Gay Rights & Gay Marriage

Republican_Man · **Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:20 pm**

I disagree, Tach. From a Public Relations perspective this is wise of the President to do. He's lost the support of his conservative base, and without regaining that base he has no public relations.
Besides, he's got the high ground in the sense that what he's doing is trying to preserve tradition, something that the American people overwhelmingly support (as seen in, for instance, 19/19 states approving gay marriage ban amendments and many others banning it through other means).
One could argue, in the future, that if the tradition were to be reversed, whether it be from a legal and/or a sociological perspective, I suppose; however, that isn't necessarily the case for the United States, and that argument, if it were to be followed by the president in terms of his decisions regarding this issue, wouldn�t help him at all. It would probably hurt him, because the American people, despite its social liberalization over the years, have always remained a more conservative people, and most people, even in a decade or two from now, would still support bans on gay marriage greatly. It wouldn�t help him to go out in support of gay marriage, nor would it help him to do nothing. Right now is what he really needs to focus on, regaining his conservative base. That�s priority. What happens 20 years from now on the issue of gay marriage isn�t that relevant in terms of defining his presidency.
The Bush presidency will be defined on Iraq and Illegal Immigration, not homosexual marriage. It�s better for him to support this than to not support it, and in the future it won�t put him in any worse a light to have stood firm on the tradition. It might even make him look better to have been unwavering on that issue in trying to maintain a long-held tradition within the United States.

And WeAz, how is it demeaning to say that they can have the exact same rights as married couples, but we�re not going to compromise the tradition by forcing a change in the definition of marriage? I don�t see how it�s demeaning at all.

WeAz · **Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:59 pm**

Its demeaning, because we would not give them the same status as other people. Technically, marriage, and Civil Unions are legally the same, but not so symbolically. To the Anti-Gay Marriage people, its the same, but to the gay's themselves, its saying that they are inferior. Which they sure as hell are not!

Cathexis · **Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:01 pm**

Puck · The Texan Joined: 05 Jan 2004 Posts: 5596

Church 'could be forced to bless gay weddings'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/10/nbless10.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/10/ixuknews.html

This is exactly what I was afraid of.

[This has been turned into a general discussion of Gay Rights & Gay Marriage so that we don't have three seperate topics discussing one issue floating about. - Puck]

Republican_Man · **Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:29 am**

Yeah, this is exactly what I'm afraid of happening in the US. This just isn't right, and if it were to happen in the US would be such a clear violation of separation of church and state, in terms of governent corrupting religion.
How horrifying.

And you know what bugs me? Considering that the only issue on the gay agenda with regards to "gay rights" is marriage, and marriage isn't a right, I don't get why "gay rights" is called "gay rights," because it's NOT "gay rights."

Hitchhiker · **Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:13 am**

This is why when you pass the law that legalizes gay marriage, you include a clause saying that religious orders aren't forced to preside over (or bless) such marriages if it goes against their religion, etc, etc.

CJ Cregg · Commodore Joined: 05 Oct 2002 Posts: 1254

La Forge · **Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:52 pm**

So...if we keep up with this "tradition" and "religion" sort of deal, when it comes to marriage or union or whatever you want to call it...

Then, as Cathexis said, I would never to be allowed to marry. No, I'm not homosexual. I'm an aethiest. So...I can't get married 'cause it goes against tradition? It'll come to that, if this is how we continue to think...

Ugh...

Let homosexual people do what they want. I don't care.

Arellia · **Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:14 pm**

I can see why it matters to *some* people whether or not gays marry... but come now. How many gay couples do you know? How many want to get married? Do you think this is going to overrun society until everyone's gay? Truth is, the majority is heterosexual. The minority is something else. It affects you if a minority has the right to get married because...?

I do think it's an issue of rights. Two people have the right to proclaim couplehood. Two people have the right to be in love, to express it (assuming they're not hurting people directly in doing so), and they have the right to be financially, legally, and spiritually bonded. It doesn't matter to me what a gay couple does. I see two lesbians, very happy women, and think... wow, that's nice. They look very content. No different than myself and a male of my choosing, I'm happy for them as I would be for myself or anyone else. Further, I don't particularly care if polygamists marry, either. (I say this because a common argument is 'Well, if you allow gays, theeeen...) Again, an even smaller number of people would even want to do it. The only cross with that I have is the potential for oppression, but you have that in any relationship. I've heard about some very twisted polygamist acts. Marrying your scooter? Sorry, you should see proffessional help. I draw the line at non-human-to-human relationships. They can have a private ceremony. In an institution.

Religions should not be forced to do anything. If they want to "marry" gays--not legally, but within the church--more power to them. If they condemn it, then it's counter-productive to ask them to perform a marriage for a lifestyle they chose to discourage. That's just crazy.

CJ Cregg · Commodore Joined: 05 Oct 2002 Posts: 1254

Arellia · **Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:35 pm**

Which only proves my point. This is a harmless minority. Why be so upset at something?

Lord Borg · **Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:37 pm**

Because religious fanatics tend to say that its not natual, and that marrige is between a man and a woman yadda yadda yadda

Theresa · **Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:06 pm**

IntrepidIsMe · **Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:10 pm**

I don't see why homosexuals would even want to be married through an institution which condemns their lifestyle. That really doesn't make sense. Through the government though is a totally different matter.

WeAz · **Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:36 pm**

Marriage is a GOVERNMENT issue! The States decide who get marriage licenses and who doesn't.