Who agrees with bush about the gay marrige ban and who doesnt?

Question

and state your orientation

Answer 1

I dont know, im a christian and straight, its not my place to judge, even though we (christians) are taught that homosexuality is supposed to be wrong, i cant bring myself to think bad of anyone who is. I dont have that right.

Answer 2

I have a problem with the timing, the reasoning, and the idea of using the US Constitution to limit the rights of any person, gay, straight, or otherwise. The US Constitution was made to PROVIDE rights.

I have always maintained that the only people that will really gain from gay marriage is divorce lawyers.

I think this issue is a fake issue. It is obvious that traditional family values are in danger in this country. Last year, for the first time in history, more children were born outside of wedlock than in. In spite of "traditional family values" being in the forefront for the last 6 years, more than half of all marriages still end in divorce. The rate is identical with conservative christians and more liberally oriented families. Most of the divorced people will marry and divorce again. Some, again and again.

I think before anybody decides to make this dicision on a federal level, it should be debated rationally.

If marriage is actually a spiritual matter, then the government has no business recognizing and/or regulating such things.

If more than half of the people engaging in marriage don't take it seriously, how could it really be a holy union?

It really seems fake to focus on banning homosexuals from participating in marriage to fix the problems with marriage.

If you really want to protect marriage and traditional family values and don't mind taking away some people's rights, make out of wedlock births illegal and divorce almost impossible.

I'm appalled that this issue is the best thing the president and some of congress/senate can think of to take on.

Answer 3

I agree with Bush. I am a heterosexual
The very nature of marriage as we have always known it is discriminatory. Marriage is open to all adults, subject to age and blood relation limitations.
If marriage was not so important for what it actually is, we would not be debating about it's legal status.
Binding the sexes together in a unique and complementary union is what marriage is about.
The attempt to eject an entire sex from the equation and then call it "equal", is not just dishonest but also dangerous. It imposes a lie on people who know better. The term "marriage" refers specially to the joining of two people of the opposite sex. When that is lost, "marriage" becomes meaningless.
You can no more leave an entire sex out of marriage and call it "marriage" than you can leave chocolate out of chocolate ice cream. It becomes something else.
The gay community likes to claim that they need legal status so they can visit their partners in hospitals, etc. Hospitals leave visitation up to the patient except in very rare instances. This "issue" is just a smokescreen to cover the fact that, using legal instruments such as power of attorney, drafting a will, etc., homosexuals can share property, designate heirs, dictate hospital visitors and give authority for medical decisions.
Legalizing same-sex marriage doesn't just extend an old institution to a new group of people. It changes the definition of marriage, reducing it to an affectionate sexual relationship accompanied by a declaration of commitment.
What they should not obtain is identical recognition and support for a relationship that is not equally essential to society's survival.
The Constitution is not made of clay, to be twisted, molded and torn apart depending on national mood.
Master Yoda,
There is nothing in the constitution mandating separation of church and state. I challenge anyone to read the constitution to find it.
The phrase "separation of church and state" originated in a letter from Thomas Jefferson. When you hear people talking about the supposed separation of church and state, what they usually mean is "The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment" requires a separation. But it doesn't.
The framers of the Constitution meant that Congress couldn't establish a national church.

(If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything)

Answer 4

The President used the terms....activist judges...arbitrary decisions. In fact, the Republicans appointed most of the judges on the bench. In fact, our justice system is set up to protect minorities. The court is the last resort for what is unpopular but just and fair.

Marriage certificates are not licensed by the federal government and therefore do not belong in the US Constitution.

The President said, "marriage needs to be protected" but did not specifically say, what it is protecting other than some vague "values". Single sex married partners don't gather together to beat up double sex married people. Neither will they "take over the world". What is there to be afraid of?

Churches are free to not perform a marriage service for a single sex couple. An amendment only forces one opinion on human relationship on everyone else. Puritanism.

Oh yes...I'm an unafraid hetrosexual.

Answer 5

You're right, Maryland Terps Women Basketball NCAA Champs Rock!

I don't agree with Bush on this or anything else. This ban is something that our grandchildren would have to undo. I think some of these people forget that their bloodline is going to continue and that some of them may be born gay. When you vote for discrimination, there is a great possibility that you or yours will feel the results of such a vote.

As a Lesbian/Minister who minister's to GLBT persons, this is a bad piece of legislation. The legislation basically reduces heterosexuals to being just genitals and that's it.

Answer 6

Why is everybody so afraid of same sex couples being married? They are human, just like everybody else, and they deserve the same rights as everybody else. What makes heterosexual relationships any more better than homosexual relationships? The only argument there is against it is because God said marriage was for men and women, but what happened to seperation of church and state? This ban is not to protect marriage, gays and lesbians are no threat, it's about people being afraid. You can't get infected with homosexuality, people. It's not a disease that's going to decimate the masses like West Nile Virus or the bird flu. I'm so sick of people screaming racism and discrimination, and then they openly discriminate against gays, lesbians. This country needs to pull it's head out of it's butt and wake up.

Answer 7

I do not agree. He can oppose gay marriage in his religion all he wants. But in the eyes of the US government, marriage is nothing but a legal contract. Denying some people the right to make this contract is wrong and violates constitutional rights that "all men are created equal." Everyone should have the right to make a contract with the US government saying that two people can live and be together and share benefits exactly like everyone else.

I am bisexual, but I have a boyfriend (who is also bisexual)

Answer 8

I'm gay so you know I disagree with him. First, I think there are a lot of other issues that need to be taken care of before gay marriage. This really seems like a ploy to rally the religious right.

Second, marriage is a religious issue. The federal government shouldn't have a say in it. I belong to a legally recognized religion which performs legally recognized marriages. My religion also permits sames-sex marriage. This amendment limits my freedom of religion, which goes against the constitution itself.

Answer 9

The Bible is no justification for banning gay marriage, US isn't supposed to be a Christian theocracy yet, why should their peculiar Christian traditions apply to all citizens who may not even be Christian?... so long as you Christians don't enter into a gay marriage yourselves what's it to you.
Christians are now becoming complete tyrants and this is a perfect example to illustrate it.
I'm gay of course and I'm planning a gay civil marriage end of the year, I live in UK.
I think Government legislation & religion should be kept quite separate.

Answer 10

Bush's approval rating is at a historic low (22%) so im guessing- since this is such a huge issue, that most dont agree.

sexual orentation really doesnt have much to do with this- its a matter of hatred towards people that you dont consider normal, but can anybody really define normal? i dont think so.

why should the GLBT be denied the happiness as straight people? but then again, a peice of paper doesnt mean anything, truely....

Answer 11

I Totally agree with Pres. Bush on His stand on Gay Marriage.
The Book of Deuteronomy is clear on this - the Bible clearly
condemns homosexuality! Read it for yourself you will see.

There is no greater sin than this - God did not make Adam
to lay with Jerry - NO! He made Adam to lay with Eve so that
His kingdom could be populated.

I am straight and I am Proud of it!