Bush against same-sex marriage

[Ronin Storm]

Just read this BBC News article where President Bush is quoted as saying:

Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.

Says who? In what way does a same sex partnership hamper the welfare of children or detract from community stability, except where closed minded individuals cannot accept that these people exist?

So, here's my discussion point...

Should governments be allowed to decide who we partner with and how? What limits should we place on ourselves and our governments around this?

 

[BiG D]

If the government isn't allowed to govern, then why do we have it?

 

[Ronin Storm]

Is government about policy or is government about coordination? I think I like my government small and supportive, not large and restrictive. That said, I also think we're way past what I want... Planet Ronin Storm here I come!

 

[Fi$hy]

Yes, but what rights did we give up in order to be part of this "Society"

I don't remember a "Yes, the Federal Government can decide how I live my social life" ammendment in the US Constitution...

As for this "Same-Sex" ammendment. It's nothing more than blatent homophobia, first off how does one couple's relationship affect someone else anyway

and secondly and more importantly, say a gay couple in Kansas get the same legal rights as a married heterosexual couple in California. How on earth, are the "Hetero" couple's relationship and rights undermined.

Nothing but an excuse for good old homophobia on the Republican's part to scrounge more votes.

What next? Immigrants not getting the same rights as "natavist" americans?

shudders...

 

[Ronin Storm]

Immigrants not getting the same rights as "natavist" americans?

They already don't. An immigrant cannot become President, for starters. I think they may also not be able to be a Senator. I believe the highest public office an immigrant to the US can hold is Governor, as our friend Arnold has proven possible.

 

[Haven]

If the government isn't allowed to govern, then why do we have it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_government

A good question with no simple answer.

 

[Fuzzy Bunny]

I think the government should do what the people want, rather than what it wants. Just because a person is elected as president shouldn't mean that they can wield absolute power and start doing things that they think are right and fixing what they see as problems.

 

[Pestcontrol]

I feel (before having read Haven's link) the purpose of Government at it's most basic level is to prevent Anarchy.

Homophobia is pretty easy to explain. As a heterosexual man, the idea of having sex with or sexual feelings for another man is gross and disgusting. Self reflection is a pretty common thing, especially if the majority shares your feelings. In America you can add to that the convictions of homosexual members of the church for child abuse, and it's easy to see why there is an anti-gay climate in the religious right.

Personally i believe in a secular government, where church and state are separated (and preferably, church and education also, France sets the right example here). This is to ensure more rational, neutral decisions. That means couples should be given rights based on how qualified they are for them, and for state marriage (as opposed to church), there's really no sound i can see reason to exclude gays or lesbians.

But any topic discussing Bush's statements of politics is a bit cheap to use as fuel for a rant or discussion.

I think the government should do what the people want, rather than what it wants. Just because a person is elected as president shouldn't mean that they can wield absolute power and start doing things that they think are right and fixing what they see as problems.

What if the people want all arabs to die?

 

[Gizmo-5]

I think there are lots of problems with these kind of arguments, i dont want to sound pompous but ill list them...

1). The most basic, we dont have kids, i mean sure this is a silly argument now but think about it, if we cant be bothered to court we die out.

2). As far as my current information shows it is the biggest spread of AIDS, not that im completely sure but that would be a reason if i wanted to be medical

3). The religous do not like homos at all, because its printed in almost every religous text, probably because of number 1, and number 4, it goes against everything they believe in, it niggles away at them, like a thread hanging out of a sock... or something.

4).

Homophobia is pretty easy to explain. As a heterosexual man, the idea of having sex with or sexual feelings for another man is gross and disgusting.

As pestcontrol said, for most of us we see it as a bit... eugh, which brings another question. Surrogate mothers, in the same way we cant choose what sex or race we are we also cant choose are parents. Would you ever want to opt up for having no mum, and facing, lets be fair, ridicule for most of your young life.

the purpose of Government at it's most basic level is to prevent Anarchy.

I think that what pestcontrol also said is quite true, as human beings we always look out for ourselves, as an instinct, and we will always take advantage of someone smaller than us if the circumstances are bad enough. we need someone bigger than us to stop us killing eachother.

However this also raises the question "do they have the right to tell me who i spend my life with?" And i think to be fair the answer should be no.

This however raises further qeustions as it is like saying i have the right to suicide in not continueing my own gene, if i have a surrogate child i am inflicting my... err... condition, no wait views, erm situation onto them. which means that i am effectively forcing someone to have gay parents.

So no the government shouldnt, but only when the couple were not allowed surrogate children

logical and fair answer in my opinion. (bring on the flames!)

 

[Pestcontrol]

1. That's no reason for denying the right to marry.
2. Marriage promotes monogamy and thus helps stop the spread of AIDS and other STD's
3. Religious texts were written by people, probably straight people who applied self reflection to their feelings.
4. That's really impossible to say for those of us who don't have 2 dads, but yes, it is a problem. Then again, marriage doesn't require children. Also, would it be fair to deny someone the right to bring up children, just becuase they have a higher chance of being ridiculed and bullied. It's a very complicated issue, this.
5. You will inflict your vision on your child regardless of whether it is surrogate or not, of whether you are a heterosexual couple, or otherwise. Racist couples will tell their children never to trust black people, that's just as criminal if you ask me. No child can chose the family they are brought up in, and children can still be taken out of a family if the parents neglect taking care of it. Again i don't see anything really fundamentally different.

What kind of infuence being brought up by gay/lesbian parents has on a child should be the subject of study, but i don't believe any severe drawbacks have been proven yet. It's pretty common and accepted here, too.

 

[Fuzzy Bunny]

What if the people want all arabs to die?

Then there's something wrong with the majority. In the event that you find yourself disagreeing with the majority, you can always move to a different country. You can also try to educate others.

Part of the problem is that people don't take the time to learn about issues and make decisions based on stereotypes and rumors. Not every arab is a terrorist, but not every American seems to realize this. It's starting to piss me off, and I can understand why the rest of the world isn't so fond of Americans.

 

[Ronin Storm]

I think the government should do what the people want, rather than what it wants.

As a board Admin I end up in surprisingly tricky situations. I look at what I've seen done before, what worked, what failed, and I arrive at conclusions about what could be done to work around past failures. Accordingly, I set a policy, often with reasons stated openly, in order to help avoid such problems. Any time I set a policy, some agree strongly, some disagree strongly. Seems to be the nature of the game. Thing is that I "know", as far as anyone does, what I'm doing is intended to make things better.

I believe governments end up in the same situation. They've got armies of advisors, people collating data from thousands of citizens, and they're supposedly populated by serious professionals who should know about this stuff. They make calls, accepting that some will like and some will hate, but that the majority (hopefully the vast majority) will benefit regardless.

We both make calls and we both hope it'll help everyone and we both know that we can't cater for everyone without ending up in a state of analysis paralysis.

Perhaps it is possible that, in our respective fields, we know best?

The real difference between our respective communities is that it's oh-so-easy to opt out of a board, it's not so easy to just up-sticks and leave your country, especially if you're wanting to go to somewhere with a relatively strict immigration policy (US, Canada, New Zealand, UK... more probably).

By the by, I'm not necessarily implying that I do know best, all the time, for this place. Just using that as a hopefully pertinent compare-and-contrast example.

 

[Fi$hy]

Let the flames begin!

I jest I jest

But no, I strongly disagree:

As far as my current information shows it is the biggest spread of AIDS, not that im completely sure but that would be a reason if i wanted to be medical

I think you'll find the use of narcotics, shared needles etc. are a much higher cause of the spread of AIDS. Furthermore, making narcotic use illegal has in some ways made the situation worse, with people unable to look after themselves properlly due to persecution by law enforcement.

Furthermore, late in the 19th century, American Congress ruled that Prohibiton was the way forward, we all know how that worked out.

Banning stuff because of what the government perceives as a health risk, never works.

Finally as a teenager, I'm probably at the same risk of contracting AIDs as my gay next door neighbor is. Sexuality isn't a cause of disease.

The religous do not like homos at all, because its printed in almost every religous text, probably because of number 1, and number 4, it goes against everything they believe in, it niggles away at them, like a thread hanging out of a sock... or something.

As pest said, a religious text is a prophet's interpretation of the emotions he or she experianced when communicating with God, as a religious text is so reliant on interpretation, it is inevitable that either the prophet, or perhaps even the reader's own feelings get involved at some level.

Homophobia is pretty easy to explain. As a heterosexual man, the idea of having sex with or sexual feelings for another man is gross and disgusting.

As in Arachnophobia. I have an irrational fear of spiders, there's nothing rational about fearing Gay's. They pose no threat whatsoever, in fact as more of a joke, fearing spider's is in some ways more rational, as at least some Poisonous spider's do pose a threat to people.

The bottom line, Homophobia is nothing more than people's reaction to something they perceive as not normal. There's no actual reason, or logic behind homophobia.

if i have a surrogate child i am inflicting my... err... condition, no wait views, erm situation onto them. which means that i am effectively forcing someone to have gay parents.

By being born into my family, I was forced to have a blonde parent, where's the differance?

If the differance is that it puts the child at risk from bullying, then surely the blame lies with society, rather than his parents.

 

[Pestcontrol]

Finally as a teenager, I'm probably at the same risk of contracting AIDs as my gay next door neighbor is. Sexuality isn't a cause of disease.

Hate to play devil's advocate here but as gay people as a group have a more promiscous lifestyle they are at higher risk of contracting STD's as well.

 

[Gizmo-5]

By being born into my family, I was forced to have a blonde parent, where's the differance?

If the differance is that it puts the child at risk from bullying, then surely the blame lies with society, rather than his parents.

Your quite correct, but a "well actually" does not make the statement any less true.

The point is most of us have a trigger in our brains that attracts us to the opposite sex, in the same way that most of us have a trigger that stops us eating ourselves when we get hungry.

Therfor most gays cant help what they are, and quite rightly should not be persecuted for something they have no control over (not that anyone should be persecuted, apart from jack thompson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)) this is eqaully the same of sexism and racism, we cant change who we are, not genetically anyway.

my point mr fish is that being in an atmosphere which contradicts your "attracted to opposite sex" trigger may be uncomfortable and confusing for a small child. They are effectively having gay parents forced upon them, and could (in america) sue for physcological damages.

This is just the same as having religous parents, all religous parents will carry on there religion onto their children affectively forcing their views upon them, which again could be cause for suit.

Not that im saying that gay people cant adopt where teh child has a choice, i just think it would be unfair to knowlingly subject a child to an unnatural environment.

 

[Fi$hy]

Not that im saying that gay people cant adopt where teh child has a choice, i just think it would be unfair to knowlingly subject a child to an unnatural environment.

This argument is of course the winner, if we accept that homosexuality is unnatural.

If we take the idea of sexuality being genetically decided, where one in ten UK males is homosexual, then surely homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality.

In which case, what's unnatural about being in a homosexual enviroment?

Also, if we accept Genetics,

Where 10 % of males are homosexual. Surely it is as unnaceptable to place adopted kids in families with hetero structures. As for 1 in ten kids this is an "unnatural" relationship

[mod]Posts merged. --RS[/mod]

 

[decky101]

Bush hates anything "queer" in the world, be it people or power plants (like the one that started the whole Iraq war thing). He is also a *beep* and needs to be shot... several times... in the head

 

[Taffy]

Says who? In what way does a same sex partnership hamper the welfare of children or detract from community stability, except where closed minded individuals cannot accept that these people exist?

Well, a child that comes from parents of the same sex is likely to feel ashamed of itself and it's parents, will face bullying at school, and be almost mentally scarred for the rest of its life. Probably.

Should governments be allowed to decide who we partner with and how? What limits should we place on ourselves and our governments around this?

A marriage is a legally binding government-made 'contract', so the government should be allowed to decide who can enter into this contract, if ou see what I mean. George Bush, whilst being EXTREMELY controversial by saying that, could well be right. This entire subject is highly volatile, so please don't think that i'm just saying I HATE ALL GAYS, because sexuality is irrelevant to liking someone or not, and i'm not prejudiced. I'm sitting this one out on the fence (for the time being)

Bush hates anything "queer" in the world, be it people or power plants (like the one that started the whole Iraq war thing). He is also a *beep* and needs to be shot... several times... in the head

Please try to be constructive on the forums, especially in the Soap Box. Don't feel i'm having a dig, just giving you some friendly advice.

 

[Fi$hy]

I read the other evening that actually this isn't about Bush's opinion at all. It's nothing more than a political move:

Basically an anti-homo law stands no chance of being ratified by either the house of representives or the Senate. Bush clearly knows that

Why is he doing it then?

There's a mid-term election coming soon, the only other issue is the war in Iraq, and who looks bad over that: Republican or Democrat?

So by bringing up Homosexuality, he can paint the Democrats as homo-loving, anti-christianity, anti-family and distract from Iraq.

Ditto with dragging up the issue over Mexican immigration.

Interesting?

 

[Taffy]

A good move by him, but it could rebound. He could be seen as anti-gay. Also, it'll take more than that to distract from Iraq. A lot more.