They can get married Melmart it's just not recognized by the state or at least not most states. I personally don't agree with passing legislation that supports a dysfunctional lifestyle to the extreme of getting married. I do support laws that protect them and everyone else from job discrimination, harrassment, hate crimes, etc.
As Christians we strive to walk the road of morality. I would be a hypocrite if I threw my support behind laws that condoned immorality.
In essense;
God hates the crime but loves the criminal.
God hates immorality but loves the immoral. He sent his Son to die for us while we were/are in that state.
Politically motivated? In part, yes.
If one of my sons or daughters were a criminal or a sexual I would hate the sinful action but would still love them unconditionally forever (and pray without ceasing for their recovery/rehabilitation). It's not at all difficult to do both, in fact as a Christian doing both comes natural.
I'm suprised nothing there mentioned that during the 2004 election season Bush actually had an interview were he said he favored civil unions for gays and disagreed with most republicans on the issue (and his own official platform that apparently he had no part in developing since he didn't even realize HIS platform was against it).
This is BS. As a state issue, states can ins ute or ban as each state wish. A neighboring state could handle it differently from its neighbor.
As a cons utional amendment, even the ones who don't ratify it will be subjected to it if the minimum is achieved.
His stance is that he supports civil unions and equal protection for gays but is against same-sex marriage. Not inconsistent with his proposed amendment.
Totally a political move.
I honestly think if Bush had his way, the cons utional amendment would include text on civil unions, but he probably does believe its a state issue whether to allow civil unions or not. Which is quite inconsistent with the proposed amendment (allowing states to decide vs telling states what is what).
but yes, being for civil unions is not inconsistent with an amendment specifically defining marraige on a national level.
I was merely saying that adding that information to an article would have helped make the point that it is not really a priority or important to Bush for this to pass. He is not as strongly anti-gay as most people who would push this amendment, etc. It was just more information that could have accentuated the point.
So Bush doesn't really believe in the amendment, and the people who do want it think this is all just a dog-and-pony show.
I think the GOP is out of ammo for this round.
Hit up one of the Dutch islands in the Caribbean.
I've always held the idea that if everything went to in the U.S., I'd go to Chile.
I agree. Gas prices + corruption + Iraq >>>>>>> gay marriage in this election cycle.
And I don't care what people call it--marriage, civil union, whatever--just give gay people the same legal rights that straights have and be done with it. I'm straight myself, but I have friends who are gay and it's painful to have to watch them get married in Canada, pay high attorney's fees and/or other expensive legal contortions, just to have a semblance of the same rights that idiots like Britney Spears and Kevin Federline automatically get by saying "I do." There's something wrong with that picture.
Do you think being gay is like, some sort of affliction that can be treated?
pffffft...
Probably not, but biblically that doesn't make a difference. There are plenty of sins heterosexuals are biologically predisposed to commit, but there is no allowance made for those either.Do you think being gay is like, some sort of affliction that can be treated?
pffffft...
What other sins are we "biologically predisposed" to commit?
Seriously. Maybe its my lack of imagination, but going thru the commandments I know, everything in there seems like something you choose.
sexuality is a choice for most gay people. There are those who didnt choose though, they just were.
Honestly, I always thought it was a choice. Until your girlfriend tells you about her neighbor friend who, from diapers, preferred Barbie, and makeup, and princesses, and when given ANY choice of ANY bike, he chose pink with a pink helmet and the white streamers on the handlebars.
They (my gf and him) are still great friends (he is my friend too). He hasnt come out of the closet (yet), but its common knowledge.
Well, all sexual activity under the scope of this debate is voluntary. Nobody has to be sexually active.
There's more in the book about moral behavior than just the 10 Commandments.
Biblically, there is only one flavor of sex that is considered licit, and that is between a man and a woman who are married to one another. Everything else is considered sin. Rubbing one out = sin. Even thinking about anything else is considered sin.
It's not supposed to be an easy standard to meet.
By the same token, the singling out of gay people has more to do with traditional social stigma and the need for some people to have a villain to objectify than it does with their allegedly being so morally inferior to society at large.
I thought the Defense of Marriage Act was a bigger deal 10 years ago. And I was 16 at that time.
oh the agony..
People who are ardent towards don't give a damn wether bush believes it, they just want it passed.
It is those repugs that passively believe it, but hear media members, their own liberal-libertarian freinds, decry the president calling him an "oppurtunist" who really don't see that much of a benefit in it, and are whipped up into despising the president for following on his campaign promise.
It's quite funny how stupid the whole argument of "It seems like when happens the republicans go back to their ace in the pocket issue."
Dip s!, the has been hitting the fan politically for the president for a while, why didnt he bring it out earlier? Is he supposed to pass legislation after midterms?.
The point is not to pass a cons utional amendment, which would require 67 votes in the Senate, and ratification by 38 states. The last time this was brought up, there were only 47 or 48 Senate votes in favor, and Bush had more political capital then.
The point is that the midterms are 5 months away, and by bringing up the issue now, the GOP hopes to rile up the social conservative base and ratchet up turnout in November. Unfortunately for them, it appears that social conservative leaders understand this, and aren't falling for it.
Who are these social conservative leaders outside of Gary Bauer? That's ridiculous.
Please, i think the social conservative leaders will take whatever they get and run with it so that it can pass.
Remember the social conservative leaders know that the public favors them on this issue.
If anything the so cons are waiting to see how far bush will go in his proposal.
What's going on is simple. The media is proclaiming that it is a false politicial move, while innacurrately claiming that it's own proponents aren't falling for it. It's a smart move to quench the fire of the anti gay marriage movement that it has fooled many conservatives who are passive on the issue into thinking that the president is flipping them off, and not taking them seriously. It also creates an illusion to make you think that the president has abandoned every other issue and gone for this sole issue, which is utterly false.
Only 42% of Americans support the passage of a Cons utional amendment banning gay marriage, according to recent polls. This should be contrasted with the 58% of Americans that oppose gay marriage in general.
The ones who want the amendment are the social conservatve base.
An illusion. Hum. Bush needs 67 votes. Last time he got 48. If this were serious, he and the other conservatives would have been out there working to get 19 senators to change their votes, since that's what would be needed.What's going on is simple. The media is proclaiming that it is a false politicial move, while innacurrately claiming that it's own proponents aren't falling for it. It's a smart move to quench the fire of the anti gay marriage movement that it has fooled many conservatives who are passive on the issue into thinking that the president is flipping them off, and not taking them seriously. It also creates an illusion to make you think that the president has abandoned every other issue and gone for this sole issue, which is utterly false.
Instead, he's making a speech the day before the vote. By doing it this way, it gets the issue back in people's minds close to the election. Essentially zero Democrats will vote for the amendment, so the Republicans will try to sell their base on the necessity of getting out to the polls and voting Democrats out of the Senate so that this amendment can pass someday.
Right now the base is demoralized for a variety of reasons. The GOP hopes that the social wedge issues will work once again.
So you're telling me that the announcement of a proposed ammendment less than 5 moves before the midterm elections but 18 months after it was last mentioned in any form by the president is anything but a political move?
Then you're a complete moron G Culo. We already knew that, but this simpy confirms it.
It is political pandering at its finest. When you look at polls of what the important issues are for Americans - conservatives included - gay marriage doesn't even begin to crack the top five. You have the war on terror, iraq, gas prices, immigration way before you have gay marriage.
So why waste time on this? Because it is a political move in every sense. Not to say that almost everything done by any president today isn't political, because it is. But this is so far out of the scope of what the country considers important it's obviously a desprate attempt to get good ole evangelical voters out there again.
Marrige should not be any part of government. Christians don't want to support gay marriages? Thats really fine and understandable, because I quite frankly don't want to support the current class of heterosexual marriage which is quite likely to be rife with infidelity and end in divorce.
It's a litmus test. Repugs who vote for the GM amendment, with NO hope of it getting passed and ratified, can wave their votes in the faces of the social conservative/morality-police between now and November to prove their social conservative credentials. Decisively cynical, divisive, inflammatory Repug politicking, purely and simply.
Giuliani's pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. How is he a neo-con?
not according to James Dobson's interpretation of the bible. Lust=Sin, but nowhere does it say running one out=sin. Question is can you rub one out without Lust?Rubbing one out = sin
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote