Gay marriage and Republican party

[MoralLibertarian]

I believe that the gay marriage amendment should be dropped from the republican party platform.

I realized it when Dick Cheney didn't bother to respond to Edwards on his rebuttal about gays at the VP debate. Now perhaps that's because in essence, both administrations agree on the fact that the states should decide on civil unions. (I get the feeling that John Kerry and Edwards would fight for civil unions though)

The fact is gays don't hurt anybody, and they don't weaken marriage. They should have the same rights as every man. Abortion is wrong, not just to people of certain religions, but to all humans who value life. However, objections to homosexualism can be narrowed down all the way to a couple religions and the nature of society for years.

As for gays, I don't see why it makes a difference whether it's called civil unions or marriages. If you're getting the same rights, nothing is being restricted. If I go to a restaurant wanting steak, and the steak on the menu is called "Beernuts" it wouldn't matter because it tastes like a steak, looks like a steak, and doesn't have any qualities of beernuts. :)

I'd really like to hear from someone gay on this issue.

[GooieGreen]

At 10/9/04 09:44 AM, Rooster349 wrote: I believe that the gay marriage amendment should be dropped from the republican party platform.

DING!

It does fit their platform soooo well, though.

They went to that because of the counter-propaganda by liberals (aka the truth). They need to win support somehow.

The fact is gays don't hurt anybody, and they don't weaken marriage.

Thanks for realizing that.

I'd really like to hear from someone gay on this issue.

I guess I'm bi (o.O) but I agree that for the sake of the nation, not the party, that they should drop the issue. It isn't even an issue, like you said, and there is no reason to divide the nation any more. We need to recover from the past 4 years.

[MoralLibertarian]

I believe the move in angled at the evangelical vote. And Bush has their vote no matter what, because of his strong convictions on abortion and "the culture of life." Meanwhile, I meet college students everyday who would vote for him if not for his policies on gays. I think it's doing more harm than help.

[TheOmnipotent]

There is no real argument around gay marriages, lets say your against gays and dont like the idea of gay marriage (im not) the difference is nil, a gay couple and a gay married couple only have a small difference so I dont see your problem here

[RedSkunk]

At 10/9/04 10:01 AM, Rooster349 wrote: I believe the move in angled at the evangelical vote.

bingo.

[pondghost3]

i don't think any party SHOULD (as in a moral statement) fight for standards of commanding people to conform to a will other than their own, especially when there is no rights violations. i mean, i never thought just "being gay" would violate someone's rights, would you?

[Tomsan]

Nations that forbid gay marriage are sooo gay.

In my country gay marriage is legal for years now, I cant remember that it wasnt legal but i am still young. but then again its legal to smoke pot and do other drugs too in the land i live in ;)

man let gay people be gay and be gay in church I dont see any problem

I do have problems with the people that wont allow them to marrie.. mind your own buisness

oh and abortion is fine too.. why cant someone that doesnt want a child abort there pregnancy??? the "child" is just a countable number of cells big so i dont see the fuzz.

abortion is fine gay marriage is fine doing drugs is fine I really agree with that and so does my goverment they rock

[Memorize]

i dont hate gays, but i hate the idea of being gay, but i also dont like the people who persecute, i guess you could say, gays. instead of turining toward just banning gay marrige (which is i considering im religious, think is right), but instead make it equal for both so no ones complaining. but i say if gays want to be married, well, then they should be stuck with what they got instead of demanding all sorts of privilages.

as for abortion, i can understand a woman getting one if and only if it is dangerous or she is raped. but if a woman was raped then she could go to a hospitol and they could clean it out before anything happens, but instead they wait to get an abortion.

[fli]

At 10/9/04 03:29 PM, Soul_Specter wrote:
as for abortion, i can understand a woman getting one if and only if it is dangerous or she is raped. but if a woman was raped then she could go to a hospitol and they could clean it out before anything happens, but instead they wait to get an abortion.

the Morning After Pill, which has been known to be safe for several years (I remember this since I was 14), is an effective way to prevent pregnancy should the female be exposed to ejaculate inside the vagina by rape or irresponsibility.

However, politicians, despite the overwhelming amount of scientists whom believe this form of contraceptive is safe and effective, prevented it getting a the necessary OK to be sold over the counter at local drug and medicine stores.

Preventing a pregnancy after when seman has been exposed in the vagina is harder then one may think.

[Icehound]

If you watched the debate on friday, this topic never came up at all. I think this is an issue best left to the states and not a constitutional amendment. However, this could very well just be Bush playing to his base. This is similar to how Clinton handled the gays inthe military issue. He promised gays that they could be open with in service and then pulls "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which is a higher degree of concealment. If someone in the military finds out you are gay without asking, you can still be discharged - so all Clinton did was play to his base to get votes and it worked. It looks like Bush is doing the same thing here. Besides, if civil unions and marriages were given the same legal statutes and rights, then the only thing being fought for is a name - and that could possibly end this issue and people could focus on more severe issues at hand.

[AndrewJTalon]

I'm not homosexual, but I have many gay friends. And, my opinion is to allow for civil unions and to let the states decide. Gays don't hurt anyone, and they're a small part of the population. THis doesn't make their desire for this kind of recognition invalid, but it does show that it won't lead to the end of civilization to allow homosexuals to get married.

My two cents, anyway...

[LightningRider]

A big misunderstandment about Bush is that he is also against Civil Unions and legal benefits for gays. He just wants to ban gays from getting married. He wants to allow states to decide whether or not they can have the legal benefits of marriage.

[AndrewJTalon]

Yes, and what's wrong with that? Letting the states decide for themselves is probably the best course in this case.

[GooieGreen]

At 10/9/04 10:01 AM, Rooster349 wrote: I believe the move in angled at the evangelical vote.

Sad but true. If you get a religious southern state, they tend to vote as a block with a few others. Bush really doesn't have any real religious convictions; he's just going along for the ride and using his "past" drug habits to try and boost himself.

[Archdukechocula]

The thing about republicans and gay marrige is that we are more fixed with the morals the bible tells us to have. God smote the sodomites and therefore gays are supposed to go to hell or something. I am a republican but I don't really care if gay people get married. If what is said in the bible is true, they will go to hell and it's not really anybodys problem but thiers. Plus there is supposed to be something like everyone in hell will eventually get out and go to heaven because it is more rehabilitation instead of punishment so they won't stay in hell. I'm not against gay marrige but a lot of my party is and I will support them. I just can't believe that liberals are labling this as an act for political gain. It's not, just a beliefe in morals but most liberals wouldn't know such a thing as those (abortions, stem cell research, etc.) *BUSH04*

[theburningliberal]

At 10/9/04 10:51 AM, OmniLogic wrote: There is no real argument around gay marriages, lets say your against gays and dont like the idea of gay marriage (im not) the difference is nil, a gay couple and a gay married couple only have a small difference so I dont see your problem here

Small Difference? You think denying gay couples to the benefits granted to married couples by at least 200 different statutes and regulations concerning marriage is a small difference?

You're fucked in the head, dude.

OmniLogic? More like, Minologic.

[theburningliberal]

I think one of the best arguments that I've seen for abortion rights is as follows:

The embryo, or "unborn child" is less human in every respect except potential than your common insect.

[fli]

At 10/9/04 07:22 PM, LightningRider wrote: A big misunderstandment about Bush is that he is also against Civil Unions and legal benefits for gays. He just wants to ban gays from getting married. He wants to allow states to decide whether or not they can have the legal benefits of marriage.

Well, that certainly clears things up! *thump*

Ban gay marriage, but allow states to decide to give a thing to homosexuals that is equal to marriage, but it's not called marriage?

Legally and logically, that doesn't make sense. *thump*

[Archdukechocula]

One thing about abortion is that a lot of the people don't understand how it's morally wrong unless you ask them, "Don't you like the fact your parents gave you a chance instead of killing you before you could enjoy life?" This makes a lot of pro abortion people hypocrits, unless for somereason they didn't want to be born. The embryo is human life in its beginning stages, not some corpse with no rights.

[RedSkunk]

At 10/10/04 12:58 AM, Archdukechocula wrote: abortion

Whoops! Wrong thread! You meant to write that here.

[ADarkerBreed]

well even if it is states or the actual government putting a ban on gay marriage.
Seriously there is 0 legitimate reason that gays should not have the right of marriage...
and if you use the religion excuse... what about athiests marrying... they can marry under the law... and wouldn't that challenge the seperation of Church and State and I believe the 14th amendment... it also challenges what this country was founded on, TOLERANCE...

I rest my case

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

it is sad that Cheney did not stick up for his daughter, and rather heartless... what is this country coming to

[Samuel-HALL]

At 10/9/04 09:44 AM, Rooster349 wrote:

The fact is gays don't hurt anybody, and they don't weaken marriage. They should have the same rights as every man.

You've started well...let's see if you can continue...

Abortion is wrong, not just to people of certain religions, but to all humans who value life.

ooh...see...fail. I don't call a fetus a human life, therefore, it is not valued. A fetus is nothing more than cellular life...and humans destroy cellular life everyday, with no remorse.

However, objections to homosexualism can be narrowed down all the way to a couple religions and the nature of society for years.

You talking about moral standards. Homosexuality is not right on a biological level...and this is a bisexual saying this.

As for gays, I don't see why it makes a difference whether it's called civil unions or marriages.

Agreed.

If you're getting the same rights, nothing is being restricted. If I go to a restaurant wanting steak, and the steak on the menu is called "Beernuts" it wouldn't matter because it tastes like a steak, looks like a steak, and doesn't have any qualities of beernuts. :)

This is an excellant point. It's almost like the gay community is spiteful...they CLAIM they want the rights...but they refuse civil unions. It's not the rights they want, it's the 'married' title.

I'd really like to hear from someone gay on this issue.

[Samuel-HALL]

At 10/9/04 01:14 PM, pondghost3 wrote: i don't think any party SHOULD (as in a moral statement) fight for standards of commanding people to conform to a will other than their own, especially when there is no rights violations. i mean, i never thought just "being gay" would violate someone's rights, would you?

I don't think any party SHOULD (as in a moral statement) fight for standards of commanding people to conform to a will other than their own, especially when there is no rights violations. I mean, i never thought just 'smoking crack' would violate someone's rights...yet it is illegal.

[RedSkunk]

At 10/10/04 03:38 PM, Damien3003 wrote: This is an excellant point. It's almost like the gay community is spiteful...they CLAIM they want the rights...but they refuse civil unions. It's not the rights they want, it's the 'married' title.

"But unlike marriages, which are respected from state to state, Vermont's civil unions are not recognized by states without similar laws.

And while Vermont's civil union couples are eligible for state benefits, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) excludes them from many federal benefits.
...
A General Accounting Office report in 1997 identified 1,049 laws where federal benefits, rights or privileges were contingent on marital status. They include tax breaks, pensions and Social Security benefits, inheritance rights and loans."

[Samuel-HALL]

At 10/10/04 12:58 AM, Archdukechocula wrote: One thing about abortion is that a lot of the people don't understand how it's morally wrong unless you ask them, "Don't you like the fact your parents gave you a chance instead of killing you before you could enjoy life?"

I honestly don't care. If i had been aborted, i would not have cared. In the fetus stage, i have no cognitive thought...no reason, or rational. I barely have brain activitey. Its not like i was in the womb thinking 'man i hope i get birthed'.
You're statement can be compared to: 'after you die, and you're rotting....aren't you going to wish you were still alive?'.

This makes a lot of pro abortion people hypocrits, unless for somereason they didn't want to be born.

I'm not a hypocrite, because i'm indifferent. I don't care about the fact of me being born. There is nothing special about a child being born. Life is not precious, and it's naive to think it is.

The embryo is human life in its beginning stages, not some corpse with no rights.

[Samuel-HALL]

At 10/10/04 03:50 PM, red_skunk wrote:

Ah, you seem to have left out the part that hurts your case, red. Ill fix it.

"Bush himself said Tuesday, "There is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage." "

But the gays aren't pushing to change what a civil union is...theyre pushing to change what marriage is. If i were the federal government, id let the gays go ahead and cut their nose off to spite their face.

[RedSkunk]

It's been eight years, and no boogey-man activist court has struck it down yet.

[Kev-o]

Fuck Bush, that damn homophobe

[bombkangaroo]

Marriage is about commitment and money, love is merely the catalyst.

[bombkangaroo]

You got my vote.