gay marriage

[Ravens-Grin]

CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush indicated Wednesday he opposes extending marriage rights to homosexuals, saying he believes marriage "is between a man and a woman."

Bush said it is "important for society to welcome each individual," but administration lawyers are looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another," Bush told reporters at a White House news conference. "And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that."

Bush's comments drew praise from conservative groups, but criticism from gay rights advocates.

"The president has taken a courageous stand in favor of traditional marriage at a moment in American history when the courts are conspiring with anti-family extremists to undermine our nation's most vital institution," said the Rev. Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition.

But a spokeswoman for a gay rights group faulted the president.

"We are very disappointed that the president is trying to further codify discrimination into law," said Winnie Stachelberg, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group.

Earlier this month, Bush said a constitutional amendment to block gay marriages might not be necessary, although the proposal has the support of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee.

The question of gay marriage has moved to the foreground of American politics after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that struck down state laws banning sodomy. Canada courts also have recently recognized gay marriages. In addition, the Massachusetts high court is expected to issue a ruling soon on whether the state can allow gay marriages.

The prospect has outraged religious conservatives, an important voting bloc in the Republican Party. And a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll suggest the Supreme Court ruling has prompted a backlash: The number of people who have endorsed the idea that homosexual relations should be legal has dropped from 60 percent to 48 percent since the ruling, and only 40 percent of Americans say they now would support civil unions for homosexuals.

Even as he made it clear that he did not support the idea of gay marriage, Bush appeared to issue a call for tolerance.

"Yes, I am mindful that we're all sinners," the president said Wednesday when asked for his views on homosexuality. "And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they've got a log in their own."

"I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country," Bush added. "On the other hand, that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on an issue such as marriage."

A number of states have passed laws forbidding gays from marrying or barring the recognition of a same-sex marriage performed in another state. The federal government's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act affirms that states are not required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

The act also defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

[Ravens-Grin]

Accidently pressed enter instead of shift, but the title should've been "Bush talks about gay marriage"

[biteme2514]

At 7/30/03 09:53 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush indicated Wednesday he opposes extending marriage rights to homosexuals, saying he believes marriage "is between a man and a woman."
The act also defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

Bush is a homophobe. He's probably been raised to hate homosexuals and now he's once again abusing his power as president. With the recent war thing and now this, I can say, without a doubt that Bush is the worst president America has ever had.

I'm the kind of person that believes that as long as you really love someone, there's nothing wrong with marriage. So what if both people have the same gender? It's their choice, and Bush "opposing" this only proves that he's discriminating against his own citizens. A good president should treat all his people equally, and if this is allowed to go through, what's next? Is Bush going to go all Hitler and get rid of all the Jewish people? Or maybe he'll decide that he wants to get rid of all the men in the country just so there'd be no competition. Homosexual people only have a different sexual preference than heterosexuals. It's no reason to limit them as to what they can do in life. In my opinion, it's no more important than liking cats more than dogs or vice versa. I really hope Bush gets trampled to death in a protest sometime in the near future for this. How far can that jackass go?

[7Cros]

At 8/1/03 02:14 AM, biteme2514 wrote:

At 7/30/03 09:53 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush indicated Wednesday he opposes extending marriage rights to homosexuals, saying he believes marriage "is between a man and a woman."
The act also defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

Bush is a homophobe. He's probably been raised to hate homosexuals and now he's once again abusing his power as president. With the recent war thing and now this, I can say, without a doubt that Bush is the worst president America has ever had.

I'm the kind of person that believes that as long as you really love someone, there's nothing wrong with marriage. So what if both people have the same gender? It's their choice, and Bush "opposing" this only proves that he's discriminating against his own citizens. A good president should treat all his people equally, and if this is allowed to go through, what's next? Is Bush going to go all Hitler and get rid of all the Jewish people? Or maybe he'll decide that he wants to get rid of all the men in the country just so there'd be no competition. Homosexual people only have a different sexual preference than heterosexuals. It's no reason to limit them as to what they can do in life. In my opinion, it's no more important than liking cats more than dogs or vice versa. I really hope Bush gets trampled to death in a protest sometime in the near future for this. How far can that jackass go?

Ben, i disagree. I really dont care about Same sex marriges, I just don't think they should have anymore rights then the average citizen. I can't belive you wished MY President to death. I personaly think Bush was put in office for a reason. Gore just seems like he would wuss out in the case of war. If Bush gets trampled and killed in the near future, I'm pointing the finger at you.

[HardcoreChristmas]

At 8/1/03 02:14 AM, biteme2514 wrote:

At 7/30/03 09:53 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: How far can that jackass go?

5 more years. Just 5 more years (do you really think Lieberman or Sharpton could beat him?)

[biteme2514]

At 8/1/03 02:42 AM, SuperTyler wrote: Ben, i disagree. I really dont care about Same sex marriges, I just don't think they should have anymore rights then the average citizen.

It depends on what you mean by "any more rights". Every heterosexual citizen is allowed to marry, as long as they're marrying someone of a different gender, right? Well, you could say that homosexual citizens should at least get the right to marry into their own sexual preference. However, you could also say that the rights of an American citizen only include marrying into a different gender, because that's all the heterosexual citizens really need. I just find it discriminatory to homosexuals. Oh, and I'm sorry about the "Bush being trampled" thing. I meant it as a joke really, but you're probably right that I'm starting to sound like a jackass too...

[Low-Budget-Superhero]

At 8/1/03 02:46 AM, Lpmofo wrote:

At 8/1/03 02:14 AM, biteme2514 wrote:

At 7/30/03 09:53 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: How far can that jackass go?

5 more years. Just 5 more years (do you really think Lieberman or Sharpton could beat him?)

Sadly, I see your point... we're fucked!

[Sonic-Youth]

At 8/1/03 02:14 AM, biteme2514 wrote: Bush is a homophobe. He's probably been raised to hate homosexuals and now he's once again abusing his power as president. With the recent war thing and now this, I can say, without a doubt that Bush is the worst president America has ever had.

Marriage began as a religious ceremony meant for those following certain religious beliefs. In accordiance with those beliefs, God created man and woman. God meant for man and woman to be together and not for men to be with other men. Marriage wasn't designed for gays.

Being together is one thing, asking to change God's word is another. Bush is just a Christian who is following the teachings of the Bible.

Gays can marry. What next, adults marrying children? Or even polygamy?

[Low-Budget-Superhero]

At 8/1/03 03:56 AM, simply_forgotten wrote: Marriage began as a religious ceremony meant for those following certain religious beliefs.

Many people who do not following the sane sets of beliefs practice it, too. Thus, proving it can change with the times.

In accordiance with those beliefs, God created man and woman. God meant for man and woman to be together and not for men to be with other men.

God probably didn't intend for men to put their own twist on exactly what He said. Being that we have no idea what He said exactly, or if He even exists (which I personally believe, but I have been known to be wrong before...) I wouldn't put too much stock in what the good book says.

Marriage wasn't designed for gays.

Nor was The Wizard of Oz, the Bravo Network, rainbows, triangles, the color purple... need I continue?

Being together is one thing, asking to change God's word is another.

I already said we have no idea what God really said, so how do we know what God really said.

Bush is just a Christian who is following the teachings of the Bible.

I feel the need to bring up seperation of church and state, one of the many reasons I believe America would benefit from an athiest president.

Gays can marry. What next, adults marrying children? Or even polygamy?

Polygamy? We already have that in Utah. Adults marrying children is a different story. Adults can give informed consent, children can't.

I am curious, though... have you ever actually read Romans? I've hear all this bullshit before, so I decided to be informed. I read it, and saw two ways it could be interpreted.

a) The homophobic "Jesus was lying when he said he loves us all" shit that most "religious" hypocrites tend to latch on to.

b) The way I took it, it meant that God wants us to live the way we were born. And since all research has shown that homosexuals are BORN THAT WAY, we shouldn't disobey God's word can we?

[phantasm93]

To join in, it's not the fact that Bush is a Christian that I find upsetting; it's more that he's forcing his relgious/moral views on an entire country that might not share those beliefs. To keep re-emphasizing his Christianity to is to keep passive-aggresively demeaning other religions by ignoring them.

At least Britain got close to a good accord on same-sex marriages. Their only shortcoming was that it seemed like they were being too harsh on same-sex marriages since a same-sex didn't have the legal ramifications behind divorce, etc.

[JMHX]

At 8/1/03 04:32 AM, phantasm93 wrote: To join in, it's not the fact that Bush is a Christian that I find upsetting; it's more that he's forcing his relgious/moral views on an entire country that might not share those beliefs. To keep re-emphasizing his Christianity to is to keep passive-aggresively demeaning other religions by ignoring them.

When the Separatist framers of this nation voiced their views in The Federalist Papers, they were views that were not meant to be ignored. Every single one of them, sans one or two, believed that the Church and the Bible should be held separate from the United States Government. Because something is a sin in the bible does not mean that it should be banned by the United States. Forcing Christian values on the Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists, and even Wiccans of this nation is showing that the United States no longer cares for the individual or the opposing group. Same-sex marriage and abortion are one and the same. If you eliminate the freedom of choice for one, you are effectively eliminating the freedom of choice for the other and all other things.

"A decent government, in any sense of the word, should not govern the personal lives of its people, no matter how opposing to the personal views of the gentlemen in power they may be." -- Thomas Jefferson.

[Ted-Easton]

simply_forgotten, you're bringing up the same ridiculous, half-assed arguments that the Canadians Against Same Sex Marriages are trying. They use the over-used "slippery slope" term to try to convinve people that by allowing same-sex marriages, Canada is opening the door to polygamy (which is perfectly acceptable), people marrying children, and people marrying animals.
How the hell can a person actually belive that crap? "Slippery Slope" is the most over used and improperly used terms. People believe that doing one thing always leads to "having to" do a bunch of others.
Sometimes, people, doing something makes that thing done. Period.

One, a person could not marry a child, they cannot give informed consent. Two, a person could not marry an animal, as they have no clue how to give consent, let alone be informed about it.
Three, what is wrong with polygamy? It has been practiced in some western states, as well as other countries worldwide, with great success. It leads to higher population growth, and don't try and say it "is against a proper family". The only reason you think two parents is a proper family is because that's the way you were raised. And your parents, and their parents. For no reason.
And polygamy includes polyandry and polygyny. Why not allow it? A practice involving consenting adults. The government has no place in the love of it's citizens. Whether it's a man and a woman, a man and a man, a man with two women, or any of the opposites.
The only restriction on marriage that makes any sense is to only allow it for consenting adults.

Now I'm way off topic. Where was I?

[JMHX]

Ted, what you just said brought a tear to my eye. Wait, no, I was pressing on my eye and now it's oozing something. I knew that wasn't too good. ANYWAY.

Honestly, what you said was very right for the cause, Ted. I do, however, have my personal issues with Polygamy. This does not mean, by any means, that I do not believe others should have their free choice to practice it. It is just not something I could personally see myself doing. Just like I would never have an abortion. See? I'm making you think. Yes, anyway, the "Slippery Slope" debate is a sad one, something I would like to see retired soon. Love is a personal thing, an emotion, a very strong emotion, and the government, any government, has no place trying to outlaw the emotions of its citizens. That seems to me to be the worst crime of all.

[Ted-Easton]

Very true. The first modern example I can remember of society/government interfering with love (well, it was more of lust) was the Clinton scandal.
I said it then, and now, that the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. Or the hearts, I would add, now.

We need more people who are willing to realize that what they believe isn't what should be enforced on everyone else to believe. Their private beliefs are exactly that- private. (I like to think of it as a briefcase.)
No one should try to take it away, and the owner shouldn't make other people get one. It's what you keep your opinions and ideas in, and not everyone needs/wants the same things as you.

[Sonic-Youth]

At 8/1/03 05:53 AM, BaKsHi wrote: ogm!!11 u fool why do you keep believing that crap. homosexuality is accepted and religion can't block that. humans are flexible. religion doesn't govern morality. remember, they even predict there is an armageddon but are we scared no, it may happen but thats not the point. we can't use religion to govern our life.

Actually, it does. All our laws and morals come from the Bible. There is no use trying when people are set in their ways and just label moral people are homophobes or bigots.

It's not natural, penis wasn't meant to go up the ass. Gays aren't a race so you can't argue discrimination, they increase their numbers by perverting young children with their gay reality shows. Making gay marriage legal would give people the idea it is safe, natural, and accepted.

[dudeitsallama]

At 8/1/03 03:07 PM, simply_forgotten wrote: It's not natural, penis wasn't meant to go up the ass.

Who says? And why isn't it natural. Some animals have been known to do it.

Gays aren't a race so you can't argue discrimination,

Discrimination doesn't have to be racial. For example, I can discriminate against you because you're a homophobe which has nothing to do with your race.

dis·crim·i·nate v. intr.
To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.
To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.
To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies.

they increase their numbers by perverting young children with their gay reality shows.

What the fuck are you talking about!?!

Making gay marriage legal would give people the idea it is safe, natural, and accepted.

How is it unsafe?

Posting on NG isn't "natural" either.

Gay marriage is accepted. I accept it and so do many others. By definition, that makes it accepted.

[JMHX]

At 8/1/03 03:07 PM, simply_forgotten wrote:

At 8/1/03 05:53 AM, BaKsHi wrote:

It's not natural, penis wasn't meant to go up the ass.

Says one singular text that is thousands of years old, based against millions of Americans and people of the world that beg to differ. But, then again, does this ban anal sex between two consenting heterosexual people?

Gays aren't a race so you can't argue discrimination.

Oh, but you can. You can argue discrimination based on religion, skin color, ethnic rituals or sets of beliefs that are non religious, and any number of other isses. If you are presented with a situation where there are two candidates for a job, one straight and one homosexual, and you choose the straight man based on the fact that you do not like the idea of a homosexual working in your company, that is discrimination.

they increase their numbers by perverting young children with their gay reality shows.

All right, I don't know where you get this. Another method of the "Homosexual Agenda". If you refer to Queer Eye For The Straight Guy on Bravo, it has nothing to do with promoting homosexuality. It's a makeover show, for Chrissakes. Get over it. They're not out to get you.

Making gay marriage legal would give people the idea it is safe, natural, and accepted.

This is the idea they should be given, that you are not less of a human being because you choose to love someone of your same sex. It's bible-thumping bigots like yourself which make homosexual teenagers feel as if they need to construct their own school to find a safe haven from this sort of intolerance. Tell me something, do you agree with the way Matthew Shepard was "dealt with" for being gay? Tied to a fence, beaten, robbed, left for dead? Does that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, that one more gay teenager is off the streets? Think about it.

[FourStar]

bush shouldnt have touched the subject of gay marriage no matter how much shit he got from the gay rights activists. i also find it funny how its ok for catholic priests to go around and rape little boys, but gays cant get married

[karasz]

Why should we care?

seriously we are all missing the point of 2 things

1) gay marriages hurt no-one
2) the catholic church, after recent scandals, is not in a position to say anything is harmful to children

im referring to the letter the vatican released today saying (USA TODAY, 8/1)
"recognizing same-sex marriage would 'promote' homosexuality as acceptable in society, and that allowing gay couples to adopt children would 'actually mean doing violence to these children' by depriving them of proper moral upbringing".

thats right folks, the same guy that said childd molesting priests can stay priest is saying gays are not proper moral upbringing...

this has led me to the conclusion of: FUCK THE POPE and basically all organized religion

also, concerning gay marriages, polygamy, and any other non-mainstream type of sex, EXCLUDING kiddie porn, why should it matter to any of us what they do?

[FourStar]

At 8/1/03 06:07 PM, karasz wrote: why should it matter to any of us what they do?

because i am a middle class soccer mom who was brought up in a christian family and i think i know everything because i was brainwashed when i was a child. i have nothing better to do than go around and protest crap which i feel goes against my precious fucking beliefs. that is why it matters

[Sonic-Youth]

At 8/1/03 05:10 PM, dudeitsallama wrote: What the fuck are you talking about!?!

Making gay marriage legal would give people the idea it is safe, natural, and accepted.

How is it unsafe?

Posting on NG isn't "natural" either.

Gay marriage is accepted. I accept it and so do many others. By definition, that makes it accepted.

Men and women make babies, they don't come from rainbows as your fairy little flag would indicate. It's only natural that man and women would be together because it requires a man and a woman to have a child.

Gays can't have children by sticking their cocks up another man's ass, so it's un-natural. Damn, you people take simple shit and blow it up.

Be reasonable. Unsafe? Well, did you know that more gays have AIDS than any hetrosexuals? It's an unsafe life style. Your ignoramce doesn't make you right. Just because a few think it's okay, doesn't make it okay.

Gays used to be seen as bad people, now they aren't so much by Liberals such as yourself. Child molesters are seen as bad people. Pretty soon, nothing will seem wrong. Crime and prostitution along with all that accompanies it will run out of control.

Just because you have a sick fetish for sticking your cock in a man's ass, doesn't mean you should force your views on others. It's a fetish because it doesn't come naturally, are you for other fetishes like rape?

[damndifwedordont]

actually the penis was not ment to go up the ass, after thousands of years of evolution the right hole was made, on a woman, not in the rear,(for those that still dont know what im talking about)its called a vagina, lol ok?

think about it evolution did all the work that was needed on us b4 we(the human race or whatever came first then spawned us) became sentinent.(yes other animals are sentinent but just because they dont destroy their home planet doesnt mean they are dumb) why gays are more common in human beings?? hell if i know. but evolution makes its magic mappen on the majority of the population of a race, gays are not the majority so evolution could not make a vagina in a mans rear.

ill explain further if i must but i feel that ive said enough

[FlyingAce]

At 8/1/03 02:46 AM, Lpmofo wrote:
5 more years. Just 5 more years (do you really think Lieberman or Sharpton could beat him?)

Al Sharpton doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. I respect Liberman, he would be the candidate I'd vote for if I suddenly lost faith in Bush.

I agree with Bush's decision, though this is a touchy subject. I think a marriage is an ancient instution, an eternal bond between a man and a woman, and that it should be kept that way. But in the more specific sense, I think marriage is supposed to promote fertility and it is an institution that gives the green light to producing children. Marriage is about starting a family from scratch.

I pose the question, why do homosexuals need marriage? Do homosexuals need a marriage to be happy? Why is gay marriage so important to these individuals? Do most homosexuals even want gay marriage?

I think the only reason this is an issue, is because a few people want to make an issue out of it; I think they just want to flaunt their homosexuality and make a statement.

[FourStar]

At 8/1/03 02:46 AM, Lpmofo wrote:

I pose the question, why do homosexuals need marriage? Do homosexuals need a marriage to be happy? Why is gay marriage so important to these individuals? Do most homosexuals even want gay marriage?

when they fill out there tax forms and shit it might save them some money...

[JMHX]

At 8/1/03 07:12 PM, simply_forgotten wrote:

At 8/1/03 05:10 PM, dudeitsallama wrote:

Men and women make babies, they don't come from rainbows as your fairy little flag would indicate. It's only natural that man and women would be together because it requires a man and a woman to have a child.

You know, there are exciting reports from the medical forefronts on a technology which could extract cells from two male or two female donors, and grow them into an egg and a sperm cell, respectively. This would, in essence, mean that two men or two women could have a child without adoption, and it would actually be a genetic mixture of both parents.

Gays can't have children by sticking their cocks up another man's ass, so it's un-natural. Damn, you people take simple shit and blow it up.

There are also barren women or infertile men. Does this mean that they have no right to have sex? Limiting safe acts committed by two consenting adults, and the right do commit those acts in the privacy of one's own home, would take away the basic freedoms of privacy and choice.

Be reasonable. Unsafe? Well, did you know that more gays have AIDS than any hetrosexuals? It's an unsafe life style. Your ignoramce doesn't make you right. Just because a few think it's okay, doesn't make it okay.

On the same coin, however, simply because a few view it as wrong should not make it illegal for the masses. Also, the numbers of AIDS-carrying females around the world has skyrocketed in the past 10 years, while the number of AIDS-carrying males, both heterosexual and homosexual, has remained rather stable.

Gays used to be seen as bad people, now they aren't so much by Liberals such as yourself. Child molesters are seen as bad people. Pretty soon, nothing will seem wrong. Crime and prostitution along with all that accompanies it will run out of control.

Like Ted Easton said, I don't see why this "Slippery Slope" argument gets any play in the least. There is a difference between the acts of two consenting adults, two adults agreeing to go forward with sexual acts or the act of marriage, and a man or woman forcing themselves upon a defenseless child. How you even manage to link prostitution and homosexuality is beyone me, though.

Just because you have a sick fetish for sticking your cock in a man's ass, doesn't mean you should force your views on others. It's a fetish because it doesn't come naturally, are you for other fetishes like rape?

Rape is not classified as a fetish. It's classified as a violent crime. But...why should we listen to you try and force your views on others? Why does your Pat Robertson-esque banter make you any different from the people who believe in a homosexual agenda? Also, you never answered me on that Matthew Shepard question.

[Sonic-Youth]

At 8/1/03 09:07 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Rambles on without end.

Listen here cock sucker. Quit trying to fucking make some retarded claims like "you can clone people and have children that way" and shit. It's not natural. Who the fuck is this Pat guy?

I'm not forcing my views on anyone. This is an open topic. You stated your opinion, and I stated mine. You then responded to my post so I respond back and you try to combat good moral behavior by saying stupid shit with no point at all.

Artificial impregnating someone has nothing to do with gays. Damn, you are the stupidest mother fucker I've ever seen!

[karasz]

At 8/1/03 07:35 PM, FlyingAce wrote:

At 8/1/03 02:46 AM, Lpmofo wrote:
5 more years. Just 5 more years (do you really think Lieberman or Sharpton could beat him?)

Al Sharpton doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. I respect Liberman, he would be the candidate I'd vote for if I suddenly lost faith in Bush.

Lieberman never, i repeat NEVER, will win the democratic primary... just like mccain was NEVER going to win the republican primary, the bases of both parties are too ideological to move that far to the center... although yes odds are lieberman would give bush a real run for his money in the general election (probably steal some conservatives that are angry with bush over one thing or another) but the party wont give him the nod... i mean hell his poll numbers (in specific states NOT nationwide... nationwide polls dont mean shit until general elections) he is not in the top 3 of iowa OR new hampshire... but he has the most name recognition out of the pack...

I agree with Bush's decision, though this is a touchy subject. I think a marriage is an ancient instution, an eternal bond between a man and a woman, and that it should be kept that way.

why? does being married mean you love someone more then you did before you were married?

But in the more specific sense, I think marriage is supposed to promote fertility and it is an institution that gives the green light to producing children. Marriage is about starting a family from scratch.

no marriage is about being in love with another human being... and why does everyone call marriage an institution? its a FUCKING piece of paper... thats it, nobody loves anyone more or less the day before they are married then the day after... its all about the fucking piece of paper...

I pose the question, why do homosexuals need marriage?

your right they dont... neither do heterosexuals, ITS A FUCKING PIECE OF PAPER

Do homosexuals need a marriage to be happy?

nope, its saying i love this person and want to spend the rest of my life with him/her... you dont need to be married to do that... and again neither do heterosexuals...

Why is gay marriage so important to these individuals?

its all about the money... being married means you get tax breaks, and if one spouse dies the other inherits the deceased belongings...

Do most homosexuals even want gay marriage?

i dunno, probably... who does want to be barred from doing stuff that anyone else can do...

I think the only reason this is an issue, is because a few people want to make an issue out of it; I think they just want to flaunt their homosexuality and make a statement.

a few people, like Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that wants to introduce a constitutional amendment saying a marriage is between a man and a woman (big violation of church and state by the way... remember kids that is a two way street, keep the church out of govt and govt out of church)... or the pope for writing a paper saying 'gays shouldnt be allowed to adopt kids because 'it deprives the child of a proper moral upbringing'... exactly send those kids to church, im sure the priest will be more than happy to properly upbring them...

the president had to say something about it... but i dont think he really cares about it... like hes a religious guy and thats fine, thats why he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman... but i dont think he is trying to tell all gays to go to hell...

[Ted-Easton]

nat·u·ral ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.
Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions.
Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.
Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.

He's not the one making "retarded claims". If you'll read it, you may experience a revelation that he's arguing a point, and you're repeating the same drivel we've been hearing from the catholic church for 600 years.
The use of the word natural conveys too much weight. Explain to us how it is "unnatural". And while we're at it, let's look at the word itself.

Un Natural
Natural : Sounds a lot like Nature. Which, surprisingly enough, is where the word originates.
And considering the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature, it's natural.

And natural also refers to something created without higher influence. For example, a natural forest.
Unless you're suggesting that aliens are secretly causing homosexuality, I fail to see how it is unnatural.

No, I don't fail to see. You fail to see by simply averting your eyes from the fact that gay people are people. They're no different that you or I, except that they love a different person.
They're two natural and consenting adults, why can they not love each other?

[FlyingAce]

karasz, that was a well thought out post; I'm glad you replied to me first.

I marriage has nothing to do with Church and State, because it isn't specific to one Religon, or any for that matter, so that thing about Bill Frist infringing on Church and State is flat-out incorrect.

In response to your "it's about money" point, I was going to put up this comprise after someone replied to my thread.

I suggest the government declares a new legal title for couples, who don't have to be gay to have it, which is a purely secular arrangement, which gives the same legal and fiscal status of a marriage, but isn't involved in the institution itself. I haven't thought of a good name for the legal status yet, but other than that, I think it should pan out fine.

It doesn't piss off any of the staunch defenders of Marriage, because it isn't called a "Marriage", and has nothing to do with their ceremonies or what not.

It satisfies the people who would otherwise remain unmarried (homosexuals, or couples who have a strong commitment but can't be married, such as one couple where the woman is a die-hard feminist who won't let herself be enslaved by marriage "i know a couple like this"), because they recieve the same legal courtesies that come with the marriage.

It may sound absurd, but then again, gay marriage does too.

Marriage is way more than a piece of paper dude; it's a large fiscal agreement, a spiritual bond, an emotional bond, and the foundation for a family. I don't have anything against homosexuals, but I think marriage ought to be respected for what it's supposed to be.

What's the status on Gay Marriage in Europe and Canada btw?

[Ted-Easton]

Canada has finally, and rightly, begun to legalize gay marriages. The supreme court threw out government legislation stating otherwise, and all that remains in a free vote on the bill in the fall until it is written into law.
Currently they can, and are, marrying.