http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...bush_agenda_dc

The great uniter at his best!

 

Our tax $ at work...

 

Sorry, did you want him to allow beastiality and polygamy, too? Oh, you mean you do have standards?

 

Are you comparing homosexuality to bestiality and polygamy?

 

It's in the ballpark.

 

You have to be kidding me.

 

Those are all sexual acts that are traditionally taboo in most cultures on this planet. Certainly any place where the Bible, Talmud, or Koran are revered.

I think polygamy sounds fun as long as all partners are aware of what's going on. Homosexuality and bestiality, I find disgusting. But I find chinese food disgusting too. That doesn't mean I'm going to hate everyone who eats chinese food.

That doesn't alter the fact that the government shouldn't be making laws about things like this. There's no victim in any of those things, unless you count the sheep or chicken, and I don't believe in "animal rights".

 

Although I disagree with Bush on this and believe homosexuals should be able to get married, you have to agree that homosexuality isn't biologically natural. The bottom line is that you're not going to be making any babies (the biological purpose of sex) with the recipe for a dirty Sanchez. Same thing holds true for bestiality and other sexual acts. Although I can't make this argument for polygamy, I can tell you that the reason why polygamy is against the law is the same reason why Bush is trying limit homosexuals and homosexuality... it's for family values, period.

I'm not religious in the slightest and would rather not have my son -or- daughter in a same sex marriage. I'd still love them with all my heart but this is the same way a lot of people feel. People are scared that if you make homosexual marriages the norm they'll become a fad. Now multiply this belief by Christian values and you can see where Bush is coming from. I'm not saying it's right but it's certainly understandable.

 

We are talking about marriage, which is and has historically been between a man and a woman. If you want marriage to be redefined to allow "any to any" marriage, this should allow you to marry your Mom, Dad, sister, or multiple people, right? Why would you discriminate against those who want to marry immediate family members, or multiple people?

If you think heterosexual-only marriage limits the right of gays, what about all the other humans it "disenfranchises?"

I think attaining equivalent legal rights should be issued to any two humans who so desire, but why do they need to be "married?"

 

While for the most part true. There are cases of homosexual animals in the animal kingdom. (Some goats and some felines...way to late to remember others.) Also biologically, we are driven to reproduce and pass on our genes, but there are exceptions to the rule.

The family value bit is where I disagree with you. How many homosexuals do you know first hand? I know several. Just because they are gay does not mean they are running around wild and don't want to have commited relationships. Also I know several that would make great parents. I don't see how people can be saying oh family values etc... when the divorce rate is above 50%. What family values are you trying to protect that homosexual couples do not have?

To be honest, I would also mind if I had kids who where gay. But proably for different reasons than you. It would hurt me because the fact they would go through a lot of discrimination. Besides that I could careless, they could always adobt a kid. What I find amusing is your fad comment though. Seriously, your either gay or your not. I don't see how being gay could ever turn it into a fad? Who wants to have a dick stuck up there butt as part of a fad?! (As a side note I asked one of my friends if he thought it would become a fad, and he said "**** off thats like saying do you want a big fat dick up your ***, because people somehow believe that having a dick up there is cool? thanks, i like my sphincter the way it is. i don't want to have to have a plastic ****bag attached to my rear when i get older. and haemarroids ain't a good thing either. ") Thoughts like that make me doubt how realistic people can be about this subject. And its very wrong and not understandable to what Christian should be since the bible teaches acceptance of others.

 

They should just take away marriage period. And only be civil unions. Why is government entering the bedroom i have no idea.....

Marriage should only be in a Church thats it.

 

Yay let's write discrimination into the document that was created to prevent it....

 

I understand this...

Although my Mother's side of the family wouldn't mind if I was gay, my cousin just so happens to be gay on my Father's side. They seriously haven't accepted the fact he's gay and think he'll come out of it like a teenage fad. Seriously. I personally don't think this is the case and was only commenting on how diluted some people are in accepting this as fact. You have obviously never been personally exposed to a family with hardcore Christian values. This is the same family I disowned at 16 because they thought watching the 700club would cure my mentally handicapped brother. I **** you not!

 

I totally agree... for real. The term marriage has serious spiritual connotations. For those who believe in God, it is a blessed unity between man and woman.

If you dont have faith, I dont see why it is any different to call a "marriage" a civil union.

 

I agree that marriage is religious/social union in which to raise children. The religious part is why there is such fervent opposition to gay marriage.

Most people are fine with gays or any two humans getting the equivalent legal rights, but most feel that marriage is only "a binding contract between that hetero couple and God."

The idea of taking away marriage in unacceptable, since it is the base of our current society.