Bush wants to change U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriages

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Why? In order to protect the “sanctity of marriage”. The divorce rate is over 50% in America, you have TV shows which have people marrying others they have never met. Yet Bush has the gull to attack gay marriages under the guise of “protecting the sanctity of marriage”?

If you don’t like gay marriages or think they’re disgusting, don’t have one, don’t get involved in one, but to try and take this right away from someone through a Constitutional change of all things is yet another lame attempt by this administration to focus attention away from the close to 3 millions jobs lost under Bush as well as the Wars. It seems that Bush’s cocaine days have finally caught up with him and his brain is taking the toll.

2

He's playing to his base (says alot about his base). His base isn't so upset about the loss of jobs as they are doing fine for the most part. It's the poor and working class that is suffering. I think his base is mad about his wreckless budgets, immigration policy and lack of leadership on moral issues. My belief is that he isn't going to get 1 more vote because of this position but stands to lose many.

3

I can see that happening Seminole, even if a majority in the U.S. don't support gay marriages, making a mockery of the Constitution as this does will put a lot of people off.

4

his friends in organized Religion exercise a great influence over their audience.. i'm sure this will be helpful to some extent. It achieves little for the contry with respect to an overall cultural change.. Gay couples will continue to live like they do..

5

Expressing support for a Constitutional Amendment on marriage is simply meant to galvanize the christian right and make sure they have a reason to get excited and vote for GW. No Amendment will happen and GW won't expend a lot of political capital to get the Amendment process going.

Nobody who would have voted for GW will NOT vote for him because of this stand. As far as middle America is concerned, I thnk they'll feel more comfortable with Bush saying in a national debate that marriage is between a man and a woman than they will Kerry saying homosexuals ought to be allowed to marry. Kerry's will be viewed as the more extreme position. Few will actually vote on this issue alone. However, if you take a whole bunch of little issues and you can't paint Kerry as taking an extreme liberal position on each, you can paint a general portrait of him as being out of step with the average American.

6

I don't think Kerry is supporting gay marriage either. So isn't going to be a wash?

Although from the viewpoint of the evolution of society, this is probably a low point for Americans. Something which has stood the test of thousands of years is now being decimated brick by brick, in the supposedly most advanced society in the world.

7

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *

Although from the viewpoint of the evolution of society, this is probably a low point for Americans. Something which has stood the test of thousands of years is now being decimated brick by brick, in the supposedly most advanced society in the world.
[/QUOTE]

Explain your post.

8

Well, to explain it further... on this one issue, I am with the conservatives in the US.

Its not like homosexuality is something new and is a recent discovery. Its been present throughout ages. But its always been an abberation and not the norm. And thankfully so, because (excluding the recent medical advances) if, we suppose that most people on Earth are gays then the human population will drastically reduce cz of no procreation.

The institution of marriage has been a constant factor throughout history of mankind. And the concept of marriage has always been hetrosexual. Divorces are as much a part of manking as marriage. In the history of mankind, there have been divorces for as long as there have been marriages, so the argument that existence of divorces means that hetrosexual marriage has failed as an institution, defies common sense. It does not. It is part and parcel of the whole thing. The most successful regimes and civilizations in the world, throughout our history, never tinkered with the institution of marriage. It has always remained hetrosexual.

It is, therefore, unfortunate, that in recent times homosexuals have gained so much political power in the western society that they are re-defining the institution of marriage. I believe it is a sad state of affairs. They want equal rights? What equal rights? I have no problem if they have rights to social security and financial equality with their spouses. Thats fine. But, in my view, to redefine marriage as between two men or two women is a low point in our progress as a society.

In recent times, it has happened in a few places in Europe. It happened in a fewprovinces in Canada. And now its happening in some parts of the US too. These societies are supposedly the leaders in our present-day civilization. They are tinkering with a such a basic human institution which has stood the test of time, that its almost sad.

And if we claim that this is all a civil rights issues. Nothing more and nothing less. Then it becomes a slipperly slope argument. Where a consenting adult can chose what form of marriage he or she wants, and if someone doesn't allow that then it impairs his or her civil liberties and equal protection, then who is to stop one adult man and two adult women to get married? Or two adult men to marry one adult woman? Or three adult men? Or four adult women and two adult men? What about incestual marriages? Then its all a matter of civil rights. Each of them has a right to call their relationship as "marriage". When you take out morality, then this is a very slipperly slope, and you can actually end up hitting the final nail on the coffin of this most basic institution of mankind.

I think Bush is going to using it merely as an election issue. I think the constitutional amendment will probably not go through (HR, yes; Senate, not quite there yet). He will get 38 states to stamp it (they already did a few years ago); but its a long and drawn out process - and the way the opponents spin it, its not likely to succeed. But still the ramifications of letting this go on unchecked are quite alarming.

9

Funny how both the Roman's and the Greek's society managed to last about as long as the US before they deteriorated. And if I am not mistaken they deteriorated from the inside. One of the things the Romans and Greeks shared is rampant homosexuality, which is becoming more and more of an issue in the US.

How long till, like the Greeks, it is considered Ok. for grown men to sleep with boys? I hope not in my lifetime.

Just food for thought.

10

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
if, we suppose that most people on Earth are gays then the human population will drastically reduce cz of no procreation.
[/quote]

the law is against granting such couples rights to inheritance and other legal stuff involving a recognized union between two people... there is no law against gays procreating or not prcreating with the other gender.

11

Faisal I'll get to your post a bit later but first a couple of questions in order to clarify my knowledge. It is not uncommon for Muslims to marry their own cousins is it? The second question is Muhammad had several wives as well correct including an extremely young one right?

12

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
It is not uncommon for Muslims to marry their own cousins is it? The second question is Muhammad had several wives as well correct including an extremely young one right?
[/QUOTE]
You are exactly right. In Islam, marriage is strictly hetrosexual. Islam distinguishes between real brothers/sisters and cousins. One can not marry real brother/sister but one can marry a cousin. Also Islam permits polygamy (max of four wives at one time).

When we talk about US, it defines incestual relationships more broadly, and many states do not permit marriage between cousins. Also in US the law does not permit polygamy. Both of these are nuances and whatever the populace decides, based on religious or moral values. However, I am not familiar with any time in the history of mankind, where the definition of marriage permitted anything other than a hetrosexual relationship.

I think gays should be given rights in inheritance and any other issue. Thats their right as an individual. Civil Union, Common-law spouse whatever. But I don't think they have a "right" to call their relationship as "marriage". Maybe its just semantics, but this is a sad commentary on the state of affairs when a society succumbs to an abberation and and permits it to be mainstream.

13

The institution of slavery has been around with all successful nations/countries/empires as well, perhapes we should bring that back, as it was with us since the beginning of human civilization as well?

14

I am in agreement with Faisal.

My own view is that gays ought not be be hassled and should be allowed to pursue whatever lifestyle they want. The question that we as a society have a legitimate interest in is how we choose to view homosexuality and how we teach our children about it.

Is it an "alternative" lifestyle? Is it an "aberrant" lifestyle? When you teach that it is "alternative," you endow upon it a sense of normalcy and treat it as if it is a choice as simple as chicken or beef for dinner. When you teach that it is aberrant, you treat it as different and a departure from the norm. You can do this without also teaching hatred.

There are lots of good societal reasons to promote a life partnership between a man and a woman and to promote a functional traditional family. I think this is a legitmate interest of society.

15

Science is showing that being gay is genetic, so the logic of it being a choice like beef or chicken is null and void myvoice. What society is teaching is that those who are gay should be ashamed and repressive of those feelings.

16

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Science is showing that being gay is genetic, so the logic of it being a choice like beef or chicken is null and void myvoice. What society is teaching is that those who are gay should be ashamed and repressive of those feelings.
[/QUOTE]

I don't think that the "science" you speak of is generally accepted either within or without the gay community. If homosexuality is proven to be genetic, then I have no problem teaching that it is genetic. That handles my objection of teaching it as a normal alternative lifestyle.

Walk down any street in San Francisco and I don't think you'll see a whole bunch of gay guys or gals being ashamed and repressed. Watch TV (Will & Grace for one) and I see quite the opposite of what you say society is teaching about being gay.

17

I am in agreement with Faisal and MyVoice.

The issue is not one of tolerance, but of legitimization. We should tolerate the behavior of others, so long a s it is not hurting innocent vicitims. With that said, we, as a society, are not obligated to legitimize, and thereby endorse something that we believe is not in the best interest of society as a whole!

18

All societies make a decision on what's right or wrong for them. Even religious freedom is not absolute. For example, if someone tomorrow says that he wants to sacrifice his eldest son for religious reasons, he will most probably end up in jail no matter how much he argues.

American society does not allow polygamy or marriage between family members. Some states have strict laws against marrying first cousins. So, Americans as a society have made the decision to make all above unlawful. Then why can't the issue of gay marriage be treated as a social issue than a civil right's issue? Can a son and mother stand up in court and argue that it's their civil right to get married?

Where I differ from the Bush Administration and their supporters is when they make it a religious issue and not a social one. Where they drag God, Adam and Eve into it and not common sense.

Also Gays should have absolute right in all state affairs as a heterosexual person would have, for example in matters of taxes or being able to procreate or adopt children. And this can be done without changing the definition of marriage or any constitutional amendments.

I would even support a national referendum on it and let the society as a whole decide in the most direct manner.

19

Ahmadjee the fact is the crux of the arguments against gay marriages comes down to the fact that they see it as a sin. The argument that it's not in the best interest of society is a wobbling weak one. If someone’s gay there gay, with or without the right of marriage isn't going to change that. These arguments are recycled lines of those who fought against the right for blacks to marry whites (or giving any rights to blacks for that matter). Blacks were seen as inferior to whites and such a union of races would cause society to crumble, so it was said, same dribble just present day.

20

I don't see how gay marriage can be considered a necessary right...

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by lyrixforu: *
How long till, like the Greeks, it is considered Ok. for grown men to sleep with boys?
[/QUOTE]
Those practices were never okay in Greek or Roman society. Granted, they were widespread among upper-middle classes and retold in stories, but those that engaged in such activities were regarded as deeply immoral by most others. It was a rich man's vice and regarded as such.

But what I want to know is how in the #$%^ can these people pretend with a straight face that gay people in love, as odd a concept as that is, is somehow damaging to heterosexual marriage ("the sanctity of marriage")?? You would think shows that marry off strangers (The Bachelor/ette, et al), shows that encourage adultery (what was it called, -- Island?), Britney Spears getting drunk and married in Vegas, etc etc would be doing more to devalue the concept of heterosexual marriage.