Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

President Bush just gave a national address on TV about Gay marriage

Feb 23, 2004 11:58PM PST

critical of San Francisco, California and Mass. Urges Congress to immediately pass an amendment to the constitution concerning marriage between man and woman.

Bout time.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
A magnificent display
Feb 24, 2004 12:06AM PST

of narrow minded, short sighted, hateful, bigoted, fear mongering, small minded idiocy! We haven't seen the likes of this since the civil rights era.


Dan

- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 24, 2004 12:27AM PST
- Collapse -
Going from gay marriage to NAMBLA is a pretty big leap.
Feb 24, 2004 12:43AM PST

I think it rediculous to ammend the constitution to outlaw something that has no business coming under government rule.

Homesexuality does NOT equal child molestation. It's not the deviancy but the age of the deviant that is more important.

Allowing gays to get married so that they can file joint taxes, inherit property and possesions and be included on family insurance packages is not going to cause civilization to come crashing down upon us.

- Collapse -
Re: Yea, thats what they thought in Soddam & Gomorrah
Feb 24, 2004 1:27AM PST

Just kidding Rick Happy

- Collapse -
Good example.
Feb 24, 2004 1:52AM PST

Lot and his daughters got out and didn't turn out to be the loving family we want to use as a model anyway.

Wink

Dan

- Collapse -
Justification by Sin?
Feb 24, 2004 3:15AM PST

I doubt God will justify anyone's sin by them pointing to the sin of another. This was made quite obvious in the parable of the Publican (taxpayer) praying to God.

- Collapse -
Not a justification
Feb 24, 2004 6:40AM PST

You may want your family to be like Lot's but I don't really approve of that sort of thing.

Dan

- Collapse -
Huh? My family be like Lot's?? What do you mean?(nt)
Feb 24, 2004 1:57PM PST

???

- Collapse -
Refers to Sodom & Gomorrah
Feb 24, 2004 10:02PM PST

.

- Collapse -
The homosexuals in the town didn't fare too well Did they? They didn't
Feb 24, 2004 4:28AM PST

even get to enjoy the final delights of the evening. A real bummer to get struck blind right in the middle of a party!

- Collapse -
No one fared well at all.
Feb 24, 2004 6:56AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:Going from gay marriage to NAMBLA is a pretty big leap.
Feb 24, 2004 2:06AM PST

Re: "Allowing gays to get married so that they can file joint taxes, inherit property and possesions and be included on family insurance packages is not going to cause civilization to come crashing down upon us."

Pres Bush did say that states could make provisions for just what you said above without marriage of Gays.

Well, he did give stats on law votes and what the public wants and talked about laws being ignored. In every corner of the US and all religions it is overwhelming that marriage is for man and woman.

I agree with the President...and how dare these Gay Mayors and Gay people can flaunt amd ignore the law/religion (the pres didn't say this...I am).

Laws can be changed by the majority.

JR

- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Feb 24, 2004 2:11AM PST
- Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:Going from gay marriage to NAMBLA is a pretty big leap.
Feb 24, 2004 3:25AM PST

Why do you think so many that would have been slaves are now instead prison inmates, which means slaves to the state in which they are incarcerated. Many of them work at less than minimum wages on contracts between private enterprise and the various prison systems. It's not uncommon for prisoners to be doing phone work for private industry, who in turn pay the state, the new owners of these slaves, for the privilege.

Why do you think so the majority of black people still marry other black people, the majority of white marry white, and so forth? Probably for the same reason normal men have sex with women instead of other men. It's Nature. God created Nature.

- Collapse -
It's nature? ? ?
Feb 24, 2004 6:59AM PST

It's god's will that blacks are in prison instead of jail? You're saying that god created these people to fill the place of the slaves and the prisoners?

Please explain.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:It's nature? ? ? No, no, and no. (nt)
Feb 24, 2004 1:58PM PST

.

- Collapse -
**NAWP***
Feb 24, 2004 9:59PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Those were not good STATE laws.......(NT)
Feb 24, 2004 3:40AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:Those were not good STATE laws.......(NT)
Feb 24, 2004 7:00AM PST

The current marriage laws are state laws, too.

What do you mean?

Dan

- Collapse -
The President wants a constitutional amendment to: "protect marriage in America". (nt)
Feb 24, 2004 7:15AM PST

.

- Collapse -
???
Feb 24, 2004 10:03PM PST

What do you mean when you say they were not good state laws? How does that bear on the topic?

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:??? LOL...NAWP....Heavens Dan, did you take courses in court
Feb 25, 2004 5:44AM PST

cross examination techniques in school? You asked me twice about the laws in that post: "Do you think those were a good idea?" My answer: "Those were not good STATE laws."
This is NASP IMO trying to get more out of me than I wish to give.

JR

- Collapse -
They were state laws, yes.
Feb 25, 2004 6:01AM PST

I suppose I'm putting to much into it, but your emphasis leaves open the question of do you think that they would also have been bad federal laws. Do you?

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:They were state laws, yes.
Feb 25, 2004 6:51AM PST

But of course Dan I believe they would have been bad federal laws. But, now I am wondering about you if you had lived in those days and owned a large cotton plantation in Dixie?

JR
(gee, I should not ask, I'll never get rid of this conversation Wink)

- Collapse -
and your point is?
Feb 24, 2004 4:32AM PST

Those are examples of people claiming 'religious support' when there wasn't any. Did you ever notice that the abolitionists were mostly motivated by 'religion'? Homosexuality does not share the same ground. It is clearly condemned by the Bible.

- Collapse -
Re:and your point is?
Feb 24, 2004 7:02AM PST

The treatment of blacks was thought to be clearly supported by the bible, too.

Dan

- Collapse -
Show me the text.
Feb 24, 2004 7:56AM PST

I'll be glad to show you the text that condemns homosexuality if you don't already know where it is. BTW, where do you think the abolitionalists were looking?

- Collapse -
Hardly a leap, more like a small step...
Feb 24, 2004 7:38AM PST
- Collapse -
Re:Re:Going from gay marriage to NAMBLA is a pretty big leap.
Feb 24, 2004 2:14AM PST

I'm not sure I totally understand your post. Government and religion don't mix. You can't/shouldn't/don't legislate religion. Seperation of church and state and all that.

Your church doesn't have to sanctify the union. It really just needs to be legally recognized for the purposes already stated.

- Collapse -
If that's so then why
Feb 24, 2004 3:30AM PST

...doesn't the same hold true for any two people who happen to cohabit, so they can have mutual protection of assets between them without having to create a large number of legal instruments to accomplish the same. Is it just the element of sexual relations that make this imperative on the part of homosexuals? How can sex be the basis of a need for mutually protecting laws that are found in marriage? Why should they have any advantage over any other couple like maybe a grandparent and grandson, or an aunt and nephew, or two people of the same sex that aren't homosexual, but want to have everything else in common. It's all about sex isn't it!