Slashdot Mirror
President Bush Flip-flopping on Gay Rights Issue?
An anonymous reader writes "In a move that has upset some in the GOP, George Bush has suddenly declared his support for civil unions for gay ane lesbian couples. Will such a move help or hurt him this late in the game?"
Will such a move help or hurt him this late in the game?
Unfortunately it won't hurt him. The Democrats seem to be a bit slow on jumping on all the "flip-flopping" (I hope I never hear that word again after tis election) that the President does and the Republican are too good at redirecting the public's attention when Bush does something stupid.
They can't be married but they're allowed to join a union? I didn't think Dubya supported unions at all! What next? Will he allow gay communists??
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
gay ane lesbian
Hmm.
Joseph?
Partial quote:
This is kinda like that "Bush banned stem-cell research" myth, when in fact he just stopped anti-abortionists from being forced to fund abortions (via taxpayer money).
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Wow - That's the sign of a really desperate man. Only minutes ago pollster Zogby, on the Daily Show, stated flatly that he saw Kerry winning the election. I think GWB is seeing the writing on the wall.
Three Squirrels
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have an appointment in Atlantis with bigfoot.
Separate but equal? "If you ask Vice President Cheney's daughter, ... who is a lesbian ..., I'm sure she'd tell you she's just being herself." Sorry, couldn't resist quoting Kerry. "Want some wood? Heh, heh" There's a Bush one.
But, this is utter shit. I'm not gay, I only know a couple of gay people, and this whole state I live in seems to be populated by a majority of redneck homophobics. You don't have to be part of a cultural group to stand up for their rights.
If I recall correctly, about 78% of people in this state approved a bill "defining" marriage and forbidding civil unions. A judge overturned it as "too broad" but I'm sure it will be right back. I proudly voted against it. Haven't any of you ever heard of "and when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me"?
Vote Michael Badnarik in 2004. He is the only one who will bring about real change and bring civil liberties back to us. He supports rights for all minorities (I'm a white, straight Male) and majorities. So don't think I'm pandering or whatever to any specific group.
Read why you should vote for him. There are reasons for about every socioeconomic/cultural group.
What's a Libertarian you ask? No, you didn't ask? Read this anyway.
Chris
Well, this is a move in the right direction. A final solution (bad wording, I know) would be to declare homo- and hetero-sex unions civil unions and leave marriage up to the church. Of course, to avoid the problems in come Scandinavian countries, there would still have to be incentives to get a union. www.lp.org
Do a Google search for Bush flip flops and you'll see there is a whole pile of issues Bush has flip-flopped on.
The really frightening thing is some doctors think he is showing signs of pre-senile dementia.
If I was in the US I would seriously consider voting for that Badnarik guy. It seems as if he is by far the smartest voice out there.
A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux
You are in the politics section. You are free to remove it from your front page.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
I haven't found one quote that says Bush supports civil unions between gay couples. He simply states that it should be up to the states to decide. Talk about spinning... sheesh
October 28, 2004-John Kerry today said his administration would order full, equal,
and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens. The order nullifies all pre-existing
heterosexual marriages and lays the groundwork for the 103 million compulsory
same-sex marriages that will take place in the US by May 15.
"As we are all aware, it's simply not possible for gay marriage and heterosexual
marriage to co-exist," John Kerry said. "This is just the first step toward creating an all-gay
United States."
Kerry added: "Since the allowance of gay marriage undermines heterosexual
unions, we decided to work a few steps ahead and strike down opposite-sex unions
altogether."
Kerry said his action will put a swift end to the mounting debate.
"Instead of spending months or even years volleying this thing back and forth,
we thought we might as well just cut to the eventual outcome of our decision to
allow gay marriages," Kerry said. "Clearly, this is where this all was headed
anyway."
The campaign issued the surprise statement in response to a flip flop by
President Bush.
"If the history of our nation has demonstrated anything, it's that separate is
never equal," Kerry said,. "Therefore, any measure short of dismantling
conventional matrimony and mandating the immediate homosexual marriage of all
residents of Massachusetts would dishonor same-sex unions. I'm confident that
this measure will be seen by all right-thinking people as the only solution to
our state's, and indeed America's, ongoing marriage controversy."
Kerry then announced his marriage to Heinz heir teacher Teresa Heinz Kerry
would be annulled and that he would marry based on a
pairing that had been randomly generated by computers in the census
office earlier that day.
Those who don't choose to marry in private will be married in concurrent mass
ceremonies at Fenway Park, Gillette Stadium, and the Boston Convention and
Exposition Center. Any citizen who is not gay-married or is still in an illegal
heterosexual relationship after that date will be arrested and tried for
non-support.
Hundreds of confused but vocal protesters lined the street outside the
statehouse Monday night, waving both American and rainbow flags. Their chants,
which broke out in pockets up and down the street, included, "Hey hey, ho ho,
homophobia's got to go, but frankly, this is fucked up" and "Adam and Eve or
Adam and Steve, but not Adam and Some Random Guy." Others held signs that read,
"On Second Thought, Boston Christians Are Willing To Consider A Compromise."
According to police reports, demonstrators were vocal but orderly.
"The unholy union of people of the same gender destroys the only type of
romantic love sanctioned by Our Lord in Heaven: the love between a man and a
woman," 54-year-old protester Rose Shoults said. "Me and my new partner Helene
are going to fry in hell."
The much-anticipated order sets the stage for United States' upcoming
congressional session, where the congress will consider an
amendment to legally define marriage as a union between two members of the same
gender. Without the order, Rep. Michael Festa said the vote, and his personally
dreaded wedding to House Speaker and longtime political opponent Thomas
Finneran, would be delayed.
"This is a victory, not only for our state, but for America," Festa said.
"Simply allowing consenting gay adults the same rights as heterosexuals was
never the point. By forcing everyone in the state into a gay marriage, we're
setting the stage for our more pressing hidden agendas: mandatory sodomy and, in
due time, the legalization of bestiality and pedophilia."
Wouldn't the same type of provisions be pertinent?
Fraudulent slip?
I don't think it is a reasonable assumption in the case of gay relationships that the union will yield children.
Ever hear of adoption? Artificial insemination? Kids from previous relationships? These situations are pretty common in both straight and gay families.
Should straight couples who don't want kids be excluded from the same marriage laws, since their union will not yield children?
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
Marriage should be one of many legal status options for couples. With high rates of divorces and remarriage, it is clear that the traditional practice of marriage has eroded in our post-industrial society. Furthermore, when marriages end, there are many legal issues such as custody, property, etc that need to be resolved. I would submit that part of the problem is the lack of choice: people either remain single, live together as "boyfriend-girlfriend", or get married (the only legally recognized status for a couple). People sometimes get married even if they are not totally serious about the relationship. It might make sense to offer some lower legal status options for those couples living together but not ready to enter a full-fledge marriage (I am thinking of the system in Sweden and other Nordic countries), leaving marriage for the diehard couples. Personally, I think marriage and other legal statuses should be open to all despite sexual preference, but I am definitely an exception in the US.
n/t
That's quite a nuanced position you're interpreting it as there. Are you sure you've got the right candidate?
"States' rights" used to be something of a codeword for "slavery," way back when; as in "it's a state's right to determine whether or not it will allow slavery." Granted, it was used to allude to other things, as well, but slavery was the main issue with which it was meant to be connotated.
No, I'm not intending to draw a direct line of connection, but I am pointing out the coincidence.
There's more I could say on this, but I'm tired, my mind is fuzzy, and my belly is full of pizza.
~UP
Eat the Path.
Bush has always believed that civil unions were A-OK, as long as you don't call it a marriage.
Most Southern Evangelicals, whom Bush was trying to win over with this whole anti-gay-marriage Amendment idea, feel exactly the same way.
You see, a "flip-flop" is when your position changes. Bush's position has always been:
Gay Marriage: A threat to mom and apple pie. Boo! Boo! You queers are trying to ruin our religious institutions and drag us all to Hell!!!
Civil Unions: States can recognize anything they want along these lines. Live and let live. La-di-da.
Is it a game of semantics? Yes.
Is it a change of position? No.
"Flip-flopping" is acceptable if "the facts" change.
I so wish that politicians were capable of (or is it that they are not allowed?) admiting a wrong decision based on wrong information or even a wrong decision outright. God forbid they be mortal...
The government should deal only in civil unions, and stop recognizing "marriage" altogether. It's too politically charged, too religiously entangled, and, frankly, too personal for the government to be messing with. Let people define their own marriages as they see fit, and if they want the legal benefits of a civil union, they can apply for one -- but they're separate things. Signing civil union documents would be a standard part of most marriage ceremonies, but neither would necessitate the other.
Yeah, it's just a linguistic trick, but it's really only the language that's hanging up the fundies in the first place.
(OT: If the doc your sig links to is supposed to justify the Iraq war, it's a lousy justification. I'm sure it would take you about 20 minutes to find some loon in northern Idaho who blows off the UN, cheats the government, and would really like to build a biological weapon, and he has about as much ability to follow through on that as Saddam did.)
Marriage is the best way to stop sex. So those that truly believe that gay sex is wrong should support gay marriage.
I am living proof of the Peter Principle
Instead of having Marriages left and right and divorces all over the place just get a civil union and avoid all the moral and ethical baggage religion tacks on to it... unless you are religious and believe in Marriage as an act of worship, which is how Christians and several other religions teach.
If your church doesn't allow for marriage between gay individuals that is a matter for the church to decide and those gay individuals to deal with. The Hebrew Temple won't marry you if you are not jewish, the Catholic Church won't marry you unless at least one of you is baptized and confirmed Catholic...
If you want to be together and enjoy partner status in regards to taxes or other benefits go get a civil union and avoid the issue all together... marriage is simply one accepted form of civil union.. not the only one. Well, it looks like it will be this way in the future.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
The Catholic church of the time was focussed around various forms of Mithraism and Zoroastrian-like groups, although it later absorbed the cult of Vesta (ever heard of Vestal Virgins?) and half a dozen others before conquering much of the Christian movement by a kind of internal takeover. The canon existed pretty much as the Protestants use it long before the Catholic Church officially endorsed it - and IRL their endorsement varied from accepted practice and was varied a couple of times.
The New Testament states flat-out that homosexuals (very carefully differentiates between butch and limp-wristed blokes too, and also lesbians, then groups them all together with thieves and liars and such) will not be found in heaven, so if you're a Christian and your "love" leads someone to miss their chance, were you really loving them, or were you just being weak at a different level? The Old Testament is even blunter, prescribing stoning to death for homosexuals.
Of course, if you hate homosexuals, you're also going to miss out. If you can put together a coherent world-view which incorporates both facts, then you're pretty much on the right track.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Except, of course, for the fact that in previous statements, Bush has stated that in order to "protect" (from what, exactly?) marriage, it must be defined as only between a man and a woman, and that same sex couples do not deserve the same rights as others in this country. However, I agree: it's not flip-flopping, it's just that he doesn't actually know what he's said (or believed) in the past.
It's remarkable that two (at least) of the last three republican presidents can't (couldn't) remember what they say or do from day to day. It's also remarkable that those two presidents had essentially the same staff.
A good friend of mine is 22 year old heterosexual. She is steral and will never have children. If she wants a child she is going to have to do it the same way a homosexual couple would. Are you suggesting she should not be allowed to get married because she is not capable of giving birth?
The FBI start an investigation into Haliburton and shortly afterwards Dubya changes his stance on gay rights ... where's my tinfoil hat ?
Yeah, but my wife and I don't ever plan on having kids. So should any spousal benefits we receive be negated?
Not to mention all the folks out there who are infertile. Do we start discriminating against them, too?
It's the governments business about marriage if things like divorce and child custody become civil issues.
For example, I tell everyone me and my lady are married. Then, after I trash her credit, I 'divorce' her. She would be mightily pissed. Oh, and I take her kid.
The government regulates all contracts for the public good.
Civil unions sidestep the whole marriage deal. If Bush _really_ wanted to pass an amendment, he should've passed one that guaranteed civil unions all, including gays.
But, it wouldn't have given the right-wing nut-jobs a hard-on.
My father is a blogger.
http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?ar chive=43&num=5339&printer=1
sheesh
i think it all comes down to what words mean to a person. personally i dont like the idea of 'gay marriage' because to me 'marriage' means a man and a woman. i would like to see a seperate term that means a man and man or a woman and woman. like gay, lesbian, heterosexual. it tells us something, it is more precise. while 'civil union' works, it seems very clinical.
i see no reason why two people of the same sex, who are committed to each other, shouldnt have the same legal rights as two committed people of opposite sex.
perhaps the president came to the same conclusion?
always mosh clockwise
As a licensed (Baptist) minister, I agree. There is a huge difference between marriage as I believe God ordained it and the mockery of marriage we call civil marriage, even if you leave aside the gay marriage issue. In God's marriage, divorce is allowed only in the most dire circumstances, remarriage is never allowed, and the husband and wife "become one flesh." In civil marriage, the opposite obtains. It's time to stop equivocating on what marriage is and get the state out of the marriage business.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
If a state decides that a civil union requireds 1man+1woman, but a "marriage" can be anything, what has really changed?
If a state decides that 1any + 1any is an acceptable union, what's the point in limiting this to just sets of two?
Methinks Bush is just flip-flopping in the week before the election knowing that he'll never have to answer the hard questions such a reversed philosophy raises.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
I don't think it is a reasonable assumption in the case of gay relationships that the union will yield children.
You almost make me wonder if the "gay gene" is some society-wide self defense mechanism to prevent overpopulation. L. Ron Hubbard wrote a book covering this.
Direct away from face when opening.
The Job of a politician is to make the best decision possible based upon all available information. That REQUIRES them to change their mind in the face of new evidence.
The dogmatastic is death to a country
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
If a state decides that 1any + 1any is an acceptable union, what's the point in limiting this to just sets of two?
There are lots of reasons to allow gay marriage but not polygamy. You just haven't thought it through yet.
Issue #1: Partner A is incapcitated. Who will make decisions about his or her medical care? If there is only one other person in the marriage, then Partner B. If there is a Partner C then there must be a vote and there is potential deadlock. Perhaps we should allow marriages only between even numbers of people?
Another issue: Partner A dies intestate. If there is only a partner B, then there is no question how to divide the estate.
I'd also argue that there is good reason to restrict polygmous marriage, if it were allowed, to gays. There are roughly equal numbers of men and women. If men can take multiple women, then there will be a surfeit of unmatched heterosexual males who will not be able to participate in the institution of marriage. If we want to promote the social benefits of marriage, then heterosxual polygamy (as well as sex selection) undermines this. Homosexual polygamy, however, does not.
By the way, there will be significant sh*t hitting the fan in China in the coming decades because of child sex selection.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I don't think anyone really believes him when he says this. He's just trying to appear less evil to uninformed undecided voters. His base knows he's with them in sending gays to hell and his opponents know he's just saying whatever it will take to get him re-installed in office.
Incidentally, being against LGBT rights now is like being against Civil Rights in the 50's. I'm looking forward to the time when we can all look back on this as another shameful hurdle we overcame.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
You're assuming that Bush has read and understood the FMA. Are you sure you want to make that assumption? :)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Another example: say Bush said abortion should be kept legal. That would seriously PO a large segment of the GOP. But where would they go? Bush can say whatever the hell he likes, and the GOP members are still stuck voting for him, because there isn't any alternative for fundamentalist busy bodies (not that all the GOP are).
At some level, I am sure the same is true of Kerry. Well, maybe they could jump over to Badnarik, if Kerry suddenly said he'd legislate against gay marriage. But there isn't another candidate who has even hinted at making gay marriage illegal at a federal level (as far as I can tell). Bush will not lose a single vote with this flip-flop.
Do not touch -Willie
Bush has stated that in order to "protect" (from what, exactly?) marriage
:P).
I don't agree with Bush but the institution of marriage is definitly falling appart, the majority of marriages don't last anymore as opposed to about 99% in the past.
There are monetary and political reasons of course, but the main reason for marraige as opposed to civil union is to give stability in order for reproduction, (and to concentrate on work?), apparently this emotional commitment from both sides also acts as a chance to excercise apathy in the face of a loved one (hey it's not like he/she can leave anymore
I am somewhat curious as to why this is a topic for Slashdot.
I personally don't give a damn what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms, since it is none of my business, but it is slightly suggestive given the byline "News for nerds".
:-D
Ever hear of adoption? Artificial insemination? Kids from previous relationships? These situations are pretty common in both straight and gay families.
Ever hear of four leaf clovers?
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
The idea that marriage is for reproduction is ridiculous, as I tried to make clear above. Arguing that gay couples should not be allowed to marry because marriage is for having children should also mean arguing that older people should not be allowed to marry or that sterile people should not be allowed to marry. It's stupid and is basically a way to hide bigotry.
Not only that, but it ignores the fact that adoption is and should be an option for many people, and that being "straight" or gay doesn't make you a good or bad parent, whether you adopt or have a child in some other way.
For now I'll accept the proposition that the "institution of marriage" is falling apart. In a little bit, I'll explain why I don't belive this is really true.
Are there any reasons that marriages don't last as long as they used to? Clearly there hasn't been a sudden rash of gay couples going out and causing marriages to collapse all across the country. Are husbands suddenly looking for lesbian couples to cheat on their wives with? are wives suddenly finding that gay men are more sensitive than their husbands? or are they realizing that their butch lesbian friends are more capable around the house?
I hope you can see that placing the blame for bad marriages on someone other than the couple directly involved in the marriage is (almost always) ridiculous.
Allowing people who love each other to legally declare their love for each other seems like a good way to "shore up" the statistics on marriage so that it doesn't look so bad. However, a better reason to "allow" "gay marriage" is because it's the right thing to do.
There is still the issue of what is wrong with the US now as opposed to 50 years ago when the divorce rate was much lower. I propose that the difference is that 50 years ago, women were not nearly as empowered and today they are able to make choices for themselves outside of their husbands' wishes. They are also better (though often not as well as they should be*) protected by the law.
Now, we have strong women who choose to work full time outside of the home, now we have women who won't put up with an abusive husband, now we have women who will fight back against the idea that the "man of the house" is in charge of every detail.
We also have the economic situation such that it's nearly impossible for a married couple to plan for retirement (or many times, even live from month to month) on a single salary (=> high stress on the marriage), so they both have to work full time jobs. This means there is (usually) no one at home to clean the house, cook dinner, go shopping, etc. This adds to the stress on the marriage because it's still, traditionally, the woman's "job" to do all of those things after she gets home from work. She doesn't have the time, the energy, or the inclination to do that after an 8 hour day at work. Neither does he.
The "institution" of marriage is broken because it relies on an outdated and unworkable ideal of one member working away from home and another working at home. While this works for some couples, there are many more for whom it doesn't work. Some people figure out a way to work as a couple under the new paradigm, but many people do not.
Another danger for the "institutioin" is that "older" people are panicked about it falling apart so they push their children to get married before they're ready, and that always leads to disaster.
Anyway, I think it's stupid and mean to lay the blame of straight couples not being able to stick together on gay couples who are able to stick together. I guess that's the American way, though: if you can't do it right the first time, find someone to blame it on.
Anyone and everyone should be allowed to marry who they want. It should simply be a contract between two (or whatever number of) people, and it should be enforced (and made difficult to get out of), just like any other contract. The concept of spiritual marriage should not even need government approval, and should certainly not infringe on the marriages of others.
(*) In Arizona, for example, spousal rape is usually only a misdemeanor. Until very recently, it wasn't even a crime.
A man or woman who is sterile due to age or accident or choice should not be allowed to marry?
Hmm. I think there are certain rights of marriage, like reduced taxation, that are there to help a couple prepare for and to raise kids. So I don't think that those kinds of laws should apply to people who don't intend to have kids.
However, I think it would be very difficult to show that, probably more costly to enforce than the savings gained by the law.
Bush has stated that in order to "protect" (from what, exactly?) marriage,
Oh right. Well, then he hasn't flip flopped at all if he doesn't call it marriage, by his definition. Of course, my view is let them call it marriage, get married in the church, etc., but just take away those rights, such as tax law savings, medical coverage sharing, that are for having a family. I guess I can agree with bush there is an attack on those parts of marriage.
Hey, if it isn't a huge greedy grab by gay people, and if it is for the reasons they state, such as home ownership transfers, hospital visits, etc. then they should be happy with a civil union, which can give them many of those things, just hopefully it won't drain the tax coffers anymore by having them obtain benefits designed for children.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
The idea that marriage is for reproduction is ridiculous, as I tried to make clear above.
Well you certainly didn't do a very good job of it. And frankly, I think it is ridiculous that you can even say this. Of course it is for reproduction.
Listen. Find a stay at home mom in touch with what she is doing, and ask her what the most important thing is in her life. She won't say "My husband," she will say "My kids."
also, just a note. I dont' blame gays for the problems with marriage. That's just the social fabric unwinding.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
The counter-argument to all the flame about sterile people comes from changing one's perspective:
The government makes laws that must fit the overwhelming majority - there will always be anecdotal cases that don't fit. In this case, the government may have a legitimate interest in encouraging unions that can produce children. Since most heterosexual unions can produce children, but no homoxexual unions can, it can be argued that the law makes sense.
The counter argument to the gender discrimination argument runs this way:
There is no gender discrimination - all men are equally allowed to marry women. All women are equally allowed to mary men. Everyone is equally allowed to mary a person of the opposite sex. Just because a few individuals are not interested in members of the opposite sex does not make the system inequitable.
For what its worth, kudos to the folks who pointed out that Marriage has now always been a church thing.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
If it's for the purpose of reproduction, then why do we allow people who CAN NOT EVER REPRODUCE to get married?
Find a stay at home mom who also happens to be a lesbian and ask her what is the most important thing in her life. She'll respond "my kids." Find a stay at home dad and ask the same question, you'll get the same answer. Find a single parent and ask the same question, you'll get the same answer. I have no argument against children being important. I have a child of my own, and that's the answer you'll get from me. That's not the point.
I have a problem with the idea that marriage is ostensibly for procreation when it's CLEARLY not viewed as such by the laws of the land (disregarding the very few legal benefits married couples get for having children). I especially have a problem with that idea when it is espoused by people who are not also arguing that all marriages between people who can not or choose not to have kids be revoked.
If it's for the purpose of reproduction, then why do we allow people who CAN NOT EVER REPRODUCE to get married?
I think the reason is that it would be really meanspirited to do so. Say for instance a woman and man are married. They get the marriage breaks (health care, lower taxes when only 1 works). Now the woman becomes pregnant, but in a horrible accident, she loses the baby and becomes sterile. Now you have to tell her "Oh, and that marriage break you got, give it back?" I think that's just too hard. What about a woman who devoted her life to raising kids, and then the kids are gone from the home? Her chances of getting a job with health care is greatly diminished.
"CLEARLY not viewed as such by the laws of the land"
Are you Serious? Fortunately, I'm still married and so haven't run into these laws, but I suspect there are an enormous number of laws dealing with children of divorcing parents.
I especially have a problem with that idea when it is espoused by people who are not also arguing that all marriages between people who can not or choose not to have kids be revoked.
I just think it is hard to make the laws. I don't see why a couple that never intends to have kids should get the tax breaks. But, I do think they should have all the benefits of a union, such as hospital visits, etc.
I have a child of my own, and that's the answer you'll get from me
Are you a gay man? Does your child live with you? Do you think your child could suffer because of lack of a mother in the relationship? (Note, I would also ask the flip question of a single mother, and I think the answer would be "yes, the child suffers.")
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
Voting for people who in no way even pretend to represent your interests is for people who aren't very good at making rational decisions.
(A lot of people aren't very good at making rational decisions, which is why we have the system we have now. But I digress.)
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
If it's "mean spirited" to tell a sterile (heterosexual) woman she can't have marriage breaks because she became sterile how is it not "mean spirited" to tell a homosexual they're not allowed to to have those same marriage breaks with someone they love?
Yes, I am serious. If the laws of the US really considered marriage as a means of reproduction, married people would be required to "generate" at least one child and anyone who was unable or unwilling to participate in procreation would not be allowed to marry.
Your examples have absolutely nothing to do with hetero-/homosexuality, they have to do with treating people fairly and justly. Excluding one group of people because they love differently it wrong.
Let me get this straight (correct me if I'm wrong): In your view, a heterosexual married couple that may or may not intend to have kids should get a tax break that is "designed to help in the raising of children", but a sterile couple who may or may not adopt should not get those same tax breaks?
How many years after marriage (sans children) should those tax breaks last? How should it be determined that someone intends to have children? What if the heterosexual, non-sterile couple think they want kids when they get married, but wait a couple of years and then decide they don't want kids? do they have to give back those years of tax breaks they got because they may have been able to have childred? what if they don't want kids when they first get married and then later decide they want to have kids? do they get back tax credits?
Why can't the laws, if we're really trying to make it easier for children to grow up with a family, just address whether someone has children, and not address the gender of the parents? Other than that specifically addressing the issue of whether there are actually children involved, the law should simply reflect whether people have entered into a (permanent) contract with one another to take care of each other, to love each other, and to be partners for life. It should not matter what the genders are.
The fact that there are laws protecting children during a divorce does not imply that marriage is all about children. It simply means that, in the views of the State, children are more important than a struggling marriage.
No, I am not gay, yes, my child lives with me, so does my wife, his mother. My point is that anyone who is a decent parent will answer that the most important thing is their child, and the gender or sexuality of that parent does not matter. It doesn't matter whether that child was adopted or born of one of the parents. A good parent loves their child, and nothing else really matters.
Whoa cowboy. Your lie is just as huge as the one you're complaining about. That's not what happened. Bush banned federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines. It's not like without that ban, the government was going to go out, soliciting women to have abortions so that they could get the stem cells. The only difference would have been that rather than letting the aborted foetuses go to waste, they could have been used to help save someone's life. His ban had *nothing* to do with the funding of abortions.
I thought the christian/catholic/babtist/protestant/whatever/et
LOVE
Love felt by any person is just that, love.
A fine quote from some bible:Now it seems to me that if Jesus or whatever diety you happen to worship has LOVE as their bottom line then they should say so and stand by that.
But it isn't that way. If a man has love, true unconditional love for a woman, it is just fine in the eyes of their lord.
Now if this same unconditional love is directed towards someone of the same sex, your god has a big old problem. Or so you say.
What has changed? The feeling of love is still the EXACT same feeling. It is just that those with authority and who call themselves "righteous" don't like it. But aren't all humans equal in your god's eyes?
Another good one:Now I don't see anything in there that says anything about love being gender specific.
So, I think the problem here is not about LOVE.
Love is constant and love is not judgemental. It is only those who get to determine if 2 humans can legally be together that are not consistant and purely judgemental base on their hippocratic beliefs.
One last quote:No mention of "1 man and 1 woman" there only "Two".
If your god believes in love, I seriously doubt an almighty being has set conditions and qualifications on who can love who.
And neither should we.
If two people love each other, unconditionally, it shouldn't matter what sex they are and it shouldn't affect their rights to visit them in the hospital and it shouldn't affect their right to raise children or anything else.
Two people who have commited their lives to be with the other should all have the same benefits as every other couple that has done the same.
If your god won't accept it (according to you) there are plenty of other gods out there that will.
But there are those out there who say that same gender love is "Immoral" and I think that by saying that you are saying love is immoral. Which it is not and that makes you a bloody hippocrite that has blasphemed. (according to your own standards)
Personally, I believe in nothing and I am therefore not _limited_ in any set of beliefs.
And this is how the government should be as well. It should allow all religeons and represent NONE. Because god and government, by law, do not mix in this country, last time I checked anyway.
So, it should be one way or the other. 2 people CAN form a union and get benefits or they CAN'T.
Why are we discriminating?
I hate my sig.
He says he doesn't support gay marriage, just unions.
Well, we both agree that he says supports civil unions while simultaneously saying that he supports an amendment that would prohibit the recognition of civil unions
I'll agree with you -- he's certainly not a flip flopper, because he hasn't change his mind with time. He's simply a liar.
Why can't the laws, if we're really trying to make it easier for children to grow up with a family, just address whether someone has children, and not address the gender of the parents?
Actually, there are several reasons. First of all, there is nesting, that should happen before kids occur. Even though you aren't pregnant, you are entering the reproductive cycle.
Secondly, for some families it is very difficult for the woman to become pregnant. Third, it is probably more expensive to have all these additional laws than to just have the obvious law.
But really, I do think that if it were possible to make some magic law that excluded heterosexuals from never reproduced from the magic pile of tax $, sure, I agree. They should just get the unions too. But bear in mind, those heterosexuals who have reproduced deserve the tax break, since they have suffured the economic damage of having kids.
My point is that anyone who is a decent parent will answer that the most important thing is their child, and the gender or sexuality of that parent does not matter.
Do you really believe this? In some very small percentage of cases it may be true, but in general men and women are very different. Most men are attracted to women, not men. That alone should convince you they are different in a fundamental way.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
> saying that he supports an amendment that would prohibit the recognition of civil unions
Reference please?
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
Actually, I'm tired of running defense :) Let me turn it back to you with this question:
What compelling interest does the state have in giving couples, gay or not, tax breaks if they are childless and will remain childless forever?
Now, what about giving tax breaks to married couples with children? What does the state get out of it?
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
I'd say there is more of a difference between individuals of the same sex (good dad
That depends upon what that role-model is doing. If mom is holding down a job to pay for food, shelter and clothing, then she is modelling the "provider" role. And she can probably do that just as well as the average male.
Yep. Once you step away from the idealized "family", you realize that it is a continuum (and that the ideal family never has existed and never will).
Two stable gay guys can raise a child better than a "normal" man/woman couple where one or both is/are alcoholic, abusive, etc.
No. That is only accurate when all other conditions are equal.
But they never are.
Children in the worst of the heterosexual families would do far better if placed in the best of the homosexual families.
So, it comes down to evaluating each situation based upon all of the factors in that situation. Never a "...heterosexual unions combine the best of both worlds and despite their flaws, they are the ideal for that task".
And what is your point?
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
If you look at clovers, most of them have three leaves. But every once in a while you find one with four leaves.
So, I'm saying "Yeah, sometimes gays adopt/have kids from previous relationships, etc.", but I'm saying I don't think it occurs that often. I'm also not convinced that it's a good thing, because I believe there are differences in the sexes, and I'm not convinced growing up in unisex relationships is a great idea.
It might or might not be better to grow up in a unisex environment with two parents than by a single parent. I don't have enough information. Certainly, I don't think we as a society should encourage either single parents or unisex parents until more is known about the sex roles in raising children.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
I am absolutely certain that the gender or sexuality of a parent does not matter when it comes to being a good parent.
The "state" (i.e., the government, not the people of the state) gains little out of giving tax breaks to anyone. The people of the state (the society) gain a lot by making it easier on the parents of a child to raise that child. The child has a better chance of becoming a productive member of the society.
Regardless of specific taxes on specific "classes", the society has a compelling interest to treat people as equally as possible. The people of that society benefit, and the society as a whole benefits.
There are recorded instances of mothers killing their children and also allowing their children to be raped in exchange for drugs.
Learn what "continuum" means.
There are recorded instances of fathers risking their lives to save children from burning buildings.
I have done the research. That is why I know that there are more differences between women at the extremes then there are between men and women at the middle.
It shows that your belief that basing "good" on sexual orientation is flawed.
Yes, that is correct.
The forest is the trees.
The "normal parenting" that you're now retreating to is far different from the ideal parenting that you were originally talking about.
I'm not ignoring it. In fact, I've mentioned it. Again, in the middle, there is less of a difference between men and women then there is between men and men at the extremes of the male continuum.
So you cannot say that sexual orientation defines a "good" parent relationship or a "good" role model.
Actually, it is rather easy. Is there a history of violence or substance abuse etc.
Once you start defining your criteria for a "good" role model without including sexual orientation, you'll find that many homosexual couples are "better" parents than the hetrosexual couples who birth the children.
Nope. Just evaluating the relevent factors.
Okay, whatever. Have fun with your life. But the facts do not support your bias.
I am absolutely certain that the gender or sexuality of a parent does not matter when it comes to being a good parent.
Hmm. I didn't think we were talking about being a good parent. I thought we were talking about what is best for the child. I think two good parents, one of either sex are best for chidren.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
I think having two good, loving parents is best for children. I don't think having two male parents is necessarily any worse for a child than having one of each sex, and it is better if the alternative is an uncaring (or worse) parent.
I don't think it occurs that often.
It happens more often then you think. I know dozens of gay people with kids, and dozens more who want children.
But it's obvious you don't frequently associate with many gay couples, so how would you know?
Certainly, I don't think we as a society should encourage either single parents or unisex parents until more is known about the sex roles in raising children.
Luckily for those people, it is not up to you to 'encourage' anything, and we don't need to wait around for you to become convinced. As Americans we are free to make most of those decisions for ourselves, except when the government prevents things like marriage.
You are welcome to stay in your cave while the rest of the world progresses without you.
Wasn't long ago that people were saying the same thing about mixed-race relationships.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
But it's obvious you don't frequently associate with many gay couples, so how would you know?
You don't have any idea of my personal situation.
Luckily for those people, it is not up to you to 'encourage' anything, and we don't need to wait around for you to become convinced. As Americans we are free to make most of those decisions for ourselves, except when the government prevents things like marriage.
Let me ask you this, what happens if it turns out to be really important for children to have both a mommy and a daddy? Would that change your opinion?
In your opinion, do you believe that it is OK for children to grow up without a mommy? What about without a daddy? Which one sex is expendable?
It could be that you are right. I just don't think it is so obvious.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
Well, I certainly agree with the sentiment.
However, I think children are innocent, and just because we believe something to be true, doesn't mean we should use our new found social anxiety of fairness towards gays.
So I personally beleive we as society should err on the side of caution, in the event that a mommy or daddy role model is intrinsic to the healthy adulthood of a child.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
You don't have any idea of my personal situation.
Given your additude, I have a pretty good idea.
In your opinion, do you believe that it is OK for children to grow up without a mommy? What about without a daddy? Which one sex is expendable?
I know that plenty of children grow up without a mommy or without a daddy, and they turn out fine, other's don't. Other kids grow up with a mommy and daddy, and end up as mass murderers, while other kids turn out fine.
My wife grew up with a single mom. When she was 14-17, she ran away several times and was taken care of by a single lesbian woman who took care of many runaways and had two boys from a previous marriage.
She had a foster brother. One day, this 15 year old boy came home with some F's on his report card. His heterosexual mom and dad beat the shit out of him, breaking his arm. This lesbian women saved the boy, and raised him in her house.
There are many, many ways for a kid to grow up. There are many great parents, straight and gay. There are many bad parents, straight and gay. Excluding gays from parenting just because they are homosexual is plain stupid.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
Given your additude, I have a pretty good idea.
What, that I think that the future of children is important and that we should be circumspect about how and in what environments we raise them?
Well, I would love to go through my personal experiences, but I don't trust the long memory of the net, and it's not right of me to risk exposing people close to me. That's for them to decide.
While I would say you advocate policy by anecdote, I'm glad your wife made it, and I'm truly sorry for what happpened to her foster brother. We can agree on those kinds of things. I'll even accept that your wife's lesbian caretaker had a very positive influence on your wife, and believe there are probably many instances in which homosexual parents are better than the alternative.
I certainly am not saying "take children away from their homosexual parent." What I'm saying is that we dont' know how important the role of male and female figures into a child's psyche, and when it comes to things like adoption, we should be careful. I believe all things being equal, I think the heterosexual adopters are more likely to be the safest thing for the child. I don't know it for sure, which is why I think the issue should be studied. Maybe, as you seem to believe, it isn't important.
I'll bet you believe in all kinds of things. Let's give it a shot.
Women have a unique and valuable perspective.
The experiences of different cultures is important and valuable.
Bush Sucks (well, I might agree on that one).
If you believe these things, then why don't you believe that a child's most intimate exposure to diversity, having a male parent and female parent, are important for the child's future well being?
This is what distrubs me about the modern liberal movement. There are some assumptions that are made, like "There is no difference between men and women," obviously an absurd proposition, that then becomes the basis for all kinds of opinions and policies. You have to test these things before jumping into them headlong. I feel I'm an honest person. Give me the evidence, and I'll reluctantly (because I hate to be wrong) agree and put aside what you view as prejudices.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
...is the smallest unit of government. The family is where people learn their values, including co-operation and respct for others. Stable families mean a better society and, generally speaking better government.
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
What Bush has said is that the power should belong to each state to make the decision. I agree with this, although I think that the states should choose to give equal rights to all people regardless of sexual orientation.
Marriage is a social as well as legal term based only on biological differences between men and wemen. There are some people who consider themselves opposite sex in spite of their physical distinctions. But their eligibility of marriage should not be affected by their feelings or claims to be opposite sex. Like married person is not allowed to have one more spouse or more in Western society, same sex cannot marry same sex. However, in terms of civil unions, things are somehow different. We have to admit there are gay couples who have their households on their own as married people have been doing. It would be socially acceptable for us to admit the benefit married people usually hold to the households gay couples have....I think that's the point he wanted to pointed out, and it is very much acceptable with a view to social justice, fairness, equally bestowed human rights.
Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Who in the hell said anything about lying? Her current boy friend knows and it looks like the two are well on their way to getting hitched. In your opinion she should be prevented from getting married because she can't have kids?
Bah, what a joke. The argument around not letting people get married because of reproductive reasons is stupid. There is no test parents need to take to prove that they are capable parents. A child molester can get married and have kids if he wants. Single men and woman are allowed to keep their kids when they are divorced. 16 year olds are allowed to keep their babies if they don't get them aborted. Half of the US population grows up without having both a mom and a dad, and you act like allowing another small minority to join in the fun is going to bring about the Armageddon.
The OT quotes the devil, which doesn't invalidate it. The Bible (including the OT) also quotes people telling lies, which also doesn't invalidate it. Finally, the Bible quotes rules which are still helpful despite being targeted principally at ancient Hebrews (e.g. the Jews survived so well during the Black Plague simply because of blindly following laws generally considered stupid, irrelevant and/or outdated that their neighbours burned them at the stake for being in league with the devil (tells you a lot about the theology of the time, too)). The passage of time hasn't made the principles behind the rules any less effective.
I'm not suggesting that we should start stoning homosexuals or other adulterers (although I have seen good arguments made for it, said arguments neglect a lot of unfortunate attributes of human nature). However it is clear from the nature of the punishment prescribed that homosexuality is unarguably regarded as badly wrong, not a mere misdemeanour.
You're also still stuck with the fact that the NT (which extensively fulfills and records the fulfillment of OT prophecy) still explicitly states, categorically, that neither effeminate nor dominant male homosexuals, nor female homosexuals, will see heaven. As a Christian, you have a duty to change that (lots of implications there, not including a requirement to tackle individual cases head-on or rancorously) in exactly the same way you would address stealing or polyandry or any of the many things listed alongside homosexuality as showstoppers.
Your 4th point is addressing a strawman. The liberal view of the Bible is that it was thrown together by men to address their need for religion. This is entirely inconsistent with what the Bible actually says, does and is. This is also different from reading the Bible intelligently, which is essentially you're proposing above. By upholding reasonable reading, you are not upholding the liberal view proposed by your parent poster.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
This week we have annelida sharing vertebrate opsin and even further admissions from conservative geologists that the Grand Canyon may have formed relatively suddenly (at the same time as they're trying to remove a book from the GC bookstore which says exactly the same thing). That's one more pointer among thousands that are aimed towards a matrix of characteristics, not a tree or forest of them; and one more admission among hundreds hinting that gigayears aren't needed to explain geology as we know it. In fact, you cannot successfully explain thick untainted rock strata in near-gigayear terms because our planet is quite obviously not that tranquil.
In the absence of any materialist explanation which comes even close to fitting the data, it becomes appropriate to begin considering non-materialist explanations - but you seem to be missing this important and obvious step.
No wonder you posted as an AC.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Going beyond reasoning to rationalisation is pretty much guaranteed to end the usefulness of something which is essentially bigger than any of us. This rationalisation presumes that we are in some way in control of the situation, that it is entirely understandable and explicable through the lens of our finite experience. If, however, the facts as stated are rational, then they are not going to be rationalisable.
Or to put it another way, if you are keeping your head while those about you are losing theirs, then you haven't fully grasped the situation. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Take, for example, fossils. These are dated according to the rocks they're in, and the rocks are dated by index fossils they contain. This neat circular piece of reasoning existed before radiometric dating, so when that came along it got kind of calibrated with one eye on the existing situation. Where did the original geologic column come from? A few maniacs with an agenda waved a thumb at it and pulled the figures out of their asses. The first few rounds of guesses were insanely low by today's standards, almost lining up with the 75Ma proposed by people who sound (for the sake of reducing search-engine hits and the ensuing bunfights) like "sighyentollujusts".
Now if it happens that these dates are more or less right, well and good. However, AMS dating says they're not - which should be blindingly obvious anyway, when people are C14-dating stuff that should have hit equilibrium millions of years ago. Many conventionally acquired datings disagree with each other, depsite the discarding of many "wild" readings. Many fossils and rock layers are found in the "wrong" order without possibility of intrusion, reworking or inversion en bloc. Then there's polystrate fossils, the whole OOPART clan, the problem of fresh "fossils", the missing bones and assorted non-equilibria. And more.
Don't even ask about the fragile pillar of assumptions holding up the ice-core dating department, either.
So the dating systems appear to be a bit of a snafu when you have a close look at them. People going wrong with confidence left and right. Why hasn't this been examined and fixed? Because too many people are scared to rock the boat lest they let a "Divine Foot" in the door; they'd rather press on, knowing in the back of their minds that the intellectual palace they're building stands on false foundations, than risk finding out that their whole philosophy is wrong. They can't imagine a reasonable alternative explanation besides creationism ("it's turtles, all the way down!"), so they regularly rearrange the deckchairs on the scientific Titanic and declare the iceberg problem solved.
This is not to assert that creationism actually is the only alternative to orthodox dating dogma, simply that nobody mainstream has yet come up with a reasonable-sounding alternative, and very few are prepared to risk derision by even trying to. The like of Dawkins and his imaginitive and entertaining but ultimately pointless just-so stories are very popular because the alternative is real career risk and hard work.
OK, so where does that get us? Three dating cards crumple, marked "radio-dating", "index fossils" and "reference strata". They're right at the bottom of the heap.
It's a huge heap, and being braced up by many very determined people, so it may take a while to collapse as it should, but it's doomed to fall flat in the end unless some viable replacement cards are found. The heap is not called "science" but "materialism", which makes finding an acceptable replacement more difficult. The ricepaper of imagination will not do, for these cards carry a heavy load and need to be pressed from the stiff card of unbiased observation.
Will new cards be found, or will the heap collapse? Stay tuned, but whatever you do don't blunder around asserting that it's all proven and the battle is over.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Also, I'd appreciate a little less anonymity, if you could see your way clear to that?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death. (Lev 20:9)
... the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
My, we're certainly going to be killing a lot of people. How many people have cursed their father or mother in a fit of teenage pique? Surely the mountains of hundreds of millions of corpses will have a "sweet savor to the Lord".
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife,
I guess that disposes of another 20% or more of the population. I'm glad the lord likes the smell of burning corpses, because there's going to be a lot of it if people ever start following the bible literally.
Is it any wonder the bible is a perenial favourite of mass-murderers? Pol Pot has nothing on this guy.
You got it wrong. An Earth inside a white hole would - you should pardon the term in context - naturally possess the required properties.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...what said innocent Egyptians were already doing to the Israelites. The Assyrians and others too.
Said God wiped out at least a million foot-soldiers only a few weeks later, too. The foot-soldiers were en route to wiping out 4-6 million Israelites including women and children.
It was not a nice time and place to live in. That's what happens when we are essentially left in charge of a planet.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Even if sex imbalance were to be a problem, that's only a problem if polygyny were legalised. Do you really believe that 55% of the population would stand by and let men have multiple partners (who's restricting it to multiple wives?) and not demand that women have an equal right to marry multiple partners?
There are a lot of things that "polygamist" mormons have screwed up:
a) polygamy just means multiple marriage, not multiple wives.
b) just because radical mormons practicing authoritarian and abusive marriage get all the press, doesn't mean that all polygamy is abusive. (I know you didn't say that, but it's one of the things that "mormons" have screwed up in the common understanding of polygamy.) That'd be like saying that because some husbands abuse their wives, marriage is abusive.
-- "Perhaps the truth is less interesting than the facts?" -Amy Weiss, RIAA
The "state" (i.e., the government, not the people of the state) gains little out of giving tax breaks to anyone. The people of the state (the society) gain a lot by making it easier on the parents of a child to raise that child. The child has a better chance of becoming a productive member of the society.
I missed this, in case you are still listening.
The government gets future taxpayers by encouraging couples to procreate, and they also get a good reason to have all kinds of programs and do all kinds of things for children. Anyway, the advantages to the state of people procreating is enormous, especially of allowing the parents to have adequate financial resources to procure the things important in raising children, and having a caretaker (probably a woman) at home.
In general I think your saying things like "you people" is inflamatory and innacurate. I certainly don't share any religious feelings, and I don't think gays will destroy the sacredness of marriage. My reasoning is almost entirely from an economic perspective, not a gay judgemental perspective. While the spread of aids has made me upset with the irresponsible behavior of gays, I don't see it as bad as cigarettes in this society, for example, and I'm an ex-smoker with children who unfortunately saw me smoke.
I also have to question whether a same sex couple is best for children, but mostly I argue on the economic basis. It's hard to get a rational debate on this simple point.
Frankly, I think when you boil the marriage argument down, it is really an economic one. Why else would those who feel rejected/betrayed by the mainstream suddenly almost unanimously argue for acceptance by it, and why would they want it? Notwithstanding those things that do make sense, such as hospital visitation rights, and even some economic things such as joint ownership of homes.
Anyway, as I said, if there were a way to exclude those families from the tax benefits of marriage who never intended to have children, I'm all for it. I just don't want those who put themselves into economic disadvantage for attempting to have children suffer for it. That includes the couple who marries and uses the tax code to prepare for children, and the couple that has had children and suffered the economic damage but no longer has children.
I guess if you question the molding of the state through economic policy, then why would the state penalize two worker families? I think the reason is that there is a desire on the state to have a parent at home raising the children. While there are new laws put in place which I think are damaging to offset these taxes, such as childcare credit, I have to then ask those who are in a household with two parents working, "Why when you married woman, would you think a stranger can raise them better?"
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA