during a commercial, then I'd have a problem with it, which is also unlikely. Little kids don't need to see it.

 

I honestly don't see the harm that could have on a child.

[Guest El Satanico]

Do these people ignore reality and live in their own perfect image of the 1950's?

 

This isn't 1954, June Cleaver doesn't exist, and the sanctity of marriage sure the hell ain't what it use to be. Of course, I'm sure gay marriage is somehow responsible for high divorce rates, single mothers, teen mothers, pre marital sex, etc.

[Guest]

If it got to the point where I had a kid and they saw men or women getting married on television or kissing during a commercial, then I'd have a problem with it, which is also unlikely. Little kids don't need to see it.

 

I honestly don't see the harm that could have on a child.

I do, but I see all (not just homosexual) overly sexual acts as possibly having harm toward a 7 year old child.

 

Small example, I was at my aunt's house a month ago, and my gay cousin was there with his boyfriend. It was about 930 PM, so they both pull out an air mattress and lay down. They start fooling around and making out on the bed in front of everyone.

 

Now, we'll fastforward to last Saturday. My 2 cousins were spending the night, when I wake up and see them both in my room (they weren't both supposed to be in there) laying down on the floor and fooling around under the blankets. Now, I don't know what they were doing, but this is something that I've never seen before.

 

Now, did what my cousin and his boyfriend were doing influence them to do that?

[NoCalMike 0]

I just find it disgusting that anyone would ever consider changing the constitution into a document to discriminate, when it basically starts out that all men are created EQUAL.

 

Also, Bush is back to his usual rhetoric about "Activist Judges" which is another ludicrous statement because Judges are SUPPOSED to be Activists for the Constitution and Law, not for the Religious-Right Wing. Judges are supposed to here cases about laws on the books and see if they mesh with the constitution.

[NoCalMike 0]

If it got to the point where I had a kid and they saw men or women getting married on television or kissing during a commercial, then I'd have a problem with it, which is also unlikely. Little kids don't need to see it.

 

I honestly don't see the harm that could have on a child.

I do, but I see all (not just homosexual) overly sexual acts as possibly having harm toward a 7 year old child.

 

Small example, I was at my aunt's house a month ago, and my gay cousin was there with his boyfriend. It was about 930 PM, so they both pull out an air mattress and lay down. They start fooling around and making out on the bed in front of everyone.

 

Now, we'll fastforward to last Saturday. My 2 cousins were spending the night, when I wake up and see them both in my room (they weren't both supposed to be in there) laying down on the floor and fooling around under the blankets. Now, I don't know what they were doing, but this is something that I've never seen before.

 

Now, did what my cousin and his boyfriend were doing influence them to do that?

 

 

Possibly, but did it affect them because your cousin was GAY, or just because he was being an inconsiderate prick?

[Guest]

I don't know. Only they know.

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't know. Only they know.

 

 

I do totally get what you are saying about overbearing public affection though. Sometimes enough is just fucking enough, however I wouldn't say it affects a kid more because it is a homosexual doing it, rather then a heterosexual. I still think people are too hung up on the myth that kids can be "turned gay" by witnessing something. Nobody TAUGHT ME to be heterosexual. I just turned 12 one day and suddenly got a hard-on when I saw a chick in a bikini, and from then on out, it was pretty much assumed I was heterosexual.

[Guest]

That's what I think too. I still think that homosexuality doesn't need to have to be explained to a 7 year old.

 

That's the only problem with the gay people that I've met, is that they're extremely flamboyant and they take things a bit too far. I don't hate all teh gays though.

 

I'd be fine hanging around with someone that's not flamboyant, I hate all people that are.

[Scroby 0]

If it got to the point where I had a kid and they saw men or women getting married on television or kissing during a commercial, then I'd have a problem with it, which is also unlikely. Little kids don't need to see it.

 

I honestly don't see the harm that could have on a child.

I do, but I see all (not just homosexual) overly sexual acts as possibly having harm toward a 7 year old child.

 

Small example, I was at my aunt's house a month ago, and my gay cousin was there with his boyfriend. It was about 930 PM, so they both pull out an air mattress and lay down. They start fooling around and making out on the bed in front of everyone.

 

Now, we'll fastforward to last Saturday. My 2 cousins were spending the night, when I wake up and see them both in my room (they weren't both supposed to be in there) laying down on the floor and fooling around under the blankets. Now, I don't know what they were doing, but this is something that I've never seen before.

 

Now, did what my cousin and his boyfriend were doing influence them to do that?

 

Well see thats just your cousin being an ass and letting everyone see what he's doing. Its nothing differant than a man and woman doing the same thing.....actually, I take that back, its a bit more diferant if someone walked in and wasn't educated about what they were actually doing and were confused on what they had just saw.

 

But lets be honest, thats how a lot of kids get educated on things today, they walk in on something and someone explains to them what is going on.

[Guest]

I know, but at 7 years old?

 

I can understand explaining it to a 10 or 11 year old.

[Scroby 0]

I know, but at 7 years old?

 

I can understand explaining it to a 10 or 11 year old.

 

If the sitution came up, then yes, explain it to a 7 year old. If a parent educate's their child the right way, the 7 year child should understand just fine what it at least means. I knew what gay people were when I was that age, and I turned out fine. If anything understanding stuff like that at a young age made me have an open mind on life and reality.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

well duh, it's almost election time and the republicans are in the hole on almost every issue.

 

Got use the gay card to rally the stupid religious people.

 

 

(read that again, i'm not saying all religious people are stupid, just the ones that fall for this trick again and again)

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Nobody TAUGHT ME to be heterosexual. I just turned 12 one day and suddenly got a hard-on when I saw a chick in a bikini, and from then on out, it was pretty much assumed I was heterosexual

 

As far as I'm concerned, this supercedes any argument against homosexuality.

[snuffbox 0]

Whats worse, the number of men who beat their wives...or gay/devil people?

[SuperJerk 0]

I do, but I see all (not just homosexual) overly sexual acts as possibly having harm toward a 7 year old child.

A marriage ceremony isn't an overly sexual act, though.

 

 

To be fair...Here are Bush's comments, in context:

 

Good morning. Next week, the United States Senate will begin debate on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in the United States as the union of a man and woman. On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family and civic organizations, and religious leaders. They're Republicans, Democrats, and independents who've come together to support this amendment. Today, I want to explain why I support the Marriage Protection Amendment, and why I'm urging Congress to pass it and send it to the states for ratification.

 

Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

 

In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people -- not by the courts. The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both through their representatives and at the ballot box. In 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law. And since then, voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage. And today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

 

Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years. Since 2004, state courts in Washington, California, Maryland, and New York have overturned laws protecting marriage in those states. And in Nebraska, a federal judge overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

 

These court decisions could have an impact on our whole Nation. The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else. That would mean that every state would have to recognize marriages redefined by judges in Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter what their own laws or state constitutions say. This national question requires a national solution, and on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come from the people, not the courts.

 

An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our Nation with no other choice. The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage. A constitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this issue, because it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.

 

As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity. All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard. A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people, which is exactly where it belongs. Democracy, not court orders, should decide the future of marriage in America.

 

Thank you for listening.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...6/20060603.html

 

 

Even in context, the hypocrisy of Bush saying this should be left up to the people, even though by making it a part of the Constitution it is taking it out of the hands of the actual people, is staggering. In no way has a case that same-sex marriage weakens society. Bush is illogically relying entirely on ad populum arguments to make his case, instead of giving a real reason why same-sex marriage hurts society.

[NoCalMike 0]

So Bush says this amendment is critical to American Families, well what about Gay Couples that adopt? I am sure the kids will eventually ask why their parents aren't allowed to get married when they are doing a find job of raising their kids. Does Bush feel it is critical to prevent Gay Parents from expressing their love in the highest for of comittment? If wants the people to decide then it should be on a ballot, not in the hands of Congress where everyone is looking out for the best way to keep their job.

 

This just smells like election red meat.

[Ravenbomb 0]

Can someone please offer evidence that allowing two men or two women to marry affects anyone besides the two men or two women who actually get married?

 

There was a teacher in Colorado who did a pseudo-experiment along those lines where he broke up his class into "couples", mostly boy/girl, but one girl/girl and one boy/boy, and gave them all an egg. His results were inconclusive, though.

[SuperJerk 0]

Well, at least one person bothered to do some research.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Can someone please offer evidence that allowing two men or two women to marry affects anyone besides the two men or two women who actually get married?

 

There was a teacher in Colorado who did a pseudo-experiment along those lines where he broke up his class into "couples", mostly boy/girl, but one girl/girl and one boy/boy, and gave them all an egg. His results were inconclusive, though.

 

 

Wasn't that an episode of South Park? "You'll be equal! You'll be....BUTT buddies!"

 

If it happened for real, what age were the students? Because I hardly think that if the two "gay couples" were eight years old, that shouldnt really be used as a guide for banning gay marriage.

[snuffbox 0]

I really doubt that 8 year olds are doing marriage projects in high school...

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Can someone please offer evidence that allowing two men or two women to marry affects anyone besides the two men or two women who actually get married?

 

There was a teacher in Colorado who did a pseudo-experiment along those lines where he broke up his class into "couples", mostly boy/girl, but one girl/girl and one boy/boy, and gave them all an egg. His results were inconclusive, though.

 

 

Wasn't that an episode of South Park? "You'll be equal! You'll be....BUTT buddies!"

 

If it happened for real, what age were the students? Because I hardly think that if the two "gay couples" were eight years old, that shouldnt really be used as a guide for banning gay marriage.

 

Dude, you got the reference and you're STILL asking if it's real?

 

Nodog.jpeg

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Can someone please offer evidence that allowing two men or two women to marry affects anyone besides the two men or two women who actually get married?

 

There was a teacher in Colorado who did a pseudo-experiment along those lines where he broke up his class into "couples", mostly boy/girl, but one girl/girl and one boy/boy, and gave them all an egg. His results were inconclusive, though.

 

 

Wasn't that an episode of South Park? "You'll be equal! You'll be....BUTT buddies!"

 

If it happened for real, what age were the students? Because I hardly think that if the two "gay couples" were eight years old, that shouldnt really be used as a guide for banning gay marriage.

 

Dude, you got the reference and you're STILL asking if it's real?

 

Nodog.jpeg

 

Is it that far fetched that a teacher would try this?

[SuperJerk 0]

Well, at least no one bothered to do any research.

 

Edited for accuracy.

[Guest]

A marriage ceremony isn't an overly sexual act, though.

That was due to me being tired and having just seen a marriage commercial. I was out of it last night.

[SuperJerk 0]

A marriage ceremony isn't an overly sexual act, though.

That was due to me being tired and having just seen a marriage commercial. I was out of it last night.

Been there.