Bush Leads Support Against Gay Marriage

Source: Yahoo News

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) says legalizing gay marriage would redefine the most fundamental institution of civilization and that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect it. A few activist judges and local officials have taken it on themselves to change the meaning of marriage, Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address

Leading the chorus of support for an amendment, Bush said, "If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost and the institution is weakened."

His remarks follow the opening of Senate debate Friday on a constitutional amendment effectively banning gay marriage.

Reflecting the election-year sensitivity of the issue, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Republicans are using the constitutional amendment as a bulletin board for campaign sloganeering.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, accused Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) of holding inconsistent positions.

Kerry and running mate Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites) oppose gay marriage, but support civil unions.

Bush singled out Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court, which called marriage an evolving paradigm. "That sends a message to the next generation that marriage has no enduring meaning, and that ages of moral teaching and human experience have nothing to teach us about this institution," he said.

The president urged the House and Senate to send to the states for ratification an amendment that defines marriage in the United States as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Senate Democrats signaled they will not throw barriers in front of the resolution, paving the way for a vote on the amendment as early as Wednesday.

A constitutional amendment should never be undertaken lightly, Bush said, "yet to defend marriage, our nation has no other choice."

The vote puts some Democrats and Republicans in a difficult position. One senator acknowledged the political risk in trying to walk a line supporting both traditional marriage and gay rights.

"I intend to be your champion on many issues in the future, if you want me," Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., said in remarks directed at gay and lesbian voters. Smith is a leader in efforts to make attacks against homosexuals a federal hate crime.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay political organization, said the president and congressional allies "should focus on the priorities of the American people, not the agenda of their extremist base."

YIKES!

The goop-gobblin, shit-stickin, peter puffin faggots are at it again. Why in the world do homos want to get married? They can't have familys, (real ones), they practice social and personal sexual deviancy to the point where most aren't faithful (except to the fifteen other guys in the bath house), and they already blackmailed most companies into covering their butt buddies benefits. Most of their whiney arguments don't hold water. You can leave your belongings to anyone through a will (people leave their estates to charities and their dogs all the time), you can have anyone make life decisions through power of attorney or living will (although I feel family members should trump the wishes of fellow butt pirates), and as far as adopting kids- get real! Kids need a mother and a father, that's how they were made and thats how they were meant to be raised. When we start pandering to the lowest, most deviant perverted segment of society, our whole social structure is on the verge of imploding. If you want to drill for mud-bunnies in the privacy of your own home, that's your business. But when you start degrading the six thousand year old institution of marrage and changing the definition of the family, that destroys the foundation of society and flies in the face of God and the law of nature. It was so much simpler when the girly-men stayed in the closet and kept their private lives private.

A few questions

Regardless of the dehumanizing comments made, there are definite issues that need to be tackled one at a time by individuals willing to do research.

1. Why do homosexuals want to get married? That's a very valid question.

2. Can it be objectively proven that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to be promiscuous or is this a stereo type like all jews are tight-wads and all black men are well endowed?

3. Can someone compare and contrast leaving estates to another person Vs. leaving an estate to a spouse?

4. What advantages would a Power of attorney afford an individual?

5. Raising children is a huge topic that encompasses more than just gay couples. What about single moms raising sons, single dads raising daughters, and other permutations. What are the effects? What would happen with two dads or two moms?

6. What exactly is marriage? Do we recognize a difference between a state marriage and a church marriage? Where is the line drawn?

Frankly, the above post was filled with more hatred than I could even begin to address, but I think that we definitely have the makings of a lively forum.

Would anyone be willing to research one of the questions above and publish their findings in an individual thread?

Are there more questions that need to be asked?

i think the biggest question is why should we turn our backs on 2000 years of tradition. as i recall the romans accepted homosexuality as a part of everyday life but marrage was still between one man and one woman. my biggest issue is if gay marrage is allowed what will stop people who would like to practice polygomy or beastiality from being able to get married to?

Nice piece of history, jcueckert13.

Are you willing to pick up one of the questions above?

jcueckert13 said:

my biggest issue is if gay marrage is allowed what will stop people who would like to practice polygomy or beastiality from being able to get married to?

Click to expand...

Or even marrying a daughter or son...

LiberalFINGER said:

Nice piece of history, jcueckert13.

Are you willing to pick up one of the questions above?

Click to expand...

i'll try when i have time. some of those may be a bit over my head but ill do my best

Frankly, the above post was filled with more hatred than I could even begin to address, but I think that we definitely have the makings of a lively forum

Click to expand...

Question: Who hates crime?
Answer: I do

Homosexuality is a crime against humanity and against life itself. Is bdh's post full of hatred? you damn right it is, full of hatred for what could potentially ruin the world. If we don't stop this we are heading into a point of no return. We can put an end to it now but saying No to homo marriages. We're looking at a dangerous situation where homos have so much power now that they are trying to infiltrate our children through the schools and the most sacred places like church. Yes sir, full of hatred for immorality and shameless behaviors.

Re: A few questions

LiberalFINGER said:

1. Why do homosexuals want to get married? That's a very valid question.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why, and I'm a little suspicious of their overall motives.

Is it merely to document for historical reasons that a relationship existed? If this is the reason, I would think the "Union" thing would be adequate.

Is it so that they can visit their "partner" in the hospital? Again, the "Union" solves this issue.

Is it to get their partner covered under their health insurance from work? Although, I'm not excited about having to pay additional money to pay higher rates to compensate for the increases due to a co-worker's partner, the "Union" thing is an answer for this too.

Is it so that they can adopt? I'm not excited about the idea of kids being adopted by gay couples.

Whatever the reason, I'm sure it's just being used as a stepping stone for something bigger and more ominous.

LiberalFINGER said:

2. Can it be objectively proven that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to be promiscuous or is this a stereo type like all jews are tight-wads and all black men are well endowed?

Click to expand...

I hate to say it, but some stereotypes are based in fact, some are just wishful thinking, and others are just the result of revisionist history.

LiberalFINGER said:

3. Can someone compare and contrast leaving estates to another person Vs. leaving an estate to a spouse?

Click to expand...

I can't compare and contrast these, but I do think that there is something seriously wrong with having to pay taxes on something that was a gift from a dead person that had already paid taxes on it while they were alive.

LiberalFINGER said:

4. What advantages would a Power of attorney afford an individual?

Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV. :wink:

LiberalFINGER said:

5. Raising children is a huge topic that encompasses more than just gay couples. What about single moms raising sons, single dads raising daughters, and other permutations. What are the effects? What would happen with two dads or two moms?

Click to expand...

Speaking as a single dad, I can say that it's very important for kids to have a loving mother and father active in their lives. Mothers and fathers contribute intangible things to the development of the child. I just don't think that you get that balance from two mommies or two daddies.

If a kid's parents are divorced, the kid shouldn't suffer the absence of either, but things happen. Despite the divorce, they are still the parent of the child. Normally, there is an inherent compulsion to do what is best for your child when you are a parent. I'm willing to give husbands and wives the benefit of the doubt when they adopt, but I'm wondering if some gay couples desiring to adopt is actually based on their desire to show that they think that their lifestyle should be acceptable and/or is normal?

LiberalFINGER said:

Frankly, the above post was filled with more hatred than I could even begin to address, but I think that we definitely have the makings of a lively forum.

Click to expand...

Woohoo!!!

Doctor1, Thank you. That was outstanding and has left me with a pretty good idea of where you stand on the issue.

Why do homosexuals want to get married? That's a very valid question.

Click to expand...

"Whatever the reason, I'm sure it's just being used as a stepping stone for something bigger and more ominous. "

I'm not sure what could be bigger and more ominous. The state of a marriage is an identifying mark for individuals, or better said, a way that a person identifies who they are.

2. Can it be objectively proven that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to be promiscuous or is this a stereo type like all jews are tight-wads and all black men are well endowed?

Click to expand...

"I hate to say it, but some stereotypes are based in fact, some are just wishful thinking, and others are just the result of revisionist history."

And I'm wondering if it is true that homosexuals are more likely to be promiscuous than heterosexuals or is it more obvious when they are? Studies have been conducted, however, I haven't seen anything that plainly states the difference in numbers. It could be that the individuals posting the findings are afraid to offend someone one way or the other.

5. Raising children is a huge topic that encompasses more than just gay couples. What about single moms raising sons, single dads raising daughters, and other permutations. What are the effects? What would happen with two dads or two moms?

Click to expand...

Speaking as a single dad, I can say that it's very important for kids to have a loving mother and father active in their lives. Mothers and fathers contribute intangible things to the development of the child. I just don't think that you get that balance from two mommies or two daddies.

"If a kid's parents are divorced, the kid shouldn't suffer the absence of either, but things happen. Despite the divorce, they are still the parent of the child. Normally, there is an inherent compulsion to do what is best for your child when you are a parent. I'm willing to give husbands and wives the benefit of the doubt when they adopt, but I'm wondering if some gay couples desiring to adopt is actually based on their desire to show that they think that their lifestyle should be acceptable and/or is normal?"

Very good point. Is it possible for a homosexual male parent to give a child the same intangibles that a heterosexual mother could?

After thinking about what you have said, I think that the crux of the matter really is what is best for the child. If the adoption is being used to prove/disprove that the lifestyle is acceptable (what is "normal"?) then I think it would be obvious that the adoption should not be granted.

Here is an interesting scenario. if a child is orphaned and is willed to a gay uncle, should the uncle be allowed to adopt?

You are most welcome

LiberalFINGER said:

Doctor1, Thank you.

Click to expand...

You are most welcome!

LiberalFINGER said:

Here is an interesting scenario. if a child is orphaned and is willed to a gay uncle, should the uncle be allowed to adopt?

Click to expand...

If I had a say so, I'd vote yes on this one. The uncle is family, and the child's actual parents thought this would be best.

I'd say no on this one, if he's a homo he will be the father figure and a role model for that child and he will make the child believe that it is okay to be a homo. It's just like taking your teenage son to a gay bar and tell anyone in there to show him how to carry himself, he'll come out softer than my 4 year old daughter.

I'd say no on this one, if he's a homo he will be the father figure and a role model for that child and he will make the child believe that it is okay to be a homo. It's just like taking your teenage son to a gay bar and tell anyone in there to show him how to carry himself, he'll come out softer than my 4 year old daughter.

Click to expand...

This is one of the key arguments in the homosexual debate. Is homosexuality learned or inherited through genetics?

I challenge you with the burden of proof. Show data backing up your claim that the child, if raised by a gay uncle, will espouse the homosexual lifestyle.

How very nice-

Yep! We definitely wanted to spur some sort of debate on this issue. Sorry if some of y'all took offense to the previous posting, but sometimes you need to break a few eggs to get folks to get riled up and start getting ideas flowing. However, lets not fall into the trap that happened to Andrew Dice Clay. He made social commentary through humor and absurdity (however crude) that caused the severe social backlash of `political correctness' where all free speech has been squelched unless you agree with the liberal left. This has done more to destroy our Constitutional right to expression than any rants, raves, satire or cuts made by anyone. But in all seriousness, this is a serious issue that no one addressed until I stirred the pot.
Homosexual (I refuse to further bastardize the word `Gay') marriage is a serious social issue that needs to be taken on quickly. They are making serious social inroads through activist judges and social engineering through indoctrination through our public schools. The whole homosexual marriage agenda is a way to legitimize their lifestyle, and as the good Doctor said, it is just one of several steps down a very slippery slope to something bigger and more ominous. LiberalFinger wants to know if homosexuality is learned or inherited. Just answer me this- if its inherited, why are they actively recruiting our children, our teenagers, and our college kids. They are teaching our kids to speak the same jive gibberish you are, like `what is normal'. Just look at the anatomy of the human body and almost anyone can see WHAT IS NORMAL! In the beginning it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! A man and a woman were created to be a complementary pair. Two distinct and different natures and personality traits to be combined into a whole for the purpose of companionship and procreation. The first thing God said about His creation that wasn't good was: `It is not good that man should be alone'. Then He created woman, His final and crowning achievement of creation. No one can argue that she is one of the most beautiful and complex creations of the universe.
In all seriousness, thank you LiberalPuke! You hit the nail on the head! If folks took the first posting as hatefilled rather than provocative, Yeah, its because I hate the legitimizing of sin and evil. I don't like the social implications of teaching our kids that this is a natural and acceptable `lifestyle'. I don't like activist judges altering the definition of marriage and family, and I don't like it in my face in the workplace either. Most folks keep what goes on in their bedroom in the bedroom. Why should homos get a pass and insist on making their private affairs public. Yep, it gets me riled up, but y'all keep up the debate and take a good hard look at the short and long term consequences of deviating from traditional marriage and family values. Then ask yourself how long has any civilization survived that has................

I've been looking over the current thread and I'm still looking for where I asked what normal is.

They are teaching our kids to speak the same jive gibberish you are, like `what is normal'.

Click to expand...

The only reference I can find to normal came from The Good Doctor (hey doc, is a name change in order?) in regards to a "desire to show that they think that their lifestyle should be acceptable and/or is normal?"

". . . but I'm wondering if some gay couples desiring to adopt is actually based on their desire to show that they think that their lifestyle should be acceptable and/or is normal?"

Click to expand...

I bring this up first because I feel it is not a valid point because the point never existed. No one asked what normal was.

The whole homosexual marriage agenda is a way to legitimize their lifestyle, and as the good Doctor said, it is just one of several steps down a very slippery slope to something bigger and more ominous.

Click to expand...

if its inherited, why are they actively recruiting our children, our teenagers, and our college kids.

Click to expand...

How are they recruiting our children? What is this agenda? Where does the slippery slope lead? The tactics and motive needs to be identified. Right now, all I see is fear.

I would maintain that homosexuality itself is not a sin or an abomination. Homosexual acts are the real sins. A homosexual has a responsibility to control his/her urges just as a heterosexual does.

I can not be hateful towards homosexuals because, at the base level, they are human beings and I am excluded from being able to pass judgement since it is a well documented fact that I have not controlled my own heterosexual urges.

So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Romans 2:3

Click to expand...

Is a celibate homosexual really a homosexual? How would you know one way or the other. You ask `how are they recruiting our kids'. Where have you been? Have you any idea whats going on in public schools; where from the time they are in 2nd grade reading `Heather has two mommies' to the eighth grade when they get to taste the different flavored condoms, the list goes on and on. I could care less what goes on in a homos bedroom. Thats between them, their partner and God. But KEEP AWAY FROM OUR KIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let them enjoy what little childhood is left and don't sexualize them until they are physically and emotionally mature enough, and even at that, it should be the parents job not the schools or the homosexual agenda to sex ed their own kids.

bdh said:

Is a celibate homosexual really a homosexual? How would you know one way or the other. You ask `how are they recruiting our kids'. Where have you been? Have you any idea whats going on in public schools; where from the time they are in 2nd grade reading `Heather has two mommies' to the eighth grade when they get to taste the different flavored condoms, the list goes on and on. I could care less what goes on in a homos bedroom. Thats between them, their partner and God. But KEEP AWAY FROM OUR KIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let them enjoy what little childhood is left and don't sexualize them until they are physically and emotionally mature enough, and even at that, it should be the parents job not the schools or the homosexual agenda to sex ed their own kids.

Click to expand...

Indeed! I don't believe there is anything else that needs to be said.

And for LiberalFINGER it sure seems like your standing on the fence. wouldn't it be easier to take just one side?


and for this little statement

LiberalFINGER said:

I can not be hateful towards homosexuals because, at the base level, they are human beings and I am excluded from being able to pass judgement since it is a well documented fact that I have not controlled my own heterosexual urges.

So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Romans 2:3

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

From the way I take this, I would guess you 've been in a few "sword fights" in the past? :duel Yes?

Resident Bitch hit it in the nails. I was wondering the same thing myself. LiberalFinger is not really standing on the fence, he crossed it and he made it clear:

I would maintain that homosexuality itself is not a sin or an abomination. Homosexual acts are the real sins. A homosexual has a responsibility to control his/her urges just as a heterosexual does

Click to expand...

homesexuality describes homosexual acts. There is no difference: it's like saying you're a homo but you don't practice homosexuality. :screwy

From the way I take this, I would guess you 've been in a few "sword fights" in the past? Yes?

Click to expand...

That's cute, but no. My urges have been purely of the heterosexual kind.

Is a celibate homosexual really a homosexual?

Click to expand...

Is a celibate heterosexual REALLY a heterosexual?

I assume that you had a sexual identity before you had physical contact of a sexual nature for the first time?

it's like saying you're a homo but you don't practice homosexuality.

Click to expand...

Outstanding Puke. I think you might be getting it. It is saying that someone can be a homo without practicing homosexuality. Yes. It is possible.

The actual sex acts are not required to define a persons sexual orientation.

homosexualism n : - a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex

Click to expand...

Note that it says OR not AND.

You are playing with the words LiberalFinger, there should be no ifs or buts here, it's either you're a homo or you're not. Period. :monkey

Wow liberalFinger-
You're a lost cause. It's the liberal slug-spined, politically correct weasels that allow less than 2% of the population to dick-tate their agenda to the rest of the 98% of the population. A majority of the country doesn't want the homosexual agenda to permeate our society. But the vocal minority starts screaming `homophobic nazi right-wing christian conservative' etc. They can scream and name call all they want, but the truth is the truth! Marriage is between one man and one woman! You can call a rose a daisy, but it's still a rose no matter what you call it. We can go back and forth until we're blue in the face, we may just have to agree to disagree. But the final assessment is if it works- don't fix it! Marriage as we know it has been around for thousands of years because it works. At least it did until we became a post-christian nation. Let's hope and Pray that the country will see evil and perversion for what it is and pull out of the moral free-fall we've seen since the '60's.



13 If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people;

14 if my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

2nd Chronicles 7:13-14

It's the liberal slug-spined, politically correct weasels that allow less than 2% of the population to dick-tate their agenda to the rest of the 98% of the population. A majority of the country doesn't want the homosexual agenda to permeate our society. But the vocal minority starts screaming `homophobic nazi right-wing christian conservative' etc. They can scream and name call all they want, but the truth is the truth!

Click to expand...

Interesting that it has stooped to this level. I believe that I have done an exceptional job of avoiding ad hominem arguments while enduring them myself. I have also had to sit and watch as individuals patted themselves on the back and talk about how messed up the homosexuals are when I'm not even sure they fully understand what a homosexual is let alone how one would recognize a gay man on the street.

Perhaps this is something that we are going to have to agree to disagree on. I have attempted to put intelligent discourse forward and, with few exceptions, I have received nothing but paranoid rhetoric and vulgarity in return.

I have also had to sit and watch as individuals patted themselves on the back and talk about how messed up the homosexuals are when I'm not even sure they fully understand what a homosexual is let alone how one would recognize a gay man on the street.

Click to expand...

I'm guilty, I patted myself on the back thinking that I'm rightful as heterosexual and that homos are immoral and messed up. And you are right I don't understand what homosexual is and I'm also glad that you do because it takes one to know one.
As far as recognizing them on the street they look like girlie-men, flamboyant and pinkish.

By the way you are invited to a painting party at:
http://www.tizod.com/photos/pod.jpg

The Liberal Puke said:

And you are right I don't understand what homosexual is and I'm also glad that you do because it takes one to know one.

Click to expand...

LP, due to the rules of NO PERSONAL attacks.

Consider yourself WARNED.

This is warning #1.

RULES said:

Personal attacks
Personal attacks will not be tolerated. This site is for political debate and news. Personal attacks tools are used by those who are losing or have already lost a debate. Personal attacks are not signs of intelligence.

Click to expand...