Bush Pushes for Gay Marriage Ban

[Marv]

seems strange to me. I like bush but have no problem with gay marriage.

[Lord Mhoram]

I think marriage is a civil right. Wikipedia defines civil rights as the protections and privileges of personal liberty given to all citizens by law. If marriage isn't a personal liberty, I don't know what is.

[Cail]

But it's already limited, and it's not really a liberty either. It's not like the government is saying that gays can't live together, they're saying that they're not going to extend benefits to any couples who aren't married, and one of the qualifications of marriage is that both participants be of opposite sex.

Look, part of the problem is that by extending the definition of legal marriage and the associated benefits to gays, the government is then in the position of endorsing homosexuality. That's a big step for a country that was founded and originally populated by Fundies that were so out there, they were kicked out of England for being so Puritanical.

The other part is "What's Next?". If this is a question of civil rights, then why shouldn't polygamy be considered legal marriage? Every argument you can use for gay marriage also works for threesomes or fivesomes. You can take that Wikipedia definition and argue that you should be able to marry your sister too.

I dunno. I'm all for the gay marriage thing simply because it'll (hopefully) promote more stable households, which is good for society and the economy. I have to admit, I don't look forward to the next step in 15-20 years or so.
_________________
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________

[Lord Mhoram]

Cail,

I see no problem with polygamy, aside from the economic problems arising from it (a husband supporting one wife, for instance; or a husband with 21 kids). I don't see why the government should restrict marriage based on that, however.

[Plissken]

I don't know that polygamy has to be the next step on this. I'm not even sure why it would be.
_________________
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
-- James Madison

"If you're going to tell people the truth, you'd better make them laugh. Otherwise they'll kill you." - George Bernard Shaw

[variol son]

The sad thing about this, from my unique perspective, is that there are surely far more important and pressing issues that affect the well-being of a large percentage of the population for the federal government to be dealing with.
_________________
You do not hear, and so you cannot be redeemed.

In the name of their ancient pride and humiliation, they had made commitments with no possible outcome except bereavement.

He knew only that they had never striven to reject the boundaries of themselves.

[Avatar]

Good posts guys, and yeah Vs. That's pretty much what everybody is thinking.

I think that both Mhoram and Cail are right really. Marriage per se isn't a "right" in terms of a constitutional right like freedom say, but it should count as a civil right.

What one citizen is allowed to do, any other citizen should also be allowed to do.

That's called equality.

Anyway, I don't see that government should be involved in marriage at all, no matter who is getting married. Marriage is between two people, (and theoretically god) (which may be a bit creepy. ).

Of course, under your system, there are financial benefits to being married in terms of Tax etc. right?

So your government endorses marriage. It actually discriminates in favour of the married...

Over here, as I may have mentioned, even married couples file seperate returns. *shrug* The GF and I have been together for 8 years. We don't need some piece of paper from the government or any church to "sanctify" or "legitimise" our relationship. It is both without need for external approval.

Anyway, to return to topic, it looks like the consensus is pretty much that this is going to go nowhere anyway, right? It's an attention puller. "We're gonna make it illegal for the apostate homosexuals to marry!"

I mean, c'mon...(and isn't this backing down the slippery slope so recently climbed?) Are they gonna make just being gay illegal again?

The land of the free huh?

I agree with Duchess...two consenting adults can do what they please with each other. It's nobody else's business at all. Because it doesn't affect them. At all. In any way conceivable.

Oh, Cail, child brides are not strictly forbidden remember? (Is this a joke? thread I think.)

--A
_________________
It's easy to judge. It's more difficult to understand.

[sgt.null]

well it doesn't look like it will even pass congress. but it is distressing that with the quagmire of Iraq, Iran getting nukes, the economy, campaign finance, immigration, hurricane season, corruption in goverment, crime, tax reform...

the twit in charge is worried about what consenting adults do with their naughty bits.
_________________
life's not a paragraph
And death i think is no parenthesis”
― E.E. Cummings

[I'm Murrin]

I think this makes a very good point for arguing against the people who support this.
_________________
Inspiration Struck.

Mod of the General Fantasy/Sci-Fi Forum

[Avatar]

nks for the link Murrin. A very interesting point he makes.

I particularly liked this comment though:

[Cail]

That link isn't quite accurate. Gay marriage is legal in certain places in the country, but not nationwide. If a gay couple is married in Massachusetts, that union is not recognized anywhere else.
_________________
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________

[Avatar]

But the ban would nullify previously recognised marriages in the unlikely event it was passed?

--A
_________________
It's easy to judge. It's more difficult to understand.

[Cail]

One would assume so.

Then there's this....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
...Which I don't think is too big of a deal (being the state's rights sort of guy I am). That said, I just don't see why people are so up in arms about it (other than the whole issue of the government tacitly condoning homosexuality).

From an economic standpoint, I just don't see a downside to legalizing it.

But, if the worrywarts are right and the next step is polygamy, is that somewhere we want to go? Should a marriage be defined as three guys and two girls?
_________________
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________

[Avatar]

If they want it to be. (Well, actually, it shouldn't be defined at all.)

It doesn't harm me if several consenting parties want to marry amongst themselves. why should I care? I can't see any downside to it, let alone an economical one.

This whole state legislation thing still bother me. Note, not "rights", but "laws."

Seems ridiculous that I can cross an arbitrary line and do somehing that's illegal 5 yards down the road. Either it's legal, or it's not.

And this whole thing about the government condoning homosexuality. It's also ridiculous. It implies that there is something wrong with it. And bar some religious prejudices, nobody has been able to demonstarte that there is.

--A
_________________
It's easy to judge. It's more difficult to understand.

[The Laughing Man]

I haven't been following this thread, so......but Avatar has provided me an entry point here, heh, and my point of view on this has boiled down to:


The Insurance & Pharmaceutical Lobby, which Bush has actually encouraged and allowed to write actual LEGISLATION, is behind this whole hoodoo because they don't want to have to pay for all the dying "homos" out there. If the unions are recognized, they have 70% of all gay people in the country suddenly draining all of their record profits.

you need look no further to find the impetus behind this, and for any "issue" we face these days, politically speaking, you will find a lobby or special interest behind it, and whats behind them, DRIVING THEM, is M-O-N-E-Y.

[Avatar]

Hmmm, that's one I hadn't thought of. I'll certainly agree that money seems to be a massive motivator in a lot of what happens in American (and probably other countries) politics, but I really didn't think of it in this case.

Is this really the issue behind the issue?

--A
_________________
It's easy to judge. It's more difficult to understand.

[Cail]

Not at all. Even homos have health insurance. The issue is being able to share that insurance, or have some say in what happens to your partner in life-threatening circumstances. The increase in costs to the insurers would me minimal. In fact, it could have the effect of reducing costs because (theoretically) it could reduce the number of policies written.
_________________
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________

[The Laughing Man]

what? come on Cail, two people living together, one has insurance, the other not, they get married, one person added to policy that already includes family members, that potentially doubles their costs at the price of a standard policy, not to mention they all of a sudden become "high risk" due to their "lifestyle" choices. don't tell me thay aren't looking at billions in added insuree costs due to them becoming family...puh-lease. According to these bigoted assholes being homosexual qualifies as a "pre-existing condition"...

[Cail]

Puh-lease nothing. Why are you assuming that only one person in the household has insurance? Are you saying gays don't work?

And how is homosexuality high risk?
_________________
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________

[dANdeLION]

Marriage is a right? I think that in a sense it may be, but in another sense, I wouldn't want the govenment trying to treat it like other rights....I mean, could you see the lines of homely women and balding guys in leisure suits at the Marriage Aide Centers?
_________________
Dandelion don't tell no lies
Dandelion will make you wise
Tell me if she laughs or cries
Blow away dandelion

I'm afraid there's no denying
I'm just a dandelion
a fate I don't deserve.

High priest of THOOOTP

*

* This post carries Jay's seal of approval