Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
Original post by michele31
He wants a constituational amendement on outlawing gay marriage...WTF? We are AT WAR!!! our jobless rate is one of the highest in years, children have no healthcare and all he can do is worry about 2 people who love each other who want to get married? And he has the gall to say that he needs to protect the welfare of children? Okay, Bush how about look at the foster care system in our country? how about get new books for our kids in school? how about worry that children are homeless, abused, hungry?
I guess he needs to make a few American happy since he cannot fix any of the REAL problems!
september2004
Posted:
Member since
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
Posted by NYCHICK
My question is(look at me stirring the pot ) where is the argument that they SHOULD be allowed to marry. Considering everyone is jumping on poor peewee
ps - I mean an argument other than 'If two people love each other then they should be together'
o it is about to jump off in here........all i ask is to be respectful ladies............no need to get ugly
personally, i don't think they should.
i think that it is a civil rights issue and it should stay that way. i think 'marriage' (be it man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, canine/feline...whatever) should only be recognized in religion.
this coming from a 'non-believer'
stir, mix, blend...
NYCHICK
Posted:
Member since
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
Posted by shelzyp
Where has anyone jumped on anyone??
I really do't see it.
ok...........
shelzyp
Posted:
Member since
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
Posted by NYCHICK
Posted by shelzyp
Where has anyone jumped on anyone??
I really do't see it.
ok...........
I am serious, I don't see it. Where has it happened in this thread.
NYCHICK
Posted:
Member since
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
Posted by shelzyp
I am serious, I don't see it. Where has it happened in this thread.
I know that things usually go on on this board forever in this way, but not with me. You don't see it then fine, why exactly do I need to prove this to you I am done with this particular issue.
carry on ladies with your reasons 'for'...........
shelzyp
Posted:
Member since
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
Okay so I guess you are saying there was no jumping.
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
Posted by september2004
personally, i don't think they should.
i think that it is a civil rights issue and it should stay that way. i think 'marriage' (be it man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, canine/feline...whatever) should only be recognized in religion.
this coming from a 'non-believer'
stir, mix, blend...
are you stirring? or serious?
NYchick...i have to say - I don't see it anywhere either...
BMD'sPeanut
Posted:
Member since
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
Posted by september2004
personally, i don't think they should.
i think that it is a civil rights issue and it should stay that way. i think 'marriage' (be it man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, canine/feline...whatever) should only be recognized in religion.
this coming from a 'non-believer'
stir, mix, blend...
Er...
kel2004
Posted:
Member since
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
Posted by eroxgirl
Posted by NYCHICK
My question is(look at me stirring the pot ) where is the argument that they SHOULD be allowed to marry. Considering everyone is jumping on poor peewee
ps - I mean an argument other than 'If two people love each other then they should be together'
o it is about to jump off in here........all i ask is to be respectful ladies............no need to get ugly
I believe they SHOULD marry because of the protection it gives the people involved from the government, from families, etc. Gay couples who spend their lives together sharing everything (home, money, life) are not protected at all when one dies. The remaining partner has no rights whatsoever as a husband or wife would, making the final decisions for their loved one, they can't inherit, etc.
In that case, should bigamy be legal? What is next, a man can have as many wives as he wants? I think a clear definition of marriage is needed (whether it is one man and one woman, etc.) so that these judges can't make rulings based on their opinions, rather than the law.
september2004
Posted:
Member since
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
Posted by yabbobay
Posted by september2004
personally, i don't think they should.
i think that it is a civil rights issue and it should stay that way. i think 'marriage' (be it man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, canine/feline...whatever) should only be recognized in religion.
this coming from a 'non-believer'
stir, mix, blend...
are you stirring? or serious?
NYchick...i have to say - I don't see it anywhere either...
i am serious, but figured my views would not be the norm and would 'stir'...
Edited to clarify - all individuals should have the same rights. whatever unions they want they should have. the label of 'marriage' should be religious and taken out of government lexicon. JMO and won't happen.
eroxgirl
Posted:
Member since
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
Posted by kel2004
Posted by eroxgirl
Posted by NYCHICK
My question is(look at me stirring the pot ) where is the argument that they SHOULD be allowed to marry. Considering everyone is jumping on poor peewee
ps - I mean an argument other than 'If two people love each other then they should be together'
o it is about to jump off in here........all i ask is to be respectful ladies............no need to get ugly
I believe they SHOULD marry because of the protection it gives the people involved from the government, from families, etc. Gay couples who spend their lives together sharing everything (home, money, life) are not protected at all when one dies. The remaining partner has no rights whatsoever as a husband or wife would, making the final decisions for their loved one, they can't inherit, etc.
In that case, should bigamy be legal? What is next, a man can have as many wives as he wants? I think a clear definition of marriage is needed (whether it is one man and one woman, etc.) so that these judges can't make rulings based on their opinions, rather than the law.
I don't understand what bigamy has to do with 2 people sharing in a committed, monogomous relationship? I said nothing about bigamy among homosexuals...
shelzyp
Posted:
Member since
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
Posted by september2004
personally, i don't think they should.
i think that it is a civil rights issue and it should stay that way. i think 'marriage' (be it man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, canine/feline...whatever) should only be recognized in religion.
this coming from a 'non-believer'
stir, mix, blend...
So my wedding should not be legal, since not done in a church?? That doesn't really seem fair to me.
Becky
Posted:
Member since
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
Posted by kel2004
In that case, should bigamy be legal? What is next, a man can have as many wives as he wants? I think a clear definition of marriage is needed (whether it is one man and one woman, etc.) so that these judges can't make rulings based on their opinions, rather than the law.
There is a clear definition of marriage in all states. The issue has become, should those definitions change to include same sex unions. Also, the judges are not overturning laws based on their opinions, they would lose their seat if they were doing that. Rather they are arguing that the laws are unconstitional.
I would like to say that I am for same sex marriages however, I am not for bigamy, polygamy or cat-dog unions I don't think that extending marital rights to homosexuals obliterates the line completely.
Jan05Bride
Posted:
Member since
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
Posted by eroxgirl
Posted by yabbobay
Posted by september2004
Posted by eroxgirl
All I know is that if Bush succeeds in banning gay marriage this country will take one giant step BACKWARDS.
Abortion is next!
actually this one is possible...
Roe is fighting to have the decision be reversed...b/c she has cahnged her views!!!!
are you F^%$$# kidding me???
That was in the news this week. Can you believe that. She's actually been fighting for a reversal for a few years now.
Ophelia42
Posted:
Member since
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
It's strange how much this argument is based on wording - there are many people out there that wouldn't mind gay 'UNIONS' but gay 'MARRIAGE' is totally out of the question. They're the same thing! I don't think anyone is saying that churches should have to recognize these marriages/unions - but these people should have the same LEGAL rights that other married couples do (with regards to inheriting/medical decisions etc)
september2004
Posted:
Member since
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
Posted by shelzyp
Posted by september2004
personally, i don't think they should.
i think that it is a civil rights issue and it should stay that way. i think 'marriage' (be it man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, canine/feline...whatever) should only be recognized in religion.
this coming from a 'non-believer'
stir, mix, blend...
So my wedding should not be legal, since not done in a church?? That doesn't really seem fair to me.
no, it would be legal because it would fall under the category of a civil union. if you marry in a church call it marriage, call it whatever you want, as it would have no bearing on any type of legal status.
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
sept2004 - I get what you are saying... civil unions vs religious marriages
Posted by Becky
I am not for bigamy, polygamy or cat-dog unions .
well you know what Bill Murray said in Ghostbusters...
'Riots in the streets, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!'
Shamee
Posted:
Member since
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
Kel, I agree with you 100%
Maribelle7777
Posted:
Member since
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
Posted by NYCHICK
My question is(look at me stirring the pot ) where is the argument that they SHOULD be allowed to marry. Considering everyone is jumping on poor peewee
ps - I mean an argument other than 'If two people love each other then they should be together'
The same reason that marriage is legal for unions between men and women. And I'm not saying that to be cocky or short, but it just doesn't make sense to me from a legal standpoint of why they shouldn't.
kel2004
Posted:
Member since
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
There is a clear definition of marriage in all states. The issue has become, should those definitions change to include same sex unions. Also, the judges are not overturning laws based on their opinions, they would lose their seat if they were doing that. Rather they are arguing that the laws are unconstitional.
I agree, and the law in California does not permit homosexual marriage. I have not heard of anyone being arrested who is performing homosexual marriages.
NYCHICK
Posted:
Member since
Re: Bush has hit a new low today...is that even possible?
Posted by Becky
I would like to say that I am for same sex marriages however, I am not for bigamy, polygamy or cat-dog unions I don't think that extending marital rights to homosexuals obliterates the line completely.
AHhhhhhhhh another good point. DItto btw. But what about people who willingly participates in bigamy. Anybody catch that guy on msnbc with 7 wives or something like that????? They are all grown adults who want to share in this type of relationship, why can't they????????
