TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Bush Looking for Means to Prevent Gay Marriage in U.S.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush Looking for Means to Prevent Gay Marriage in U.S.

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
Just saw this newsclip:

---------------------------------------
President Bush said today that federal government lawyers are working on legislation that would define marriage as a union between a man and woman.

"Yeah, I am mindful that we're all sinners," Mr. Bush replied. "And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country.

"On the other hand," Mr. Bush continued, "that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on issues such as marriage. And that's really where the issue is headed here in Washington, and that is the definition of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that."

------------------------------------------

I'm not sure where I stand. As a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is a sin. However, the same attitudes and arguments against it are too similar to the ones used against minority groups by racists, and that's a scary thing. To me, it's like the sin of gluttony; many people would view it as wrong and even reprehensible, but there's no need for a law because it's that person's choice to do as he/she pleases. It really doesn't hurt anyone else.
post #2 of 28
I think that this debate comes down to semantics, and how you define the term "marriage". Personally, I have no problem with gay marriage. Yes, at one time marriage was defined as a contract made between a man and a woman with the blessings of the church. But nowadays, our definition of marriage has moved away from that. My parents were married by the Justice of the Peace, and by the original definition they were not married (which in some ways means my brother and I are illegitimate). And what about common-law marriages? A straight couple can remain together and unmarried for a defined number of years and be considered, by law, to be the same as a legally married couple.

Now, I think that for a number of people, including myself, marriage is a contract (for lack of a better word) between two people who promise to live their lives together, for better or worse, for richer or for poorer...Why should it be that only a man and a woman can make this commitment to each other? Why can't two men, or two women, make the same commitment?
post #3 of 28
This is one issue that I totally agree with Christy on (one of the few ).

The problem comes down to semantics and "marriage" being a Christian sacrament. Fine, then don't say they are "married". Whether or not homosexuals are allowed to be married in the eyes of the church or be joined by handfasting or whatever is up to that particular religion, denomination, coven or church. However, there are legal ramifications that are being denied homosexuals - taxes, insurance, child custody, child support and alimony to name but a few. That is legal discrimination no matter how you feel about the act or the relationship.
post #4 of 28


Perhaps the solution would be to come up with a different term that gives the committed partners a certain legally bound status.

My personal view of marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think I would be offended by a same-sex relationship taking on the same title.

However, I do have cousins on both sides of my family that are gay and have remained in committed relationships with their partners for many years. It doesn't seem right that their relationships have lasted longer than many traditional marriages do, yet their relationship has no legal status. Should the fact that they are homosexual forever keep them from enjoying a legal partnership? I don't think so.
post #5 of 28
I dont see anything wrong with two people of the same sex wanting to be "married" I don't think that getting married really changes anything. When my husband and I first bought our home we weren't married but it sure seemed like we were. We got our "paper work" done at the court house to make us offically a husband and wife. And had a big picnic two weeks later to celebrate it. I think a new term might be the best idea. Like life partners or something.
post #6 of 28
I do not think that "same-sex" partners should allowed to marry or have any special legal status. If we had been meant to have same sex relationships, there would not be 2 sexes.
post #7 of 28
The evolution of two distinct genders has nothing to do with human romantic and sexual relationships. It arose to increase the genetic diversity in the offspring of sexually-reproducing (as opposed to asexually-reproducing) species. And, I don't think that gay couples are asking for "special" legal status. They just want their relationships to have the same legal status as heterosexual relationships.
post #8 of 28
Quote:
>Perhaps the solution would be to come up with a different term that gives the committed partners a certain legally bound status.<
\\
There is a seperate term. In Vermont (the only state that currently allows a union between two people of the same sex) it's called a "domestic partnership".
post #9 of 28
Obviously, the term "marriage" carries a lot of social and religious meanings for many people. However, I think that it is important to legally recognize relationships/couples that are outside of the normal definition of marriage, both gay and straight. A term like "domestic partnership" is a good start.

Overall, I think the debate over gay marriage is a cover for a much deeper issue-whether gay individuals should be accorded the same recognition as straight individuals. For politicians, debating "marriage" is much easier (and perhaps less politically harmful) than saying that gay relationships (and by extension gay individuals) don't deserve the same recognition as straight relationships (and straight individuals). Perhaps our politicians and our society need to be a little more honest about this issue.
post #10 of 28
I agree that there is a deeper meaning to this debate among the politicians than they are publicly voicing.
I am gay and have been with my partner for over 3 years. I have health insurance, she does not. If I were able to name her as my spouse I would, just so she would have health insurance. We also have problems with tax issues and sharing a household. We both contribute money to the household. yet come tax time, we are seen as two single individuals, which means a much smaller tax refund. if we were wed, we could claim an exemption. the institution of marriage was created by man, not by God. God created two sexes, true. but only to further the species. reproduction doesnt have much to do with love, anyone can do it. i didnt choose who to fall in love with. it just happened.
what the politicians and the religious leaders are afraid of is what happens AFTER marriage...children. if we are granted the right to be wed, we will want the right to have children as well and it will secure our custody of our children. in other words, if we were to divorce or one dies, then the child will be guaranteed to stay with the other parent, because she's a spouse. right now, if one of us were to die the child would go to the birth mother's family, or foster care.
i think the best thing to do is a compromise, let the religious people have their "marriage", but grant us legal rights that the married couples have. there are people who are opposite sex and are not wed and have lived together for years.
post #11 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by okeefecl
Obviously, the term "marriage" carries a lot of social and religious meanings for many people. However, I think that it is important to legally recognize relationships/couples that are outside of the normal definition of marriage, both gay and straight. A term like "domestic partnership" is a good start.
I agree wholeheartedly. Here in Germany, which legalized "gay marriages" (it sounds strange in German: "Homo-Ehe") a while back, the term used is "registered partnership". After the first hue and cry, these partnerships are no longer an issue, despite the Vatican's recent attack. I believe the French call it something like a "civil union".

Tyger has summed up the reasons why a legal union is necessary for same-sex couples.
post #12 of 28
Tyger has also summed up why this is an issue politically. I think the issue is an economic one behind the scenes. Health insurance, etc. would be changed if gay marriage was recognized. I don't think it has a thing to do with ethics. As always, it has to do with money, in the government's eyes.
post #13 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by Deb25
Tyger has also summed up why this is an issue politically. I think the issue is an economic one behind the scenes. Health insurance, etc. would be changed if gay marriage was recognized. I don't think it has a thing to do with ethics. As always, it has to do with money, in the government's eyes.
Although I agree that this argument in part is an economic one, I think ultimately it's one of "morality" and religion.

The majority of arguments against same-sex marriages are based on religious ideology. In this mindset, homosexuality is sinful, evil and counter to what God wants and expects from us. I don't believe this, I believe that homosexuality is just one of the many different expressions of what it is to be human. And to try and regulate same-sex marriage under this religious mindset is a breach of the division of church and state.
post #14 of 28
A lot of companies are offering "domestic partner" insurance these days. Tucson's mayor has formed a commission to work out a domestic partner registration, here. By registering as domestic partners, people would get the same rights as spouses re: hospital visitation, child custody, property ownership and financial equity. It will apply to All domestic partnerships, gay or straight. This would only apply, within the City of Tucson, though.

If this goes through, Bill and I will be registering. As it is now, we have had to have a lot of legal paperwork drawn up, so that he can leave the house and truck to me. He is also giving me a medical power of attorney. His sisters would never try to keep me away but, we don't know what his drug-addled kid is liable to do.

There's talk of adding domestic partners to the benefits at my company. If they do and its cheaper than Bill's insurance, I'll add him to mine.
post #15 of 28
I think all couples are due the same recognition.
post #16 of 28
Where I work, the only thing I am able to do is name my partner as a beneficiary. At least if something were to happen to me, she would have my 401k fund and my life insurance policy. But, here in Florida, it's difficult to find a company that recognizes domestic partnerships. There are lots of companies now that do though, and usually if it's a private company, they have say over extending coverage to domestic partners.
In my field, criminal justice, I will be forever tied to the state in some way shape or form. I love my job, I just dont like that I have to go through so much red tape when it comes to my benefits. The state government at one time was pushing a bill to recognize domestic partners of state employees...since Jeb Bush has taken office, this bill faded away. And our medical insurance premiums went up, and Bush ordered lots of layoffs. We're crossing our fingers that all of Bush's mess ups will bite him in the butt next election.
post #17 of 28
Quote:
what the politicians and the religious leaders are afraid of is what happens AFTER marriage...children
Quote:
Although I agree that this argument in part is an economic one, I think ultimately it's one of "morality" and religion.

The majority of arguments against same-sex marriages are based on religious ideology. In this mindset, homosexuality is sinful, evil and counter to what God wants and expects from us
I intend to agree with the second statement.
The economic issues are solvable, as is the children's issue.

In the Netherlands the only differende between a "normal" and a same-sex marriage concerns children born in and out of the relationship.

In case of a marriage between two women, only the woman who gave birth to the child (the natural mother), is considered to be the legal parent.
The other woman can only become the legal parent through adoption.
As long as that hasn't been done, she is the legal stepmother.
I believe this is also true if the child was conceived by IVF using an egg of the "stepmother", making her the biological but not the natural mother. That's why I highlighted "who gave birth"

In case of a marriage between two men: If one of the partners legally recognizes a child born outside the wedding (ofcourse!) this has no legal implications for the other partner.
Again, the other partner is the stepparent and can only become the legal parent through adoption.
post #18 of 28
i'm glad you brought up the issue of adoption. and at times i wish i lived in a more open-minded society such as yours.
In the USA, most states outlaw adoption by gays. In Florida, we can foster children, but can not adopt. i've looked into adoption in the past and the application clearly asks for your sexual preference. i can not donate blood because i am gay. there is fear i may have HIV (i've tested negative and have been with the same person for 3 years), though most people who live in my area that have HIV are straight, go figure.
There have been court cases where the judge has taken children away from a birth mother because she is gay and then awarded custody to the birth father. it's a mess. i know someone who divorced her husband to be with her female lover. in the custody battle, the judge awarded full custody to the father even though the father was an alcoholic and the reason she divorced him was because he abused the children and her. her lifestyle was brought up in the trial, and the judge saw her as an immoral person. he saw it fit to have the children live with an abusive father rather than two loving women. she has since appealed, but we are waiting on the outcome of the appeal.
The long and short of it is, the US is not going to recognize us as normal functioning human beings yet. We are seen as immoral, psychologically ill, pedophiles...etc. and until we can change this sociological view of gays then issues like gay marriage and gay adoption will become resolved. and yes it's a moral issue as well as an economic one, i'm not sure which side has more weight, but there are many sides to these issues.
post #19 of 28
Taking a child away from its family and/or the birth mother is only done in extreme cases where there is immediate danger for the safety of the child (physical abuse, incest etc.)

In most cases the Council for Child protection will advise to appoint a family guardian (not one for just the child) and to start therapy for the entire family.
This is not done for the wellbeing of the parents, but because taking a child away from its family is considered to be harmful to the child.
Children often feel that they have been taken away from their family as a punishment. That THEY are the ones that did something wrong.

Adoption by gay couples, although possible, is not commonly accepted by the general public. I know it seems like that abroad.
It is probably easier for two women, especially if one already has custody because she is the mother and it is only the partner who wants to adopt.
When two men want to adopt, it helps if they are public figures (Bekende Nederlanders or Well-known Dutchmen ).
post #20 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by katl8e
There's talk of adding domestic partners to the benefits at my company. If they do and its cheaper than Bill's insurance, I'll add him to mine.
This is the one big difference between a marriage and a domestic/registered/civil partnership.
A civil marriage must be accepted by everyone and every organization. They don't have a choice.

With any of the other forms of partnership it is up to the companies to either accept or not accept it.
This is why a marriage is needed and a partnership is not sufficient.

As stated in previous post, this same-sex marriage debate has a strong ethical/religious component.

I respect anyone's right to a religion.
But why is it so important to impose the believes and values belonging to that religion, upon non-believers?
Allowing same-sex marriages doesn't take away anything from any religion.
It isn't about religion. It is not even about whether homosexuality is a good a bad or a neutral thing.
It's about equal rights for everyone, regardless of your sexual preference.
And also, it doesn't hurt anyone.
Does it really matter if your next-door neighbors are married or "just" living together.
Do you even KNOW for sure?


Several Orthodox groups (mostly reformed) believe it is a sin to work or indulge in any form of recreation on Sundays. Only going to church and reading the bible are allowed.
I don't have a problem with that. Personally, I think it's a waste of time, but hey, who I am I to judge.

Because those groups believe in the sanctity of the sabbat, they would like to prevent anyone else from spending the Sunday as they see fit.
Shops should not be allowed to be open, events should not be organized etc.
Now, with that I DO have a problem.
Just because they want to waste a perfectly good Sunday, doesn't mean I have to.
Fortunately they don't stand a chance
post #21 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by Tybalt
While I'm sure it's true that those who are against homosexual marriages are usually also against homosexual adoptions, I don't think this stance is a result of one majority religion, but of a basic human moral judgement. Atheists are probably just as divided on these issues as anyone else.
No doubt about it
But there are a few differences, I feel are important.
In the western world (meaning: communist countries excluded), atheists don't form a group.
Even more important, contrary to religion, atheism is not a part of life.
It is just a name thought of by others. You don't believe in God? You're an atheist!!

I get the feeling that people who take their religion serious, are not content with just living their own lives according to the rules of that religion. It seems to me, they have this need to force others, like myself, who couldn't care less, to live according to those rules as well.

My point is, I don't think the objections against homosexual relationships, marriages or adoptions come from a basic moral judgement, but from a religious moral judgement.

Why do I believe that?
So far, all the arguments I have read (not just here, but everywhere) are in the line of: It's a sin.
Says who? Says religion!

If you don't believe, than that is not an argument.
Because there is no such thing as a sin.

For the record my own stand on this whole issue.
Marriage is a legal contract. For the law all people should be equal regardless of their sex, religion, skincolor or sexual preference.
Therefor everyone should have the right to enter into marriage according to the laws of the country they are in.

Same goes for adoption. Adoption is subject to strict rules and regulations. Most important consideration is the wellbeing of the child, not that of the adopting couple.
I don't know exactly how that is done in the US, but in my country the Council for Child Protection plays an important role.
Their advice is nearly always followed by the court.
IF a gay couple can provide a loving home, then why shouldn't they be allowed to adopt.
Whether ore not they are capable to provide a home, should be determined according to the same rules that apply to straight couples.

In reality, there not that many children that need to be adopted, and straight couples will have a better chance.
Usually adoption by a gay couple is done when one of them is already the parent and his/her partner wants parental rights as well.

Also for the record: I am straight.
Not by choice or conviction. I just am.
post #22 of 28
1) Homosexual pairing don't just occur in humans. There have been wolves and some birds that also mate same sex - it doesn't happen often, but it does occur.

2) In Canada, social support for same sex partners was recognized long before "marriage" was legalized. A same sex partner can recieve government support and pension in the case of the death of their partner and employers also have to follow the same guidelines.

I am proud to be a Canadian as I believe all people should be treated as equals and to me that means that if I can marry my husband, then my female friend can marry her girlfriend.
post #23 of 28
I think maybe George Bush should spend more time on fixing this mess he has gotten us into than decideding whether or not people should be allowed to get married.

But I don't really see how it would negatively impact society. He can speak his hoo hah, but church and state are seperate and all are equal under the law. Whatever the Bible says, it should not be taken into account when deciding laws.

Bush:
Quote:
that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on issues such as marriage.
And who's asking him to marry a man? He is so conceited only worrying about how this will affect his life. What about how long it took for homosexuals to get THIS far, and now this set back?? Bush is taking us away from progress rather than toward it. OK, I live in this very depressed area full of 18 yr old mothers who are literally on crack and fill their babies bottles with beer to make their friends laugh. I would rather have a child raised by two responsible gay parents that with some of these crazy people who can have children by themselves.
post #24 of 28
The primary reason that my husband and I got "married" (by a judge, not a religious sect) were to avoid the issues that non-married partners have with joint property ownership, insurance, taxes, etc. We were already committed to each other, but legally, didn't have the same rights that married couples have. That piece of paper was a convenience, and didn't really add anything to the commitment we had for each other. So why take this away from same sex couples that have the same level of commitment?

If a religious sect does not support same sex marriages, then a same sect couple can choose to find one more agreeable to their values. If our legal system doesn't support same sex marriages, does that force a couple to find an alternative country? Isn't that position counter to the tolerant views of our founding fathers?

Bush - wake up and take care of what is really important to our country!!!!!
post #25 of 28
This is one of the most level and thoughtful discussions I've seen on this subject and it's given me much to think about. Thank You.

In honesty, I think some of the resentment these days comes from the media's exploitation of the "Gay Issue". It seems you can't turn on the Tv, go to a movie or read a book without encountering some outrageously explicit homosexual act. Gay Pride parades seem to feature behavior that stops just short of XXX ratings. Given the widely held "expertise" that kids are influenced in their lifestyle by the media; parents can be somewhat excused for wondering if Gays are not trying to "encourage" youth to participate.

Ridiculous?? Maybe so. But give thought to the fact that we are told that kids are taught criminal behavior by the "gangsta rappers" and girls are "dressing sexy" and having sex at 10-12 because of people like Jaylo and Brittney.

Just a thought.
post #26 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by Kittyfoot
Given the widely held "expertise" that kids are influenced in their lifestyle by the media; parents can be somewhat excused for wondering if Gays are not trying to "encourage" youth to participate.
For the sake of argument only, let's suppose it is true that gays try to encourage people to "participate".

My reaction would be: So what?
It's is not as if they could take a straight person and actually make him or her gay. You are what you are.

Is there anyone among us who sat down one day and consciencely decided to be gay or straight?
I know I didn't. I had never even thought about it until the first time I fell in love.
That was with a guy, so hey, guess what, I'm straight.

Maybe, just maybe, the influence in the media may result in young people think about there sexual inclination.
What is so wrong about that?
If they are straight, they will dismiss homosexuality soon enough.
But if there gay, it may help them discover it sooner, instead of having to waste years wondering why they feel so different from everyone else.
post #27 of 28
Now here's a question for y'all. Why is it that we place such an INORDINATE emphasis on SEX in our lives???? Of whatever kind??? I mean really...look at how much it pervades everything we do. It's not a complicated act, it's not particularly physically difficult, everybody does it basically the same way physically. Even animals can perform it successfully and, in terms of numbers of offspring, do it BETTER than we do. It isn't a particularly difficult skill to master and not like learning to do brain surgery or astro-physics. Shoot, it's harder (no pun intended) to learn to ride a bicycle. To top it all off, it lasts only a few minutes and leaves you all sweaty and in need of a shower and shampoo.

Good Lord, if our employers required this sort of effort and left us as yukky looking, we'd be screaming our heads off and calling the labor board about unfit working conditions.

So what's the big deal already????
post #28 of 28
Ummmm..I wuz speaking in general, y'know...not me y'unnerstan. :lol (There ARE 60 minutes each hour)

But how'scome you didn't answer the question, hmmmmmm???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Bush Looking for Means to Prevent Gay Marriage in U.S.