PDA

View Full Version : Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals (c/p)


ys
Jul 30th, 2003, 04:21 PM
Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Wednesday he has government lawyers working on a law that would define marriage as a union between a woman and a man, casting aside calls to legalize gay marriages.

"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 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 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.

Bush has long opposed gay marriage but as recently as earlier this month had said that a constitutional ban on gay marriage proposed in the House might not be needed despite a Supreme Court decision that some conservatives think opens the door to legalizing same-sex marriages.

The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that made homosexual sex a crime, overturning an earlier ruling that said states could punish homosexuals for having sex.

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia fired off a blistering dissent of the ruling.

The "opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned," Scalia wrote. The ruling specifically said that the court was not addressing that issue, but Scalia warned, "Do not believe it."

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colorado, is the main sponsor of the proposal offered May 21 to amend the Constitution. It was referred on June 25 to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.

To be added to the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Kanji
Jul 30th, 2003, 04:34 PM
http://smilies.networkessence.net/s/kao/cactus/ikari.gif
*I love Canada and Jean Chrétien suddenly*

sartrista7
Jul 30th, 2003, 04:40 PM
"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 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.

A prize for anyone who can explain in what way this makes the remotest bit of sense.

gentenaire
Jul 30th, 2003, 04:42 PM
"I am mindful that we're all sinners "

Ah, so homosexuality is a sin, is it? Great signal to send out to the American people, Bushie.

gentenaire
Jul 30th, 2003, 04:44 PM
A prize for anyone who can explain in what way this makes the remotest bit of sense.

"Well, basically, you're all evil sinners, but that's okay since everyone is evil. But that doesn't mean we should accept your evilness and write it down as something good. Only my evilness counts, because I'm the goodie."

Kanji
Jul 30th, 2003, 04:50 PM
I can't believe this guy... please, don't re-elect him...

Cariaoke
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:00 PM
He was never elected in the first place. :tape:

What do you expect from a republican, though? Surely, you didn't think he would want it legalized, especially if he views it as a sin. :rolleyes:

Mase
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:03 PM
He was never elected in the first place. :tape:

What do you expect from a republican, though? Surely, you didn't think he would want it legalized, especially if he views it as a sin. :rolleyes:


:lol: :lol: :lol: :yeah:

Kanji
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:20 PM
Vote Hillary! http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/kao/cactus/panm.gif
*Running away to hide somewhere...*

spokenword73
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:22 PM
So far all the so-called "major" politicians have come out against gay marriage-even Hillary!

Kanji
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:28 PM
So far all the so-called "major" politicians have come out against gay marriage-even Hillary!
That bit&%@! I was about to buy her biography... pfff

decemberlove
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:30 PM
hillary isnt running anyway
she recently launched her 2006 campaign for senate

ys
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:33 PM
So far all the so-called "major" politicians have come out against gay marriage-even Hillary!

That is natural. "Major" politicians must win elections. Or they won't be "major". Going for the freedoms for minorities they go for the human rights and freedom. But going for gay marriages would be a challenge to the dominant religious beliefs of the country, and that would most certainly mean losing elections. No major politician would do that any time soon because it would mean a political suicide.

Kanji
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:34 PM
hilary isnt running anyway
she recently launched her 2006 campaign for senate
LOL... I wasn't talking about her, but me... In the fear of having tomatoes thrown at me. ;)

decemberlove
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:36 PM
lol i mean running for pres LOL

Kanji
Jul 30th, 2003, 05:37 PM
lol i mean running for pres LOL
I know what you meant. ;) In fact, I respect her even though I am not really aware of US politics system.

Cybelle Darkholme
Jul 30th, 2003, 06:32 PM
I can't believe this guy... please, don't re-elect him...
we wont if you kindly canadians would some how, um, well, get rid of him for us. thanks.

Kanji
Jul 30th, 2003, 06:35 PM
we wont if you kindly canadians would some how, um, well, get rid of him for us. thanks.
:haha:
Did you know that there is less people in the Canadian army than in New York's police? *We have no power*

Josh
Jul 30th, 2003, 06:53 PM
:haha:
Did you know that there is less people in the Canadian army than in New York's police? *We have no power*

Well I guess it's time for you to sign up then! :lol:

Kanji
Jul 30th, 2003, 06:56 PM
Well I guess it's time for you to sign up then! :lol:
Oh my! I wouldn't last one day in the army... :o

griffin
Jul 30th, 2003, 07:33 PM
How-WARD! How-WARD! How-WARD!

Ok, Howie won't go all the way to backing "marriage," but he had the balls to take a HUGE risk and back Civil Unions before they became law, let alone the "politically palatable substitute for marriage" that it's become. (and it was a huge risk - a lot of Vermont pols who voted for CU's lost their jobs in the following elections)

Bush opposes marriage for same-sex couples, and thinks we're sinners?

This is not news.

How-WARD! How-WARD! How-WARD!

Josh
Jul 30th, 2003, 07:41 PM
http://www.manneken-pis.com/mypostcard/images/carte_bush.jpg

:haha:

controlfreak
Jul 30th, 2003, 08:07 PM
I wouldn't have expected anything less. Wonder what other antiquarian philosophies Bush is going to try to impose on America?

irma
Jul 30th, 2003, 08:12 PM
if a minister president would say that here then he was fired within 6 hours :o

Josh
Jul 30th, 2003, 08:12 PM
Why wait 6 hours? :lol:

irma
Jul 30th, 2003, 08:14 PM
because they first have to discuss about it;)
the lpf crisis lasted a while too last year;)

Bacardi
Jul 30th, 2003, 09:52 PM
Well, even thou I am Republician.... Bush won't be getting my vote this time. He's done shit to help the economy. He's done shit to help healthcare and to lower the prices of medication (which the US has the highest prices to pay). And he can't find shit to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It's safe to say, like Bush Sr, Bush Jr will only be serving one term.
Now to hear he is wanting to reserve the right for marriage for heterosexual couples... That makes me ill. I know most people are against it, but I think if two people are in love they should have the right to enter into the bond of marriage! If I want to go out and marry a woman, instead of a man... I'd like to have that choice. Who the hell does the government think they are trying to put limits on love anyway. :rolleyes:

kyk710
Jul 30th, 2003, 11:15 PM
Hahahaha. Bush doesn't even write his own speeches, but he still manages to sound like a :retard:. He makes me afraid to admit I'm American sometimes :o. Aarrrgghhh our president sucks

kyk710
Jul 30th, 2003, 11:16 PM
I've never wanted to assassinate someone so badly in my life (JK he just pisses me off)

Bacardi
Jul 30th, 2003, 11:59 PM
I've never wanted to assassinate someone so badly in my life (JK he just pisses me off)

run kyk710 :bolt:
I hear the secret service at the door........ GO.............!!!!!!!!!!!
:bolt:

Mase
Jul 31st, 2003, 12:01 AM
I've never wanted to assassinate someone so badly in my life (JK he just pisses me off)

So tell us what you really think about Mr President :lol: :lol: :wavey:

~ The Leopard ~
Jul 31st, 2003, 12:42 AM
Well, I tend to think of marriage as an outdated institution anyway. Part of me says: Why extend it? Why not let it wither away?

However, since we have it, it should be available to gay couples.

What do you all think of marriages involving more than two people? If it is such a great institution, shouldn't it be available to people in bisexual threesomes, etc, etc, as well? Sure, what's so great about heterosexuality? But, then again, what's so great about monogamy?

Finally, why is this news? :confused: Face it, most people think that homosexuality is a sin. That is a stupid, barbaric thing to think, but it is still the popular view, especially in the US. If the American President shares that view and panders to it, why are any of you surprised?

Anyway, if you elect me as President I'll allow anyone who wants to get married, even though I'll get thrown out in the next election as a result. Why not go out in a blaze of glory?

angele87
Jul 31st, 2003, 01:02 AM
I'm neither American nor gay and this pisses me off so all those who live in the States and are homosexual, I feel for you :hug: Something really needs to be done about Bush. Not only is he on the stupid side, he's a jerk. Openly calling gay people sinners is just out of line :mad: I don't even see why SO many people make a big deal out of this. If you don't agree with same sex marriages fine, don't attend them, don't throw showers for them but don't stop them from happening. It doesn't make sense :confused: For me, it's the same as if Bush said I don't like Italien restaurants so from this day forward, all Italien restaurants must close.

Bush leaves me with this feeling : :banghead: anytime I read more and more stupid quotes from him.

Sam L
Jul 31st, 2003, 01:14 AM
Actually I wish he was more open with this feelings, so even his supporters will see him for who he is and not vote for him.

The thing is he's now taking the approach of, "we like you as people and we want you to be one, but we just won't give you the rights". All done very subtly. This is far more dangerous.

alexusjonesfan
Jul 31st, 2003, 03:16 AM
well legislation for same sex marriages in Canada has also hit a roadblock with the latest declaration from the Vatican that Catholics should vehemently oppose legislation for same sex marriage. I really wish this wouldn't have happened, because now so many people are faced with the decision of either being a good citizen (i.e. fighting for human rights) or being a good catholic (following the church's directives). What's even stranger is that this legislation is being championed by a catholic cabinet minister under a catholic prime minister...

btw, you guys from Quebec, have more conflicts emerged in the wake of this declaration by the Vatican? My francophone friends tell me that the church is still much more a part of life in Quebec than other parts of Canada so it must be a weird position to be in right now...

Richie77
Jul 31st, 2003, 03:21 AM
First of all, does Bush even know what the word "codify" means? :rolleyes:

Part of me wonders if this is meant to appease Middle America...you know, saying what the people who voted him want to hear. W. has sold us out.

I'm voting for Dean. How-WARD! How-WARD! How-WARD!

disposablehero
Jul 31st, 2003, 03:26 AM
Finally, why is this news? :confused: Face it, most people think that homosexuality is a sin.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that homosexuality is a sin, as I believe the concept of "sin" is used in specific reference to "The Bible".

Therefore, wouldn't the concept of "sin" basically be outdated?

Richie77
Jul 31st, 2003, 03:32 AM
Hey we're all sinners, remember? W. said so :p

~ The Leopard ~
Jul 31st, 2003, 03:50 AM
Actually, I'm pretty sure that homosexuality is a sin, as I believe the concept of "sin" is used in specific reference to "The Bible".

Therefore, wouldn't the concept of "sin" basically be outdated?

Yeah, I more or less agree. We should always put the word in inverted commas. Something can be morally wrong, of course, e.g. if it hurts people, but the specific concept of "sin" is not a useful one. It's a word for things that people consider morally wrong because they supposedly go against God's will...but there's no good reason to think they are really wrong. :D

Still, "sin" is how Bush's constituency is probably thinking of it. :rolleyes:

Ted of Teds Tennis
Jul 31st, 2003, 03:59 AM
Why should it be the business of government to sanction any marriage?

I find it quite repulsive that one has to get a government marriage license to get married. And if the government weren't in the business of marriage licenses and sanctioning marriage, this wouldn't be a political issue.

But that's a view for us libertarians. The Republicans and Democrats don't want a less intrusive government. :mad: :mad:

BigTennisFan
Jul 31st, 2003, 05:22 AM
Well, here I go being the skunk at the pity party again. George Bush did not say as the headline states that he wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals. He said that he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Michael Huffington was married to Ariana Huffington for years and he is as gay as they come. What about Liza Minnelli and her husbands. Both gay as anybody you want to see.

I realize that a lot of people here have a mindless hatred of George Bush but it seems to me that you have enough to complain about without making up lies. :angel:

Mrs. Peel
Jul 31st, 2003, 05:49 AM
"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 got a log in their own," the president said. "


Proud to be an American :rolleyes: :tape:

Scotso
Jul 31st, 2003, 05:58 AM
Down with Bush :D

Hurley
Jul 31st, 2003, 06:01 AM
I know we all hate Bush...but really, it could be so much worse *cough* Pat Buchanan *cough* :eek:

And you straights can keep your silly matrimony :p

Kanji
Jul 31st, 2003, 12:54 PM
And obviously, it won't stop with Bush...

Vatican Targets Gay Marriage Laws

(CBS/AP) The Vatican launched a global campaign against gay marriages Thursday, warning Catholic politicians that support of same-sex unions was "gravely immoral" and urging non-Catholics to join the offensive.

The Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a 12-page set of guidelines with the approval of Pope John Paul II in a bid to stem the increase in laws granting legal rights to homosexual unions in Europe and North America.

"There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family," the document said. "Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law."

The issue is particularly charged in the United States, where some lawmakers in the House of Representatives have proposed a constitutional ban on gay marriages to counter state laws granting legal recognition to gay unions.

President Bush said Wednesday that marriage was defined strictly as a union between a man and a woman and said he wants to "codify that one way or the other."

The Vatican document, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," sets out a battle plan for politicians when confronted with laws or proposed legislation giving homosexual couples the same rights as married heterosexuals.

It also comes out strongly against allowing gay couples to adopt, saying children raised by same-sex parents face developmental "obstacles" because they are deprived of having either a mother or a father.

"Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development," it said.

The document says Catholic politicians have a "moral duty" to publicly oppose laws granting recognition to homosexual unions and to vote against them if proposals are put to a vote in legislatures.

If the laws are already on the books, politicians must speak out against them, work to repeal them and try to limit their impact on society, it said.

"To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral," the document said.

The document doesn't provide for specific penalties for Catholics who fail to oppose such laws, saying only that the lawmakers had a "moral duty" to vote against them.

The Vatican said its guidelines were not only intended for Catholic lawmakers but for non-Christians and everyone "committed to promoting and defending the common good of society" since the issue concerned natural moral law, not just Church doctrine.

The document doesn't contain any new Church teachings on the issue, repeating much of the Vatican's previous comments on homosexuality and marriage, which it defines as a sacred union between man and woman designed to create new human life.

It said homosexuals shouldn't be discriminated against, but said denying gay couples the rights afforded in traditional marriages doesn't constitute discrimination.

In a footnote citing a 1992 comment on the topic, the document also noted that there was a danger that laws legalizing same-sex unions could actually encourage someone with a homosexual orientation to seek out a partner to "exploit the provisions of the law."

But legal acceptance is growing.

Two Canadian provinces - Ontario and British Columbia - have legalized homosexual marriage under recent court rulings, a move that has attracted gays from across the border in the United States.

Earlier this month, a top German cardinal condemned Germany's same-sex marriage law after it was upheld by the country's Supreme Court, calling it a blow to the family.

"Now the associations of homosexuals have a potent arm to obtain further concessions on the road toward full equality with married couples, including the right to adoption," Cardinal Karl Lehman complained in a Vatican Radio interview.

The Vatican is particularly worried about the waning influence of the church in Europe. Drafters of a proposed constitution for the European Union ignored Vatican requests to include explicit mention of Europe's Christian roots.

Recently, the pope lamented that the church's message is being watered down in Europe.

On Thursday, a small group of demonstrators from Italy's Radical Party held up banners at the edge of St. Peter's Square to protest the document. The banners read "No Vatican, No Taliban," and "Democracy Yes, Theocracy No."

Other opposition to the document came from the Green Party in predominantly Catholic Austria. Ulrike Lunacek, a party spokeswoman, said Catholic politicians should follow human rights conventions, "not the old-fashioned views of the Vatican."

"This hierarchy, which also rules on other issues like forbidding the use of condoms to avoid AIDS, is far from reality," she said in a statement issued earlier this week after the Vatican announced the document's release.

©MMIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source : http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/28/world/main565450.shtml

The Crow
Jul 31st, 2003, 01:04 PM
And obviously, it won't stop with Bush...

Vatican Targets Gay Marriage Laws

(It also comes out strongly against allowing gay couples to adopt, saying children raised by same-sex parents face developmental "obstacles" because they are deprived of having either a mother or a father.


So what about when one of the parents dies in a different-sex household? :confused:

And one would think we are evolved enough to let religion out of politics... Maybe one day :rolleyes:

Anyone else shudders when (s)he hears the word "sin"?

gentenaire
Jul 31st, 2003, 01:26 PM
Anyone else shudders when (s)he hears the word "sin"?

Me!! :wavey:

That's exactly what bothers me about Bush's speech.

This isn't the middle ages, for goodness sake.


"in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development"

Considering gays have to go through the whole adoption process, they must really want a child so the child will definitely be loved. That's the most important bit.

angele87
Jul 31st, 2003, 01:37 PM
Well, here I go being the skunk at the pity party again. George Bush did not say as the headline states that he wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals. He said that he believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Michael Huffington was married to Ariana Huffington for years and he is as gay as they come. What about Liza Minnelli and her husbands. Both gay as anybody you want to see.

I realize that a lot of people here have a mindless hatred of George Bush but it seems to me that you have enough to complain about without making up lies. :angel:
:haha:

I don't know if you're avid Bush supporter or what but you're really grasping at straws here and definetly not making Bush look any better :o I guess you're right though huh? Bush isn't restricting marriage to heterosexuals but rather for heterosexuals and homosexuals who want to pretend to be heterosexual for the sake of marriage.

Andy_
Jul 31st, 2003, 01:52 PM
The problem with Bush seems to be that he can only speak of some things in terms of "sins"... funny how he doesn't call it a sin to have a corpse exposed to the public just because it belongs to the son of an enemy... funny how he never remembers that it was the same God the one who told Adam that he was to govern and respect hte nature around him, when it comes to talking about environmental issues... :fiery:

Kanji
Jul 31st, 2003, 02:00 PM
Considering gays have to go through the whole adoption process, they must really want a child so the child will definitely be loved. That's the most important bit.
Definitely, I am absolutely sure an adopted child by a gay couple will be more loved than a lot of supposedly "healthy" heterosexual couple that will have a baby "by accident".

Andy_
Jul 31st, 2003, 02:07 PM
Definitely, I am absolutely sure an adopted child by a gay couple will be more loved than a lot of supposedly "healthy" heterosexual couple that will have a baby "by accident".

I absolutely agree... but Bush and and quite a lot of other people are much more concerned with what "the others" would say than with the love an adopted child would receive... :sad:

skanky~skanketta
Jul 31st, 2003, 02:40 PM
bush is a pompous creep who needs to be given a swift kick in the balls.

Iconoclast
Jul 31st, 2003, 02:40 PM
Ok, Howie won't go all the way to backing "marriage," but he had the balls to take a HUGE risk and back Civil Unions before they became law, let alone the "politically palatable substitute for marriage" that it's become. (and it was a huge risk - a lot of Vermont pols who voted for CU's lost their jobs in the following elections)

Bush opposes marriage for same-sex couples, and thinks we're sinners?

This is not news.
Howard Dean certainly deserves credit for the Civil Unions bill, which looks to be a very sensible piece of legislation. But unless he is dishonest, there is no reason to assume that he is only putting on an act when he says he is 'uncomfortable' with gay marriage.

You don't need to be a religious whacko to maintain the tradional definition of marriage as a union between man and woman.

Some of the attacks on Bush in this thread are quite rabid. He does implicitly maintain that homosexuality is a 'sin', I concede that. But look at his actual choice of words:

"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 got a log in their own."

On aggregrate, that sounds more like an attack on anti-gay crusaders.

BigTennisFan
Jul 31st, 2003, 02:49 PM
Howard Dean certainly deserves credit for the Civil Unions bill, which looks to be a very sensible piece of legislation. But unless he is dishonest, there is no reason to assume that he is only putting on an act when he says he is 'uncomfortable' with gay marriage.

You don't need to be a religious whacko to maintain the tradional definition of marriage as a union between man and woman.

Some of the attacks on Bush in this thread are quite rabid. He does implicitly maintain that homosexuality is a 'sin', I concede that. But look at his actual choice of words:
"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 got a log in their own."

On aggregrate, that sounds more like an attack on anti-gay crusaders.

Looking at what someone actually says is too much like right for people who want to attack anyone one general principles. Look at the thread that took JenCap's quote out of context about Serena's withdrawal due to injury.
Don't bother me with facts, my mind is already made up. :lol:

BigTennisFan
Jul 31st, 2003, 02:55 PM
:haha:

I don't know if you're avid Bush supporter or what but you're really grasping at straws here and definetly not making Bush look any better :o I guess you're right though huh? Bush isn't restricting marriage to heterosexuals but rather for heterosexuals and homosexuals who want to pretend to be heterosexual for the sake of marriage.

No, you don't know and why do you assume that asking people to tell the truth is trying to make Bush look better?
Trying to build a case against Bush by holding that he said something that he did not say certainly doesn't make you look any better.

Yes, I am right. And it's interesting that since the US Supreme Court found a right to privacy for gay sexual activity at home (I certainly agree with that), support for gay lifestyle has shown a decrease among Americans.

I've got more news for you, gays have been marrying the opposite sex since the beginning and will most likely continue to do so. Deal with it. :angel:

decemberlove
Jul 31st, 2003, 04:02 PM
Yes, I am right. And it's interesting that since the US Supreme Court found a right to privacy for gay sexual activity at home (I certainly agree with that), support for gay lifestyle has shown a decrease among Americans.

you have a link to a survey or something? or are you just guessing?

I've got more news for you, gays have been marrying the opposite sex since the beginning and will most likely continue to do so. Deal with it. :angel:

whats your point? a lot of these public figure marriages are all publicity stunts in an attempt to look "normal" for the general public. ariana and michael and liza and her husbands are no longer together. i think its common sense as to why they were married in the first place.

angele87
Jul 31st, 2003, 05:10 PM
No, you don't know and why do you assume that asking people to tell the truth is trying to make Bush look better?
Trying to build a case against Bush by holding that he said something that he did not say certainly doesn't make you look any better.

I know I don't know... I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said :confused: And I never assumed anything, I just pointed out that the difference between marriage for heterosexuals and marriage between man and a woman are essentially the same thing so event though Bush said one and not the other, I don't think it makes this supposed case against him any weaker. I really don't care if anything in this thread makes me look any better because this isn't about me. Do you think any of the homosexual people in America now feel better because they can safely marry somebody of the opposite sex even though they have no interest in them what-so-ever? I highly doubt it. Any way you look at it, Bush is an ass and one little slip a newspaper makes in its headline isn't going to change that.

But ok fine, I conceed, you win, the title of the article is wrong but I think you're approaching it in the totally wrong way. People are not making up blatant lies to make Bush look worse than he is :rolleyes:

Yes, I am right. And it's interesting that since the US Supreme Court found a right to privacy for gay sexual activity at home (I certainly agree with that), support for gay lifestyle has shown a decrease among Americans.

:confused: :confused: What's your point? Even if this is true, I don't understand what it has to do with anything. Who cares if every single American who isn't gay doesn't support gay lifestyle :confused: They still deserve the right to their lifestyle. All this "interesting" piece of information prooves is how so very ignorant a lot of people still are :(

I've got more news for you, gays have been marrying the opposite sex since the beginning and will most likely continue to do so. Deal with it. :angel:

I think it's sad that homosexuals feel the need to marry somebody of the opposite sex to feel accepted by society. Do I think it's something that's just no big deal and everybody who complains about it should be told to deal with it? No I don't think so. But you can tell me to deal with it and I'll be fine because I'm heterosexual and living in Canada so although I feel strongly about this subject, it won't ever affect me directly however it is currently affecting a lot of people and those people should never, ever be told to just deal with it.

bis2806
Jul 31st, 2003, 05:14 PM
:rolleyes: @Bush.... Now i'm starting to dislike you...

alexusjonesfan
Jul 31st, 2003, 05:29 PM
I:confused: :confused: What's your point? Even if this is true, I don't understand what it has to do with anything. Who cares if every single American who isn't gay doesn't support gay lifestyle :confused: They still deserve the right to their lifestyle. All this "interesting" piece of information prooves is how so very ignorant a lot of people still are :(


Yeah, that's the point entirely. The administration still sees homosexuality as a 'choice' or a 'practice' and so other people can determine whether one has the 'privelege' to 'practice' it. IMHO that's missing the point entirely. This is an issue about whether you have the right to be who you are and democratic opinion should have no say in that...it's like taking voting rights away from women because the majority of the country feels that way or reinstating slavery because the majority believes that we should keep slaves.

btw, the catholic bishops seem to be skirting the issue. I saw one of them interviewed today and while they completely agree with the Vatican they think that Catholics should allow for 'unions' not called 'marriages' and the one they interviewed on TV today said that it wouldn't be a problem if the bill in the Canadian government didn't change the civil definition of 'marriage'. He said something like: "There are lot's of types of relationships in society and we have no problem with the government recognizing another kind but we don't want the word 'marriage' to be tampered with". So it seems like they're pretending that these 'unions' are something completely different (platonic?)...whatever.

BigTennisFan
Jul 31st, 2003, 07:56 PM
[QUOTE=angele87]Any way you look at it, Bush is an ass and one little slip a newspaper makes in its headline isn't going to change that.

But ok fine, I conceed, you win, the title of the article is wrong but I think you're approaching it in the totally wrong way. People are not making up blatant lies to make Bush look worse than he is :rolleyes:[QUOTE]

I guess that one of our differences is that you think that the headline is a little "slip". I don't believe that. I think that the headline writer knew exactly what they were doing.
My point is not to make Bush look better or worse.
But be honest. You don't like Bush and he therefore can do nothing right and it doesn't matter to you whether the truth is told about him or a lie is told about him. The fact that you dislike him is all that matters.

It was the same with the people who hated Bill Clinton. Truth or lies, it didn't matter.

For the Bush haters and the Clinton haters, there is so much real crap that they both do that it's not necessary to make up crap about them.

decemberlove
Jul 31st, 2003, 08:13 PM
nothing for me i suppose

how typical

TennisHack
Jul 31st, 2003, 08:31 PM
Actually I wish he was more open with this feelings, so even his supporters will see him for who he is and not vote for him.

Aye, there's the rub. A lot of people who support Bush support his beliefs, however archaic. I know a lot of people who voted for Bush because they thought he was a moral man. No joke, that was their reasoning for it. They didn't care what his stances on various policies were, they just thought he was, and I quote, "a moral man". Of course, these are the same people who called Clinton every name in the book for having sex in the White House :rolleyes: but I digress.

My point is, as long as the majority of Americans are apathetic about the government and as long as they don't bother to educate themselves about the future "leaders of the free world", we will continue to have idiots like Dubya (who, unless something happens like what happened at the end of his father's campaign, is most assuredly going to have a good bid to serve another 4 years).

BigTennisFan
Jul 31st, 2003, 08:42 PM
you have a link to a survey or something? or are you just guessing?

No I don't have a link. It was one of the polls that was mentioned on CNN and Fox a few days ago. I'm sure that someone who really cares can find the poll.



whats your point? a lot of these public figure marriages are all publicity stunts in an attempt to look "normal" for the general public. ariana and michael and liza and her husbands are no longer together. i think its common sense as to why they were married in the first place.

My point is that saying marriage should be a man to a woman is not saying the same thing as marriage should be only for heterosexuals.
I personally don't care who gets married to who.

My major point was to ask for accuracy in the discussion.

spokenword73
Jul 31st, 2003, 09:11 PM
[QUOTE=decemberlove]you have a link to a survey or something? or are you just guessing?

check out www.gallup.com. the data seems to indicate some kind of dwindling of support for gay marriage, but that could just be a knee-jerk reaction!

BigTennisFan
Jul 31st, 2003, 09:15 PM
[QUOTE=decemberlove]you have a link to a survey or something? or are you just guessing?

check out www.gallup.com. the data seems to indicate some kind of dwindling of support for gay marriage, but that could just be a knee-jerk reaction!

Thank you, robrich. I knew that someone who has the skills to find that kind of thing would eventually do so. :worship:

CondiLicious
Aug 1st, 2003, 05:11 AM
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 got a log in their own

Am I the only one who fell about laughing when they heard him say that on the subject of gay lifestyles? I guess I just have a mind that stays in the gutter. Bad choice of words I'd say. Not just because as a lesbian I don't like being called a sinner but mostly cos he sounds like he's talking about somebody taking it up the ass.