Bush calls for gay marriage ban

[Sojourner]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1000471' date='Jun 8 2006, 12:57 PM']
I don't find your divisive ridicule of a position that many if not most other faithful Catholcis and the Bishops hold to be funny. If you disagree that is fine, but your posting of the ship thing is beyond disagreement. The cartoon is stupid. Gay Marriage bills and other items are not mutally exclusive such that the country cannot consider both issues. And contrary to what you think the gay marriage matter is important to the future of this nation. I was listening to a protestant guy on the radio this AM that actually said it well. Faith is doing what God says to do, not because it is pleasent but because God promises that the outcome will be right. Not an exact quote but the basic gist. This country needs to do what is right. Ban gay marriage for good.
[/quote]
I am all about affirming the importance of marriage and family. I want to BE married and have a family someday. And I don't support gay marriage.

However, I think government is overstepping its bounds by pre-empting the rights to define marriage -- even if government defines it as it should be. Once government starts thinking the ability to define marriage is within its bounds, we're saying that marriage can be defined by a majority vote. I don't believe that's true.

I think bringing up the issue of gay marriage now is nothing more than a political ploy to motivate conservative voters to vote this fall. In case you hadn't noticed, Bush's approval rating is pretty low -- meaning Republicans don't have much political capital coming into the election. This move is nothing more than leveraging a sacrament to get votes, and I find that disgusting.

[thessalonian]

Do you always judge people's motives in this manner as if you can read their thoughts? Marriage is defined for all eternity. Nothing that anyone else calls marriage will be marriage. But it will confuse people, i.e. children. Oh wait, that's a democrat accusation. What about the children. Of course they care little about the ones in the womb.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1000493' date='Jun 8 2006, 01:19 PM']
Do you always judge people's motives in this manner as if you can read their thoughts? Marriage is defined for all eternity. Nothing that anyone else calls marriage will be marriage. But it will confuse people, i.e. children. Oh wait, that's a democrat accusation. What about the children. Of course they care little about the ones in the womb.
[/quote]
Gay marriage brought conservative voters out in droves to help Bush win the last election. It is no coincidence that this issue is coming up again a few months before a national election. It's just common sense that this is happening for political reasons. "Oh, let's protect the family" will be on the table as long as its politically expedient. Then it will die down until the next time it's needed to rustle up votes.

[Jaime]

[quote]Do you always judge people's motives in this manner as if you can read their thoughts? Marriage is defined for all eternity. Nothing that anyone else calls marriage will be marriage. But it will confuse people, i.e. children. Oh wait, that's a democrat accusation. What about the children. Of course they care little about the ones in the womb. [/quote]

Just so there's no confusion


From the Defense of Marriage Act

[quote]SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:

"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."[/quote]


From the Code of Canon Law


[quote]The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their entire life, which is ordered by its own nature to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of offspring, has been raised, between the baptized, to the dignity of sacrament by Christ the Lord.[/quote]

Its pretty much the same thing isn't it? Well except civil marriages mention nothing about

permanence of the act
procreation
anything sacred

[jezic]

I am not meaning to discredit Bush at all. I fully support a gay marriage ban. It does give the democrats some clout, even if it is just a coincidence.

[curtins]

I hate the whole let gay marriage happen cause its a civil marriage and doesn't concern the church.

logical steps in what would happen:

gay marriage legalized--> polygamy --> marriage of old men to young boys and the like--> marriage to animals --> mariage to inatimate objects--> people pressing the church to allow gay marriage.

Marriage is a man and a woman. Anything more than that and its no longer marriage because of so many distortions. You may think that that stuff would never happen but I tell you it would. There are enough people out there that would want that. So either its we stop them now or the flood gates are opened.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='curtins' post='1000631' date='Jun 8 2006, 02:26 PM']
mariage to inatimate objects[/quote]
hmmm ... I [i]have [/i] been having warm feelings towards my new phone ...

[cappie]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1000684' date='Jun 9 2006, 06:02 AM']
hmmm ... I [i]have [/i] been having warm feelings towards my new phone ...
[/quote]




with me it's the computer

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1000483' date='Jun 8 2006, 11:10 AM']
I am all about affirming the importance of marriage and family. I want to BE married and have a family someday. And I don't support gay marriage.

However, I think government is overstepping its bounds by pre-empting the rights to define marriage -- even if government defines it as it should be. Once government starts thinking the ability to define marriage is within its bounds, we're saying that marriage can be defined by a majority vote. I don't believe that's true.

I think bringing up the issue of gay marriage now is nothing more than a political ploy to motivate conservative voters to vote this fall. In case you hadn't noticed, Bush's approval rating is pretty low -- meaning Republicans don't have much political capital coming into the election. This move is nothing more than leveraging a sacrament to get votes, and I find that disgusting.
[/quote]
While I can't presume to know the inner mind and soul of George W. Bush, supporting the Marriage Amendment is objectively the right thing to do. While it can be argued that this should have been done sooner, or whatever, I say it is better to take right side on this issue, than the wrong side.

Opposing the bill on the grounds that "it is just to win votes" is essentially an ad-hominem which distracts from issue of the rightness or wrongness of the position itself. I support such an amendment because it is the right thing, not because of some mindless loyalty to Bush or the Republican Party. I would support such a measure whether it was endorsed by Bush, Clinton, Peroutka, Al Gore, or whomever. You are the one here letting your partisan politics (hatred of Republicans) trump right reason.

While you claim that government is "overstepping its bounds" by legally defining marriage as (*gasp, horrors!*) only between a man and a woman (which, coincidentally, happens to be exactly as the Church defines it), you are ignoring the fact that it was the overstepping of bounds by liberal activist judges which have brought up the need for such an amendment! These judges have challenged state laws barring "gay marriage" as "unconstitutional," and would demand that all states recognize "gay marriage" whether the people wish to do so or not. The amendment would make such godless judicial tyranny legally impossible.
As for "government defining marriage," isn't that exactly what has been going on in those states which have supported "gay marriage"? You express little outrage at liberal attempts to redefine marriage on their own perverted terms, yet go into conniptions over efforts to legally restrict marriage to a man and a woman.
Sorry, but it is the liberals who made the initial attack on the family here. This bill is a defensive measure.

Despite your repeated claims to being "nonpartisan," it seems that in nearly all social/political matters, you and other liberals here simply take the side of the liberal Democrats.

Your thinking on this issue may be in accord with the Democrats', but it is not in accord with that of the Church.
[b]The Pope himself, earlier this year, called on Catholics to politically support "recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family, as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage, and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role."[/b]

Full article here: [url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6368"]Catholics must be engaged in political debate, says Pope[/url]

Edited June 8, 2006 by Socrates

[Jaime]

[quote]While you claim that government is "overstepping its bounds" by legally defining marriage as (*gasp, horrors!*) only between a man and a woman (which, coincidentally, happens to be exactly as the Church defines it), you are ignoring the fact that it was the overstepping of bounds by liberal activist judges which have brought up the need for such an amendment! These judges have challenged state laws barring "gay marriage" as "unconstitutional," and would demand that all states recognize "gay marriage" whether the people wish to do so or not. The amendment would make such godless judicial tyranny legally impossible. [/quote]

Wrong wrong wrong


How the amendment defines it

[quote]SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:

"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."[/quote]

How THE CHURCH defines it

[quote]The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their entire life, which is ordered by its own nature to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of offspring, has been raised, between the baptized, to the dignity of sacrament by Christ the Lord.[/quote]

Saying its exactly the same is a travesty and a sham.

Civil marriage requires no permanence
no children
nothing sacred

There is nothing in a civil marriage that promotes anything besides temporary pleasure. That's it. Saying that is the same as how the Church defines it is like saying that a horse and a giraffe are the same thing.

[Era Might]

[quote]Bush has called for a $8 billion plan to get religious and other volunteer organizations to assume more responsibilities for the needy. He supports welfare time limits, work and education requirements. He has proposed a requirement that unwed teen mothers live at home or in group home. In Texas, Bush proposed increased child-care aid and other transition benefits.[/quote]

That's what we need more of. Moralizing about gay marriage doesn't accomplish much unless we back it up. Let the Pope do the moralizing. Politicians are supposed to take the principles of moral law and make them real. Words aren't enough; we need action.

I'm glad that George Bush has stood for this constitutional amendment, and I think he is sincere at heart. I just hope it'll be about more than words. Whether the amendment passes or not, what can we do to SUPPORT actual families, to support actual marriage? Let's not just write for the constitutional amendment. Let's write to get George Bush to do something concrete anyway, something HE can do, rather than something he can encourage others to do.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1000890' date='Jun 8 2006, 06:06 PM']
Wrong wrong wrong
How the amendment defines it
How THE CHURCH defines it
Saying its exactly the same is a travesty and a sham.

Civil marriage requires no permanence
no children
nothing sacred

There is nothing in a civil marriage that promotes anything besides temporary pleasure. That's it. Saying that is the same as how the Church defines it is like saying that a horse and a giraffe are the same thing.
[/quote]
Oh give me a break, please!
[quote]"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."[/quote]
All this says is that nothing other than a union between one man and one woman would be recognized by the state as a marriage.
(In other words, no same-sex, polygamous, etc. "unions" shall be legally recognized as marriages).
It states absolutely nothing that would outlaw or undermine true marriage.

To state or imply so is a travesty and a sham.
It is telling that you and your ilk on here raise hardly a peep concerning the travesty of state-endorsed "gay marriages," yet you are outraged by the proposing of a law to ban "gay marriage." (or anything else which might be endorsed by the "Christian right.")

On these boards you have repeatedly shown yourself to be a sham, and little more than a "Catholic" apologist for a liberal social agenda.
(While you claim to support the Church's teachings, you consistantly and vehemently attack any and all attempts to restrict the homosexualist agenda, or promote Christian values in public.)

Edited June 9, 2006 by Socrates

[MichaelF]

Federal funding of HESC (Human Embryonic Stem Cell) research has been halted, save for already established cell-lines.

States, OTOH, can do as they like. California and New Jersey have their own research programs going, using the "extras" from fertility centers (IVF requires several zygotes to be initialized, and one or two get picked. The rest go into cold storage or are disposed of.).

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1000947' date='Jun 8 2006, 08:14 PM']
Oh give me a break, please!

All this says is that nothing other than a union between one man and one woman would be recognized by the state as a marriage.
(In other words, no same-sex, polygamous, etc. "unions" shall be legally recognized as marriages).
It states absolutely nothing that would outlaw or undermine true marriage.

To state or imply so is a travesty and a sham.
It is telling that you and your ilk on here raise hardly a peep concerning the travesty of state-endorsed "gay marriages," yet you are outraged by the proposing of a law to ban "gay marriage." (or anything else which might be endorsed by the "Christian right.")

On these boards you have repeatedly shown yourself to be a sham, and little more than a "Catholic" apologist for a liberal social agenda.
(While you claim to support the Church's teachings, you consistantly and vehemently attack any and all attempts to restrict the homosexualist agenda, or promote Christian values in public.)
[/quote]


Your ability to read and connect points is truly a travesty. It honestly doesn't matter what I post sport because you end up reading whatever you want, no matter how far off the mark it is.

I'm not implying that the state would outlaw Church marriage. I'm stating that they have the definition completely wrong.

You're missing the obvious point and you are being distracted by the other so called conservatives. If you were truly conservative, you'd see the point. Civil marriage is a temporary contract that promises nothing. It is not marriage. Yet you and [i]your ilk[/i] listen to drivel being fed to you. "Oooh its the homosexuals!!"

No its not. Its civil marriages that are weakening our country and our families.

True Christian values would be stating that any govt endorsed union that has no basis on permanence, procreation or (God forbid) sacrality is not in any way shape or form a marriage.

You've been fooled by the Republicans, yet again, to miss the cancer and focus on the symptoms.

Get the govt out of the marriage business. You won't have to worry about gay marriage at all.

[Sojourner]

Socrates, please show me where I've supported the "liberal Democrat agenda" in this thread. I know plenty of liberal Democrats, and all of them are gung ho in support of gay marriage.

[quote]I am all about affirming the importance of marriage and family. I want to BE married and have a family someday. [b]And I don't support gay marriage.[/b] [/quote]

What I DO support is protecting the true definition of marriage as promulgated by the church. What we have in the Defense of Marriage Act is a partial definition of marriage. Yeah, it gets the "one man + one woman" part right, but misses all the other aspects of the relationship that make it a [i]marriage[/i].

This is a scare tactic -- nothing more, nothing less. "If you don't vote for us, gays will marry in droves! Polygamists will proliferate! O, the slippery slope which will be created!" There's a false sense of urgency created which lures people to the polls. Politicians take a [b]sacrament[/b] and make it a political football -- and we let them do it because we're scared. And because, faced with the choice between gay marriage and a half-arse definition of marriage that is NOT in accordance with church teaching, we feel as though we must choose the lesser of two evils.

I for one don't like being manipulated like that, and I find it disgusting, disgraceful, and disturbing that politicians are using that which is holy for political gain -- even if they do acknowledge the holiness of marriage themselves.

hot stuff is right -- government needs to get out of the business of marriage.