State of the Union

[Rono]

So, no gay mariage then,....

Next time when Bush has alcohol problems , he should go to the AA instead to Bill Graham.

 

[melon]

i can still voice my own opinions, practice my own religions, and lead my life the way i choose to lead it. sorry... i guess that horrifying oppression of the patriot act hasn't reached this part of the country just yet .

As long as you're visibly white, it won't affect you.

Melon

 

[melon]

where i agree with bush that marriage should be between a man and a woman, some sort of civil union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman should be recognized. the divorce rates in this country are staggering... so the so called sanctity of marriage is already stained... not that allowing civil unions between homosexuals would be a stain, but marriage is no longer sacred, so why try to pretend that it still is. if we live in a nation of freedom of choice, then the choice of a man to spend his life with another man has to be respected, wether you agree with it or not.

What pisses me off about this statement is the automatic assumption that a same-sex union is automatically undeserving of similar religious dignity. While the Pope and the Bible Belt scream as loud as they can, it is completely ignoring the fact that not all religions agree. There are lots of Christian and non-Christian religions willing to offer marriage to same-sex couples.

I think that marriage should probably change into how France deals with it. If you want to get married in a church, then go right ahead; but you still have to get married in front of a civil authority. The biggest hypocrites in this subject already have to be the Vatican, who don't recognize any marriages outside of ones performed in a Roman Catholic church or with a Catholic priest present. So, for the rest of you that aren't Catholic, officially speaking, all of you are living in sin in their eyes.

Church-and-state should be separated completely. If we want to establish civil unions, then fine. Heterosexuals should have their feelings reduced to a legal contract in the same manner, and if they want to go to church, then they should do it on their own time with no state recognition.

Melon

 

[tackleberry]

"OUR NATION MUST DEFEND THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE"


Question: Are TV shows like "The Bachelor" "The Bachelorette" "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" "Average Joe" "Joe Millionaire" DEFENDING the sanctity of marriage?

No. Those shows are basically pissing on marriage. People saying they are in complete love after 2 episodes, or people marrying for money's sake, or just to be on television/famous. LOTS of people watch these shows, so they may even reach a larger population than even the State of the Union Address. My point is: How can "America" defend what it calls a sacred marriage between a man and woman when it SUPPORTS "propaganda" to piss on it with shows like those. Now, maybe that's for entertainment purposes only, but those people ARE REALLY GETTING married and are REALLY GETTINg divorced. I know I'm preaching to a choir here, but Bush's statement on gay marriage is completely hyprocritical. Marriage is about LOVE, not religion, popes, and traditional conservative crap. Welcome to the 21st century Dubya!!

 

[STING2]

melon,

""Irrelevance" isn't what you or Bush fear for the United Nations. "Irrelevance" is what you or Bush fear for the United States. By demanding UN weapons inspectors, and, once you get them, to have the US decide that they have done no good, then what was the point of the UN getting involved at all? To be a rubber stamp for a larger agenda? That little act has made the UN more irrelevant than anything else Bush could have done. I'm not terribly surprised, however."

Its very simple. Saddam went before the UN assembly in September 2002 and said he was willing to give Saddam "one last chance" providing he let the inspectors back in and then VERIFIABLY DISARMED! It was still SADDAM's responsibility to VERIFIABLY DISARM! It was up to Saddam to either:

1. Present the UN inspecters with all WMD and related programs so they could be verifiably destroyed in the presence of inspectors as required by the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire.

2. If Saddam had in fact destroyed the WMD and related programs, it was his responsibility to show the remains of the destruction to the inspectors and any other evidence relating to that destruction.


Saddam never did #1 or #2. At no time did the UN declare that Saddam had verifiably disarmed and complied with the resolutions. Saddam never showed the WMD or the remains of the WMD that he had back in 1998 according to UN inspectors and Saddam himself.

The UN inspectors job was to verifiably destroy WMD and related programs in cooperation with Saddam. The UN inspectors were never a POLICE force that could completely locate and destroy all WMD, independent of cooperation from Saddam.

Saddam's failure to cooperate in the 1990s and the world communities failure to enforce the resolutions with "all means necessary" helped to make the UN resolutions and ceacefire agreement seem irrelevant, especially in the eyes of Saddam himself who never believed the coalition would invade and overthrow him.

Instead of playing Saddam's games of hide and seek and duck duck goose, Bush gave Saddam one last chance finally cooperate or face a military invasion to remove him to insure verifiable disarmament.

Finally after 13 years since they were passed, multiple UN resolutions and the Ceacefire have been complied with. That has brought the relevance of UN resolutions from 0 back to where they should be. Especially these UN resolutions which were passed under Chapter VII rules of the UN.


"So why didn't Bush make this speech? He didn't, though. He focused on WMDs that he said the UN weapons inspectors were too stupid to find, and now even we can't find them. The fact remains that Bush did not officially topple Saddam on any of these points you mention except one: WMDs. And the way he advocated such a case was on the basis of faulty intelligence. It was our faith-based war: Bush knew the end that he wanted (toppling Saddam). It was only a matter of inventing a reason, and, as Wolfowitz once said with a Dean-like zeal, WMDs were a reason "that we could all agree upon.""


Everything is linked together. Do you want someone that has murdered 1.7 million people to have WMDs? Do you want someone that has invaded and attacked 4 countries in the past 20 years to have WMD's? Do you want someone that has used WMD's on more occasions to have WMD's? Do you want someone that has threatened the world's economy and way of life through his attempts to sieze and destroy much of the worlds energy supply to possess WMD?

When laying down the conditions for the March 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire, the Bush Sr. Administration along with other countries determined that because of the above, Saddam should not have WMD and MUST be verifiably disarmed or face military action to verifiably disarm him.

Bush Jr. did list all of the above in his speaches. All of it is linked together in addition with Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD. Considering what Saddam had done in the past, how could anyone advocate not forcing Saddam to finally verifiably disarm with whatever means necessary.

Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm for 12 years, what does anyone gain in terms of security by waiting longer for this to happen. Do you think Saddam would suddenly wake up one day and say, GEE, I think it would be cool to verifiably disarm?

There is no "invention" here of a reason! Saddam was required by the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire to verifiably disarm or face the use of military force. This is not some invention. This is a FACT! It was incumbent upon Saddam to prove that he had verifiably disarmed 100%. Although he had the means to do so, Saddam never did this. Saddam failed to comply with the conditions he agreed to in March 1991, and has now suffered the consequences of failing to satisfy those conditions on the ceacefire agreement.

 

[DrTeeth]

I just don't get why gay marriage is still an issue. In a secular state, what on earth can be the legal ground for refusing two men or women to get married? I'm not aware of any researches which conclude that gay marriages are bad for society, so I assume keeping it illegal is done on pure religious grounds? How the hell does this hold up in court?

 

[Dreadsox]

Only the UN Security Council can decide if a Cease Fire Agreement has been broken not a member state. That has been the history of international law and the history of the UN. I cited case history before on this this. You cannot justify this action based on UN Agreements since ONLY the SECURITY COUNCIL can decide if the AGREEMENT has been broken.

 

[DrTeeth]

"Irrelevance" isn't what you or Bush fear for the United Nations. "Irrelevance" is what you or Bush fear for the United States.

I think this is a very accurate assumption, at least for Bush and his administration (don't know about Sting). I have the feeling these people are scared shitless the UN or in particular for a united Europe which will be rising as a politcal, economical and military power the next couple of decades. Maybe not as powerfull as the US because I don't think Europe will be that closely united, at least not in the near future.

I'm not saying this is the most important reason why Bush went to Iraq but the fact that this was a chance to create a divisions in Europe was certainly an added bonus. Not that these slowing-down-tactics will work in the long term of course... There will be a point at which Europe will be tired of walking at the US' leash (did I spell that correctly?) and will be in the position to play a much bigger role in foreign affairs and then the US' leadership days are over. In the end they will have to learn how to work together. And I hope that by that time, you will have a smarter man or woman in the White House than you have now.

 

[DrTeeth]

btw I hope that by that time, us Europeans also have smarter people at the wheel than we have now.

 

[verte76]

The divorce rate is astronomical, but I don't think it's got anything to do with gay unions/marriages whatever. A divorce happens when a relationship doesn't work. People don't think about how tough marriage is before they do it. I myself have two divorced siblings. It was traumatic for the whole family both times, not just for them. Admittedly, none of us took responsibility seriously enough when we were in high school/college--the '70's mind-set, the self-indulgent type that got nuked along with disco and other related dinosaurs by the punk revolution. Or should have. I don't think these divorces had a damn thing to do with homosexuality. I'm for same-sex civil unions. If you want to marry in a church, fine. I'm a practicing Catholic (my family is Protestant, I'm a convert) and if I ever get married, I will want the church to bless my marriage, so it will be done in a church, etc, etc. That's my business. If two people really love each other and are willing to work and sacrifice for each other to make it work, and they happen to be gay and of the same gender, there's nothing wrong with it. Let them make a deal with the state. Just my purple tuppence's worth.

 

[Sherry Darling]

and PS

THREE...a grand total of THREE sentences on job creation?

sd

PPS: Still thinking about this (and for the record, this is not a knee-jerk I hate Bush thing, I liked his speech fine last year). Another word I can't believe didn't make it into his speech.

Osama.




SD

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

"Only the UN Security Council can decide if a Cease Fire Agreement has been broken not a member state. That has been the history of international law and the history of the UN. I cited case history before on this this. You cannot justify this action based on UN Agreements since ONLY the SECURITY COUNCIL can decide if the AGREEMENT has been broken."

The UN Security Council through Resolution 678 already decided that "all subsequent resolutions" were subject "to the use of all means necessary" in regards to compliance. That includes resolutions 687 that covers the ceacefire aggreement in which resolution 678 was also re-affirmed.

Saddam was found to be in material breach of his obligations in regards to the ceacefire in Resolution 1441.

Saddam failed to comply with any of the resolutions passed against him and faced the consequences of failing to do so as laid out by multiple UN resolutions.

It was the Security Council that decided and voted on the above resolutions and authorized the use of force if Saddam failed to comply.

It has also been the Security Council that has approved of the coalition occupation in Iraq in 1483 and other resolutions since the war ended.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I just don't get why gay marriage is still an issue. In a secular state, what on earth can be the legal ground for refusing two men or women to get married? I'm not aware of any researches which conclude that gay marriages are bad for society, so I assume keeping it illegal is done on pure religious grounds? How the hell does this hold up in court?

I don't get it, either. Why people care so much about whether or not two men or two women marry is beyond my comprehension. If they personally have issues with it, whatever...I don't understand why, but it's their opinion and they're entitled to it.

But to flat out state that it should be banned......how in the hell can people support that? I mean, last time I checked, this was a free country, right? Denying two people who are madly in love the right to legally marry because they personally have problems with the sexual orientation of those who are marrying is just...gah, it just makes no sense. It's just downright cruel, is what it is.

Angela

 

[STING2]

DrTeeth,

"I think this is a very accurate assumption, at least for Bush and his administration (don't know about Sting). I have the feeling these people are scared shitless the UN or in particular for a united Europe which will be rising as a politcal, economical and military power the next couple of decades. Maybe not as powerfull as the US because I don't think Europe will be that closely united, at least not in the near future."

Not at all. The United States helped fight and win two worldwars and defended Europe for over 50 years following the end of World War II from the Warsaw Pact. It has been instrumental in helping to create the new Europe we see today. Europe continue's to by hundreds of Billions of dollars in USA exports and most NATO nations are taking part in or support the current Coalition deployment in Iraq.

What the USA does not like about Europe is its failure to keep up in with the USA in regards to military spending and military capability. Since the end of the Cold War, Europe has been falling behind the USA in Military capability and power projection capability. This is part of the reason why the troop contingent of several European countries in Iraq is so small. Europe currently can only deploy a small fraction of the troops it has on paper, abroad. That was different prior to the end of the Cold War.

If anything, the USA is concerned about not having strong capable partners in helping to insure and keep security and stability around the world.

Rather than play a bigger role in foreign affairs, it appears that Europe will probably play a smaller one in the decades to come. European population in the west is expected to continue to decline, while the US population is projected to continue to grow strongly. US popluation was 281 million on the USA 2000 Census. The UNDP projects that US population will hit 330 million in the year 2015. More importantly, Europeans have a graying demographic problem that will make for difficult domestic situations.

Yes the USA has the babyboom population, but that is followed by a much smaller generation x afterward which is followed by the largest generation in US history, generation y. Generation y will help to prevent the problem Europeans will experience in the coming years with x number of workers vs. x number of retired people.

 

[indra]

I'm not sure if I should put this quote here or start a "Funniest Quote" thread....

"But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day." (You know who said this. Yeah it's a Dubya classic. 1/20/2004)


Wow! Imagine that! Saddam Hussein's incredible invisible, undetectable weapons of mass destruction programs still cranking out.... Uh, just what was it they were cranking out anyway?

 

[U2LipstickBoy]

...

Bush must uphold the sanctity of marriage, for the future of America. We can't allow those people to practice immoral acts and think that the State is going to turn around and view it as being healthy and a legal marriage. As Americans, we have every right to choose who in society will not be granted the benefit of marriage. Marriage is a union where a child can be created and raised with parents of both gender. Those other people are unable to have children naturally, and they resort to such medical procedures that would overcome this shortfall or they adopt to acquire children, but they cannot change that nature does not want them to have children.

Just because two people are in love is not a good enough reason for marriage. I love my car, I love my dog, but the State won't allow me to marry them. I love my parents, but the State won't allow me to marry them. If we start allowing those people to get married, we would be opening up a huge can of worms. Bush knows that older people will be voting in large numbers, he also knows that the majority of older people don't want those people to get married.

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

what about infertile straight couples, or one's that simply don't want children, are their marriages somehow less valid?








what two consenting adults want to do is no one's business. You can't legislate morality. homosexuality isn't going to go away because you don't like it and won't allow then to marry.



these are the same kind of arguments that people used to use for not allowing people of different races to marry

 

[theSoulfulMofo]

my impression about last year's State of the Union (2003) was that Bush's case for Iraq war bordered on propaganda... but that's just IMPO...

 

[Angela Harlem]

I have never once, even in FYM seen even a legitimate counter argument, let alone one valid reason, why men and women shouldn't be able to marry each other. No one has ever offered such a response. I believe it is of course because there isn't one, however some people try to give some half arsed bullshit story as to why. No offence to you as a person U2LipstickBoy but you and Bush are 2 examples. You can spout all the meaningless empty statements you like such as "Bush must uphold the sanctity of marriage, for the future of America." but what does that even mean? "As Americans, we have every right to choose who in society will not be granted the benefit of marriage." What right? You are just an American. Not American as in a grand and great title which gives unbelievable credibility. You are just a man in the grand scheme of things. A mere man. You and those who think like you, are not so grand and morally right to be believing you actually have a say in what is to be for other mere men (or women as the case may be). You base this solely on opinion. You are surely intelligent enough to realise what this leads to. Yes U2LipstickBoy, an impasse. For there are those who have views opposite to this which are men have every right to marry another man. There are so many holes in this logic I can't even be bothered continuing.

"Just because two people are in love is not a good enough reason for marriage" This applies to more than the homosexual contingent, so I hope your belief extends to hot blooded white middle class males such as yourself. And every other 'group' which makes up society as a whole. But I stand by my belief that no such valid reason for the continued ban on homosexual marriage exists, so I wont bother going on.

I sincerely hope the Republican party find a better representative than Bush.

 

[melon]

Re: ...

Bush must uphold the sanctity of marriage, for the future of America. We can't allow those people to practice immoral acts and think that the State is going to turn around and view it as being healthy and a legal marriage. As Americans, we have every right to choose who in society will not be granted the benefit of marriage. Marriage is a union where a child can be created and raised with parents of both gender. Those other people are unable to have children naturally, and they resort to such medical procedures that would overcome this shortfall or they adopt to acquire children, but they cannot change that nature does not want them to have children.

Just because two people are in love is not a good enough reason for marriage. I love my car, I love my dog, but the State won't allow me to marry them. I love my parents, but the State won't allow me to marry them. If we start allowing those people to get married, we would be opening up a huge can of worms. Bush knows that older people will be voting in large numbers, he also knows that the majority of older people don't want those people to get married.

You know what, if you want to fuck your car and your dog, go right ahead. Just be careful with the lipstick, boy...err...troll.

Melon

 

[Angela Harlem]

Before this becomes 'gay bashing' lets keep in mind how our words will affect others. U2LipstickBoy, everyone is entitled to their opinion on here, but you must be aware of how offensive some things will be to others. The whole argument of likening alternatives such as animals and inanimate objects is highly offensive to members of the gay community. It is up to you to keep it civil and rational.
Likewise melon, your anger is appreciated but the tone is no more than stooping. This person isn't a troll.

I'd say we're all intelligent enough to debate this without resorting to all this.

 

[verte76]

I respect the sanctity of marriage, but in the context of my Catholicism. In the Catholic Church, marriage is a sacrament. I am also a United States citizen. I think gay couples should be able to make a deal with the state in a court of law. Someone's religion is a private matter and is *not* connected to the state. It shouldn't be. The last thing we need is politicians dictating morality. I'm sorry, I think there's something inconsistent with that.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Re: ...

Bush must uphold the sanctity of marriage, for the future of America.

First off, that's not an area Bush needs to concern himself with. He's got many more things to worry about, things that will actually affect this country as a whole.

Second, before you go talking about the sanctity of marriage being "destroyed" with homosexuals being allowed to marry, you might want to look at the many heterosexual marriages that have fallen apart in recent years, along with the fact that reality shows pretty much ruin the sanctity there as well, and those have all been heterosexual unions.

From the homosexuals I know, more of them are able to stay together longer than a lot of heterosexuals I know right now, so that tells me that homosexuals seem to be mature and smart enough to uphold the sanctity of a marriage just fine (and yes, some heterosexuals have been able to do the same).

Originally posted by U2LipstickBoy
We can't allow those people to practice immoral acts and think that the State is going to turn around and view it as being healthy and a legal marriage. As Americans, we have every right to choose who in society will not be granted the benefit of marriage.

First off, how do we decide what is "immoral"? What exactly is so "immoral" about two men or two women marrying each other and living happily ever after?

And I would sincerely hope that our country allows homosexual marriage to be legal all over sometime in the near future. Again I say, denying two people the right to legally marry because you personally have issues with the fact that it's two men marrying or two women marrying instead of a man and a woman marrying...that just seems awfully cruel to me. You'll refuse to let them be happy together because you personally have issues with their type of love...that just does not make sense to me.

Second, it's none of your business who marries in this country. You don't know these people, you're not going to be affected by their marriage in any way, shape, or form, so why do you care? It should never be up to the society as a whole who should and shouldn't be allowed to marry, especially considering how many people in this country have a hard time keeping a relationship together nowadays-yeah, I'm gonna trust a bunch of people who have been divorced x amount of times to decide who I should and shouldn't marry. Right.

Originally posted by U2LipstickBoy
Marriage is a union where a child can be created and raised with parents of both gender. Those other people are unable to have children naturally, and they resort to such medical procedures that would overcome this shortfall or they adopt to acquire children, but they cannot change that nature does not want them to have children.

Maybe homosexuality is nature's way of trying to keep the population under control. We already have enough people in this world, if a few couples here and there do not have any children, it will not be a huge deal.

Besides, no, they can't have children the natural way, but they could, you know, adopt. There's millions of orphans in this country-heck, in this world-who desperately need homes, and a lot of these homosexuals would be more than willing to take them in and care for them and adopt them as their children.

But no, we can't have that either, because the kids will turn out messed up or something. To that, I say, "Baloney".

A family is made up of people who love each other and will take care of each other. It doesn't matter what the makeup of the family is, if there's love, that's all that matters. That's all that should be important.

Besides, as ILuvLarryMullen pointed out, what about the heterosexual couples who are unable to have kids for some reason or other. Are their marriages not valid, then? I know a lot of heterosexual kids who have no intention of ever having children. When they marry, will that make their marriages invalid? I mean, let's be consistent here.

Originally posted by U2LipstickBoy
Just because two people are in love is not a good enough reason for marriage. I love my car, I love my dog, but the State won't allow me to marry them. I love my parents, but the State won't allow me to marry them.

Bad analogy, simply because your car or dog cannot consent to the marriage. They have no say in the matter. And your parents aren't allowed to marry you because incest is frowned upon in this country (even though it is in the Bible, which is very interesting-but people never really seem to comment on that...).

Originally posted by U2LipstickBoy
If we start allowing those people to get married, we would be opening up a huge can of worms.

No, we don't. Look at the areas in the world where homosexual marriage is legal. Have you heard anything about those places falling apart at the seams? I haven't. I mean, there may be some problems in those areas, but they've got nothing to do with the fact that homosexuals are allowed to legally marry.

Originally posted by U2LipstickBoy
Bush knows that older people will be voting in large numbers, he also knows that the majority of older people don't want those people to get married.

What Bush also needs to realize, though, is that some people in this country are in favor of homosexuals marrying. But he's not even considering their views on the matter. And if he wants to be re-elected, he's also got to learn that times are changing.

Besides, just because the majority says something's wrong doesn't automatically mean that it is.

Angela

 

[STING2]

indra,

"Wow! Imagine that! Saddam Hussein's incredible invisible, undetectable weapons of mass destruction programs still cranking out.... Uh, just what was it they were cranking out anyway?"

While inspectors have yet to find actual WMD weapons, they have found Weapons of Mass Destruction programs which are in total violation of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement.

Thousands of Kurds, Iranians and other Iraqi's have been murdered by WMD. Saddam has used WMD more times than any country in history.

Saddam never accounted for 10,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of Mustard Gas, and 20,000 Bio/Chem capable artillery shells that UN inspectors said he had back in 1998.

 

[BVS]

The Sanctity of Marriage?

I was going to make this a separate thread but decided I'll just put it in here since this is where it started.

The sanctity of marriage. What is it? How can anyone pass legislature in order to hold it up? Do we even have any sanctity left?

We've given many examples of how heterosexuals have already thrown out the sanctity of marriage. But what about the courts they too have made a mockery of marriage. I know people who were married only two years the wife was the one who had the infedelities and she gets rewarded 50% of all future earnings of this persons profits he recieves of everything business venture he's done up to the date of the divorce which can be millions. Even those ventures he did before their marriage. What about religions? I've dated girls in the past who were of the same Christian beliefs yet I could have never married them unless I converted to their denomination, and one who I could have converted and married but my family would not have been invited because they were not of the same religion. How is it Bush believes he's going to protect the sancitity of marriage just by leaving certain people out? If someone can give me a legitimate answer as to how banning homosexual marriage is protecting the sanctity of this institution I would greatly appreciate it? No one person has ever given me any reason, so I can't think of any reason other than the ultra right wing's homophobia.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Re: The Sanctity of Marriage?

No one person has ever given me any reason, so I can't think of any reason other than the ultra right wing's homophobia.

That's it. And they will lose this battle in time. Gays are powerful in this country and becoming more so everyday, and the homophobes will just have to get over it.

 

[BAW]

Re: The Sanctity of Marriage?

The sanctity of marriage. What is it? How can anyone pass legislature in order to hold it up? Do we even have any sanctity left?

My thoughts exactly.


How can you protect something that doesn't exist?

What is sacred about marrying somone in Vegas and ending it 56 hours later? What is sacred about marrying somone on TV because you think he's rich?

There is nothing left to uphold.

And like several others have said, I've yet to hear a legitimate reason as to just how homosexual marriage is any kind of threat to heterosexual marriage.

 

[STING2]

I have a question (perhaps a stupid one) about Heterosexual marriage and Gay Marriage. There are I believe restrictions on heterosexual marriage such as: marrying family members or 1st cousins(maybe second cousins as well). This is done because of the potential consequences to childern born between family members and also other social concerns along that line.

Some who oppose Gay marriage have used these restrictions to suggest that Gay marriage would be the start of a loosening of restrictions already in place on heterosexual marriage.

Would Gay marriage follow the same rules/restrictions as heterosexual marriage even though there is no possibility of having biological offspring?

 

[BVS]

I have a question (perhaps a stupid one) about Heterosexual marriage and Gay Marriage. There are I believe restrictions on heterosexual marriage such as: marrying family members or 1st cousins(maybe second cousins as well). This is done because of the potential consequences to childern born between family members and also other social concerns along that line.

Some who oppose Gay marriage have used these restrictions to suggest that Gay marriage would be the start of a loosening of restrictions already in place on heterosexual marriage.

Would Gay marriage follow the same rules/restrictions as heterosexual marriage even though there is no possibility of having biological offspring?

Interesting question.

Actually there are studies which say now that the potential for birth defects is false, but I digress.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Re: ...

Bush must uphold the sanctity of marriage, for the future of America. We can't allow those people to practice immoral acts and think that the State is going to turn around and view it as being healthy and a legal marriage.

What's immoral about it? What's immoral about two people falling in love? What's immoral about them wanting to spend the rest of their lives together? You imply that gay relationships can't be "healthy" - can you explain why you hold this opinion? If you're going to go around declaring people's relationships immoral then I would hope at least you have a sound basis for this accusation.

Marriage is a union where a child can be created and raised with parents of both gender.

So are marriages where the parents are either unable to have children or decide not to have children also immoral? Are they not really marriages because marriage is "a union where a child can be created"?

Just because two people are in love is not a good enough reason for marriage. I love my car, I love my dog, but the State won't allow me to marry them. I love my parents, but the State won't allow me to marry them. If we start allowing those people to get married, we would be opening up a huge can of worms.

Two people. That means your comparison with cars and dogs is invalid as neither are human. And frankly, if you love your parents in the same way that you love someone you'd want to marry then...well, that's not an issue we need to get into here. (NB: that's a joke, not intended as an insult.)

There are countries where gay people are allowed to marry, and exactly what impact has that had on heterosexual marriages in those countries? That's right: none. Heterosexual marriage isn't valued any less, people haven't started campaigning for the right to marry their garden gnomes, society hasn't completely broken down. What makes you think it would be any different if gay marriage was permitted in America?