Bush Bans Gay Marriage

[Emerald Aeris]

Well, my point (kinda) was that regardless of what you believe, there is no legal basis for it, thus it shouldn't be made a law. I believe a lot of things, but I don't think they should be a laws.

DocFrance: I don't think Dingo meant anyone had to agree with him by that comment. I think he meant that denying homosexuals rights is spreading the hateful attitudes, thus the opposite of what Tokki said, stopping hate. Ja? Ja. I don't how you interpreted it that way.

Tokki: No, I don't think incestual relationships should be banned. Or polygamies, for that matter. As long as it's between consenting adults, it's none of my business. On incest, the reason used is because there's a slightly high possibility of defects. Well, under that logic, I should never be allowed to marry (I have the lupus gene). The taboo against incest generally sums up to yeegh. Same with homosexuality, I think.

Dingo: The increase is not ten fold. Not even close. The ONLY difference is that IF one of the partners possesses a hereditary gene that's faulty, or one that codes for a disease, there's a better chance it could be passed on to the child. Because the parents are both from the same family line, there might not be a dominant proper gene to cancel the defective one. This is made even more unlikely because of the fact that the traits often need to be homologous in order to be expressed. These defects and diseases are almost always recessive. The main words here are: if, chance, might, etc. There's a chance the same situation could come up between two completely unrelated people. That's why there still are defects and such among unrelated couples.

I wouldn't say these guys are equal to KKK members. Same base attitude, but carried out a lot differently. Kinda. Seems like all the nay-sayers believe that homosexuality is a choice. Hm.

Aw, you guys sound so very angry.

[Dingo Jellybean]

Originally posted by Emerald Aeris
Well, my point (kinda) was that regardless of what you believe, there is no legal basis for it, thus it shouldn't be made a law. I believe a lot of things, but I don't think they should be a laws.

DocFrance: I don't think Dingo meant anyone had to agree with him by that comment. I think he meant that denying homosexuals rights is spreading the hateful attitudes, thus the opposite of what Tokki said, stopping hate. Ja? Ja. I don't how you interpreted it that way.

Tokki: No, I don't think incestual relationships should be banned. Or polygamies, for that matter. As long as it's between consenting adults, it's none of my business. On incest, the reason used is because there's a slightly high possibility of defects. Well, under that logic, I should never be allowed to marry (I have the lupus gene). The taboo against incest generally sums up to yeegh. Same with homosexuality, I think.

Dingo: The increase is not ten fold. Not even close. The ONLY difference is that IF one of the partners possesses a hereditary gene that's faulty, or one that codes for a disease, there's a better chance it could be passed on to the child. Because the parents are both from the same family line, there might not be a dominant proper gene to cancel the defective one. This is made even more unlikely because of the fact that the traits often need to be homologous in order to be expressed. These defects and diseases are almost always recessive. The main words here are: if, chance, might, etc. There's a chance the same situation could come up between two completely unrelated people. That's why there still are defects and such among unrelated couples.

I wouldn't say these guys are equal to KKK members. Same base attitude, but carried out a lot differently. Kinda. Seems like all the nay-sayers believe that homosexuality is a choice. Hm.

Aw, you guys sound so very angry.

I didn't mean it was "10 fold", it was more like a figure of speech.

As for incest, I don't think it should be banned because there's a chance a "normal" baby would come out. Though that chance is decreased significantly, I don't think laws outlawing love is neccessary.

Even if homosexuality was a choice, it's none of my business to deny freedom of choice. I have 2 gay friends IRL and 1 gay friend online, and they all seem no different than any straight friends that I have. That's why I believe in equal treatment...because I've had a chance to know gays and realize that they are no different from any of us, much like an African is no different from an Indian.

But since some of you want to deny rights, why not put yourselves in their shoes? Imagine yourself as a homosexual and you would realize how difficult it is to live by life through a decision you made or a trait you were born with and realize that same sex marriage doesn't effect anyone unless they believe it will.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

Throughout this entire debate I have yet to hear one, just ONE person say why we should have a right to forbid homosexual marriages.

[Kirobaito]

DocFrance is trying to come up with a reason. I don't believe in homosexual marriages, but there really isn't a reason, besides what the Bible says. And, unfortunately, that damn first amendment keeps that from meaning anything.

Oh well. Why should I care about what goes on in a government that I have no voice in? Sure...an incompetent 40-year-old can vote, but a 15-year-old that wants to be involved with issues can't.

[Tokki Wartooth]

Dingo_Jellybean, you keep saying the same thing over without listening to what ANYONE else is saying. WE DO NOT HATE HOMOSEXUALS. In fact, we don't really have all that much against homosexuality. We just want to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Whether you like it or not, that's our opinion and we're not going to take yours no matter how many times you repeat it so please don't say anything else if you have nothing new to say. :love:

Behold the Void, if Bush says it's illegal, then it is, because he was voted president in YOUR democracy. So there's you legal justification.

Emerald Aeris, that's something completely different. I'd vote for homosexual marriages if incestual marriages and polygamies were also legalized. Peple can't go "oh equal rights!!!!" then go only half way. So if marriage is going to be compeltely equal, then why not?

btw I'm a girl :(

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

Behold the Void, if Bush says it's illegal, then it is, because he was voted president in YOUR democracy. So there's you legal justification

No, it isn't. Bush isn't the government, and the law is unconstitutional and Bush knows it. That's why he's trying to get an amendment, since an amendment cannot be deemed unconstitutional.

And trust me, I didn't vote for him. I will be old enough to vote in this election, however, and I shall do everything in my power to ensure that he does not remain in office.

I'm pretty sure you knew that, so tell me, if you did, why must you be flippant about this issue?

[Jebus]

Its not his job to say something is illegal. That is the supreme court's decision.

I still don't see ANY good reason why we shouldn't let them get married. It doesn't make any sense to me. Sure the Bible is against it. Ok, just don't let them get married in your churches. Ok, you're trying to preserve the 'sanctity' of marriage? Sanctity means:

sanc·ti·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sngkt-t)
n. pl. sanc·ti·ties
1.Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.
2.The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
3.Something considered sacred.

Now, how does the sanctity of something determine its legal reason?

I don't want to seem rude here, but there is NO legal reason to ban it. Its all religious, and that is not allowed, so you're without an argument. Why you keep trying to get EVERYone to accept this and not just keep them out of the churches, which you DO have jurisdiction, is beyond me. And for the record, I am not trying to force anything on you. Like I said, you can ban non-whites from your churches for all I care, just don't try to ban this nationwide without a clear secular purpose.

One more thing. I don't believe in marriage in the first place. Does that mean I want to ban it. No, because I would be denying tax-paying citizens their rights.

[Emerald Aeris]

Why is letting homosexuals get married detroying that? Why MUST it only be between a man and a woman? What does "preserving the sanctity" even mean? Is there any chance I'll get a relatively simple answer for these?

I consider marriage a love thing. People see it as permanence. I don't associate it with gender. I guess you do.

[Kirobaito]

This entire topic is messed up. There' s no way we will convince anyone else to believe what we mean. So why argue about it?

Oh, never mind, I remember--because you're right.

[Raistlin]

Originally posted by Garland
We're a republic and have an electoral college because we don't want the vast majority of the people to have a say. If the people are too dumb to be allowed direct elections, then they're too dumb to have their oppinions taken seriously. We elect leaders because they're better than us at making decisions, and not to simply rubber-stamp any decision we desire. Bush shouldn't act in our will. He should act above it.

That is complete and utter bull .

We have the electoral college, because it has been in place since the beginning of our government. There was no TV, radio, and nation-wide news media. For example, in an election, most southerners might not have a clue who a nothern candidate was. That system has perpetuated because no one's bothered trying to remove it, and because only three times in America's history has a President been elected without winning the popular vote, and then only by small margins. Plus, the electoral vote is based on the popular vote, just not in numbers alone(by states).

ANYWAY, just thought I should clear that up. I'll keep my opinion on the issue at hand to myself, for now(mainly because I really need to go to bed and don't have time to type out a lengthy reply).

[Tokki Wartooth]

Originally posted by Behold the Void
No, it isn't. Bush isn't the government, and the law is unconstitutional and Bush knows it. That's why he's trying to get an amendment, since an amendment cannot be deemed unconstitutional.

And trust me, I didn't vote for him. I will be old enough to vote in this election, however, and I shall do everything in my power to ensure that he does not remain in office.

I'm pretty sure you knew that, so tell me, if you did, why must you be flippant about this issue?

Oh course you didn't vote for him, you're 17 years old (according to your profile :love:), so really, you have no position to critisize him when you're not even at the age of consent yet. And by doing everything in your power, that means doing nothing except casting one vote, right? :)

I don't know too much about American politics, so I won't argue there. :) But homosexual marriages are illegalized now, aren't they? So there you have it. He does have SOME power, apparently.

I wouldn't say I'm "flippant" but it's not much of a debate if it's just 50 people against DocFrance. :) Plus I'm Christian. If you couldn't tell by now.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

Actually, the electoral college was meant to make sure that the people didn't accidently vote the wrong person. It was supposed to give certain people the power to affect an election, should the election go in favor of someone deemed unsuitable. Laws have restricted this, making it much harder for the electoral college to play such a large roll, but doesn't really need to be there anyways.

[Kirobaito]

It's not 50 people against DocFrance. It's 50 people against DocFrance and a half. I support his belief wholeheartedly, but I don't wanna argue about it because there's no point to it. And plus, I'm not gonna make a difference. I can't vote. I just find it funny to read responses and comment on them.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

So many people posting so fast it's hard to keep up.

Oh course you didn't vote for him, you're 17 years old (according to your profile ), so really, you have no position to critisize him when you're not even at the age of consent yet. And by doing everything in your power, that means doing nothing except casting one vote, right?

Age of Consent=16

And I believe I am in a position to criticize him, as his decisions are affecting the country I live in in what I believe to be a negative way.

I don't know too much about American politics, so I won't argue there. But homosexual marriages are illegalized now, aren't they? So there you have it. He does have SOME power, apparently.

That's been changing. One state has already found the laws to be unconstitutional (as they are) and is now granting marriage licenses to homosexual couples. The situation is becming increasingly murky.

[Tokki Wartooth]

See I told you I don't know anything about American politics *goes to bed*