Bush calls on senate to waste time

[AlonzoMourning23]

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Saturday backed a resolution to amend the Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman even though the idea has little chance of being passed in the Senate.

"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," Bush said in his Saturday radio address. "Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society."

Democrats say Senate floor time is being wasted on the issue, and accuse Republicans of making a pre-midterm election appeal to social conservatives whose votes were key to Bush's re-election.

This November, initiatives banning same-sex marriages are expected to be on the ballot in Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.

"Sadly, President Bush is playing election-year politics with this divisive issue," the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Friday. "He is shamelessly using this ploy to energize his right-wing base. We should never rewrite the Constitution to enshrine intolerance."

The White House said Bush did not devote his radio address to the issue or decide to host a presidential event Monday to again endorse the amendment because it is politically expedient, but because there's a vote on it scheduled next week in the Senate.

"On Monday, I will meet with a coalition of community leaders, constitutional scholars, family and civic organizations and religious leaders," Bush said in urging Congress to pass the amendment and send it to the states for ratification. "They're Republicans, Democrats and independents who've come together to support this amendment."

The amendment would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages. To become law, the proposal would need two-thirds support in the Senate and House, and then would have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.

Bush said the amendment would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

It stands little chance of passing the 100-member Senate, where proponents are struggling to get even 50 votes. Several Republicans oppose the measure, and so far only one Democrat — Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska — has said he will vote for it.

Acknowledging that emotions often run hot in this debate, Bush urged calm.

"As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity," he said. "All of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another, and all people deserve to have their voices heard."

David Buckel, Marriage Project director of Lambda Legal, a national organization working to protect the rights of lesbians, gay men and others, said the amendment would be damaging to the lives of same-sex couples and families, which raise millions of children.

"It would brand lesbian and gay men as legally inferior individuals," he said. "It would write into the supreme law of the land that this group of people are inferior and when it's the law, it's a message to everyone else in society that they have license to discriminate."

In his radio address, Bush struck back at judges who have overturned state laws similar in intent to the proposed legislation.

"Unfortunately, activist judges and some local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage in recent years," the president said.

Bush said there is broad consensus in America to protect the institution of marriage.

Voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage, he said. Moreover, he said, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060604/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush;_ylt=AuyTS_I4UtM0ikr7T8KLWnas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMT A3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

[Hendrik]

We had the same debate here in Germany some years ago. The outcome was that same-sex marriages are allowed.

I think what's the problem with it?
If two homesexuals marry, does it change your life in any way? No. The only thing it does, it stops these protests for same-sex marriages and makes these people happy (and they will work harder and love their country).

Hendrik

[DHard3006]

Homosexuality is a perversion and homosexual marriage should not be allowed.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I'm of simple viewpoint.

1. Homosexuals can't reproduce between themselves.
2. Marriage is the ideal historical framework in which to build families and rear children.
3. Give any two people the same inheritence and legal rights that married couples may have.

End of story.

When butt pirating produces offspring we'll revisit the issue.

[bobbylien]

I think we should let individual states decide this issue.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I'm of simple viewpoint.

1. Homosexuals can't reproduce between themselves.
2. Marriage is the ideal historical framework in which to build families and rear children.
3. Give any two people the same inheritence and legal rights that married couples may have.

End of story.

When butt pirating produces offspring we'll revisit the issue.


I'll accept that logic when you ban infertile couples from marrying. Adoption isn't sufficient, since if you want to ban gay couples who adopt from marrying then you need to do it with heterosexuals too.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

There is no logic in your argument.

However I've come to expect that from your mental illness.

[AlonzoMourning23]

You want to ban same sex marriage for homosexual couples on the basis of reproduction, but yet you want to allow it for heterosexual couples who are equally incapable of reproduction.

[DHard3006]

What causes a person to be infertile? What prevents a perverted homosexual from reproducing?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Stop infusing this with biological fact.

It stops 'zo from feeling good about himself.

[AlonzoMourning23]

What causes a person to be infertile? What prevents a perverted homosexual from reproducing?


Disease or biological problems can cause infertility, homosexuals can adopt, have children with the help of another person (sperm from a man, or a woman who agrees to bear the child).

If you have an infertile heterosexual couple they cannot reproduce, and can only obtain children in the same way a homosexual couple could (though some infertile women cannot bear children, unlike a healthy lesbian), yet you seem to see no issue with allowing their marriage.

And if you want to explain how homosexuality is inherently more perverted than heterosexuality go right ahead.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Stop infusing this with biological fact.

It stops 'zo from feeling good about himself.


attacks are so much easier than debates, aren't they?

[DHard3006]

Disease or biological problems can cause infertility, homosexuals can adopt, have children with the help of another person (sperm from a man, or a woman who agrees to bear the child).
To make a heterosexual infertile one must have an illness or biological problems. This does not happen with homosexuals.
The other methods you are mentioning are heterosexual methods.
If you have an infertile heterosexual couple they cannot reproduce, and can only obtain children in the same way a homosexual couple could (though some infertile women cannot bear children, unlike a healthy lesbian), yet you seem to see no issue with allowing their marriage.
The reasons for heterosexual couple being infertile are what causes infertility. Homosexuals cannot have this problem because they do not have the needed material for the conception of a child.
And if you want to explain how homosexuality is inherently more perverted than heterosexuality go right ahead.
For the simple fact that it is impossible for homosexuals to reproduce.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

'zo, find me any method of homosexual behavior that results in conception.

Just one.

[AlonzoMourning23]

To make a heterosexual infertile one must have an illness or biological problems. This does not happen with homosexuals.

They can just as easily use artifical insemination, something infertile people are not always capable of.

'zo, find me any method of homosexual behavior that results in conception.

Just one.

The reasons for heterosexual couple being infertile are what causes infertility. Homosexuals cannot have this problem because they do not have the needed material for the conception of a child.

They can be artificially inseminated, or get the assistance of someone to be a surrogate mother or provide sperm. They can also adopt, which is common.

You're arguing on the basis of producing children, yet when homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally incapable of producing children, you have no problems with heterosexual marriage.

For the simple fact that it is impossible for homosexuals to reproduce.

So you oppose masturbation, oral sex, marital sex with birth control/condoms and any other form of sexual activity that will not result in the possibility of reproduction?

[Labrocca]

Alanzo why isn't the full rights of marriage given to a gay couple not enough? Why do gays need to be married in the first place?

Ultimately I think Gay Marriage will happen simply because the trend appears to lean toward it. Once you open up someone having a 'right' eventually in America they seem to win it eventually. Some call it progression while others call it a moral decline in our society. Eventually we all be screwing our dogs, watching porn all day, and shooting heroin like it's a bag of chips. There seems to be no end for the desire of freedom. Isn't ultimate freedom chaos?

[AlonzoMourning23]

Alanzo why isn't the full rights of marriage given to a gay couple not enough?Â*Â*Why do gays need to be married in the first place?

Well, the current proposals for civil union are often not recognized as merely marriage by another name. Civil unions also have an issue of validity in other areas, getting them recognized is much trickier than getting marriage recognize, and some states have rejected them on the grounds that they do not offer civil union. They also are difficult to end, if you are in a state that does not recognize them. Couples have already had a problem with this. And if a state or country were to have same sex marriage but not civil unions, it is questionable whether the civil union would be recognized as any sort of legal relationship.

But there's also the issue of equality. While this may be a tired comparison, most would not find it acceptable if, during the civil rights movement, they compromised and used a different term for interracial marriage. Even if you manage to make everything identical, and remove all other issues, you still have the stigma of a lesser relationship attached to it. It would legally enshrine the concept that homosexuals relationships are not worthy of the title marriage.

Ultimately I think Gay Marriage will happen simply because the trend appears to lean toward it.Â*Â*Once you open up someone having a 'right' eventually in America they seem to win it eventually.Â*Â*Some call it progression while others call it a moral decline in our society.Â*Â*Eventually we all be screwing our dogs, watching porn all day, and shooting heroin like it's a bag of chips.Â*Â*There seems to be no end for the desire of freedom.Â*Â*Isn't ultimate freedom chaos?


I think you have to look at it this way. Is there any harm if homosexuals marry? They already live in long term relationships, become parents (and no psychological or sociological study has shown a distinction between homosexual and heterosexual parents) etc. They already engage in marriage as much as you can without the legal recognition. And, in places where same sex marriage has been legal, it hasn't had a negative effect on society. You're obviously not harming homosexual relationships, and you're not harming heterosexual relationships either.

Drugs harm the individual, certain drugs (like heroin) spread the risk of diseases such as aids due to people using the same needle (though some areas pass out free needles to limit this), benefit crime, rob society of people who may otherwise be productive etc. Whether you think it should be legal or not, you can't deny that there is a clear harm in using these drugs.

Sex with animals is animal cruelty and, like sex with any being that can't consent, rape. Animals are often traumatized, even killed, through such sex acts. And they are no more capable of consenting than a 5 year old child. Freedom doesn't allow you to trample the rights of others, and such acts would never be allowed as long as animal rights laws continue to strengthen, or at least stay the same.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

None of what you posited is natural biologically.

I win.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Not unless you can show why being able to reproduce is a requirement for marriage, and why heterosexuals marriages, regardless of the individuals biological conditions and health, are acceptable while homosexual ones are not.

You're applying a standard that is only one aspect of marriage, and a standard that not all married heterosexuals meet.

[bobbylien]

Leave gay people alone, why do you guys care if they can marry or not? Its none of your business. Your marriages aren't under attack. This doesn't affect you in ANY way. In the words of a very smart texan... "Gay couples have the right to be just as miserable as heterosexual couples." lol

[DHard3006]

They can just as easily use artifical insemination, something infertile people are not always capable of.
That is called heterosexual reproduction, not homosexual reproduction. Homosexuals do not bring together the needed material to conceive a child.
They can be artificially inseminated, or get the assistance of someone to be a surrogate mother or provide sperm. They can also adopt, which is common.
These are all heterosexual methods of reproduction. You know the product from a male and female combined to conceive a child.
You're arguing on the basis of producing children, yet when homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally incapable of producing children, you have no problems with heterosexual marriage.
How is a infertile heterosexual equal to a homosexual? What medical problems or biological conditions does the homosexual have to be equal with a infertile heterosexual?
So you oppose masturbation, oral sex, marital sex with birth control/condoms and any other form of sexual activity that will not result in the possibility of reproduction?Â*Â*
Where did I say child conception was mandatory? I said simply because it is impossible for homosexuals to reproduce is why homosexuality is a perversion.
Leave gay people alone, why do you guys care if they can marry or not?
Interesting how people that defend the perversion of homosexuality must use the word gay.
Since we use straight to call heterosexuals wouldn’t a word like bent, crooked, uneven, or unbalanced be better to call homosexuals. After all these words would be the opposite of straight.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Well, technically, not even every woman has the genetic capability to reproduce. The basic human form is female, even if you're genetically male you only appear male if testosterone kicks in, and on some occasions it does not. Some of these people even end up as fashion models. Despite being born and living as a woman, and often having no idea of their genetic makeup, they and their husband would fail the reproduction test just like 2 gay men. The same is also true for men who are genetically female, but insensitive to androgens. And it is also not very odd for a child to be born and be neither visibly male or female, and they are then assigned a sex.

And artificial insemination, while technically heterosexual reproduction, requires no heterosexual act.

Your problem seems to be that you simply don't like homosexuals. You don't seem to care whether marriage is for reproduction or not, you only make the ability to reproduce part of the criteria when you being discussing homosexuals. And even if they decide to undergo artificial insemination or adopt, then you still oppose it. But if you're heterosexual then the issue of the ability to reproduce is irrelevent in your mind.

The same with sex, if I have sex with a guy then that's a perversion, but if I give oral sex to a woman, equally impossible to lead to reproduction, you don't express an issue with that. The same with masturbation. If someone masturbates they lack the ability to create offspring during the sexual act, yet only when a member of the same sex enters the picture do you call it a perversion.

If your problem is simply with homosexuals just admit, don't try to dress it up by applying a standard that only they have to meet.

[DHard3006]

Well, technically, not even every woman has the genetic capability to reproduce. The basic human form is female, even if you're genetically male you only appear male if testosterone kicks in, and on some occasions it does not. Some of these people even end up as fashion models. Despite being born and living as a woman, and often having no idea of their genetic makeup, they and their husband would fail the reproduction test just like 2 gay men. The same is also true for men who are genetically female, but insensitive to androgens. And it is also not very odd for a child to be born and be neither visibly male or female, and they are then assigned a sex.
These are medical reasons why heterosexuals cannot reproduce. What medical reasons pevent homosexuals from reproducing? None.

And artificial insemination, while technically heterosexual reproduction, requires no heterosexual act.Â*Â*
It is a heterosexual act because it brings together the two needed materials for the conception of a child. Homosexuals lack one part of the two needed materials for conception.

Your problem seems to be that you simply don't like homosexuals.
Homosexuality is a perversion. Why should I like it? What other perversion do we condone?

The same with sex, if I have sex with a guy then that's a perversion, but if I give oral sex to a woman, equally impossible to lead to reproduction, you don't express an issue with that.
I never said sex must result in the conception of a child. I said simply because it is impossible for homosexuals to reproduce is why homosexuality is a perversion and homosexual marriage should not be allowed.

The same with masturbation. If someone masturbates they lack the ability to create offspring during the sexual act, yet only when a member of the same sex enters the picture do you call it a perversion.Â*Â*
I never said sex must result in the conception of a child. I said simply because it is impossible for homosexuals to reproduce is why homosexuality is a perversion and homosexual marriage should not be allowed.

If your problem is simply with homosexuals just admit, don't try to dress it up by applying a standard that only they have to meet.Â*Â*Â*Â*
Once again homosexuality is a perversion and homosexual marriage should not be allowed. How much simpler can I be?

[bobbylien]

Your problem seems to be that you simply don't like homosexuals. You don't seem to care whether marriage is for reproduction or not, you only make the ability to reproduce part of the criteria when you being discussing homosexuals. And even if they decide to undergo artificial insemination or adopt, then you still oppose it. But if you're heterosexual then the issue of the ability to reproduce is irrelevent in your mind.

Hit the nail on the head. I'm sure gay marriage will happen eventually, people will get used to the idea.

[bobbylien]

Once again homosexuality is a perversion and homosexual marriage should not be allowed. How much simpler can I be?

Just because you can't get over your case of homophobia doesn't mean others should have to wait for you.

[DHard3006]

gay marriage
Interesting how people that defend the perversion of homosexuality must use the word gay.
Since we use straight to call heterosexuals wouldn’t a word like bent, crooked, uneven, or unbalanced be better to call homosexuals? After all these words would be the opposite of straight.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

There's still a world of difference between homophobia and not allowing gays the title of "married".

I could care less what two people do behind closed doors. It doesn't interest me, it doesn't concern me and it's not my place to judge their behavior. However I can use the old leftist axiom popularized in recent years "not in my name".

I see no benefit from a societal building block from allowing gays to marry. What does it benefit? It's not a life producing family relationship. Nothing can be produced from gay marriage that's going to benefit society. You're not going to see children, except through extraordinary means either scientific or otherwise, produced by such a union.

It's just a further "you have it I want it too" cry from the left. 70-80% of the country doesn't support gay marriage. It goes down in flames time after time after time when put as a referrendum on state ballots. Not one state has come close to allowing this change in traditional definition at the ballot box. People as a whole have completely rejected the notion.

[AlonzoMourning23]

There's still a world of difference between homophobia and not allowing gays the title of "married".

I could care less what two people do behind closed doors.Â*Â*It doesn't interest me, it doesn't concern me and it's not my place to judge their behavior.Â*Â*However I can use the old leftist axiom popularized in recent years "not in my name".

I see no benefit from a societal building block from allowing gays to marry.Â*Â*What does it benefit?Â*Â*It's not a life producing family relationship.Â*Â*Nothing can be produced from gay marriage that's going to benefit society.Â*Â*You're not going to see children, except through extraordinary means either scientific or otherwise, produced by such a union.

It's just a further "you have it I want it too" cry from the left.Â*Â*70-80% of the country doesn't support gay marriage.Â*Â*It goes down in flames time after time after time when put as a referrendum on state ballots.Â*Â*Not one state has come close to allowing this change in traditional definition at the ballot box.Â*Â*People as a whole have completely rejected the notion.


It's only 51-58% who oppose it (depending on poll), not 70-80: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635194021,00.html, http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=nation_world&id=4241653

But about 60% do not support a constitutional ammendemnt. Polls conducted in massachusetts (where a vote is pointless), new york, hawaii and new jersey have shown majority support in favor of same-sex marriage.

Though, as I've stated before, I don't think the public can be trusted on issues of civil rights.

I'm also not aware of any harm being done. Homosexual families do have children, particularly through adoption, denying marriage to their parents is hardly beneficial to them. They offer no more or less benefit than allowing an infertile heterosexual couple to marry. There's no point in denying marriage, a basic right to most, to millions of people, many who have children, when there's no evidence of harm.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Tell you what...

You want gay marriage I'll trade you abolishing Affirmative Action.

If one violates the 14th Ammendment both do.

Right?

[Nathan Brazil]

Tell you what...

You want gay marriage I'll trade you abolishing Affirmative Action.

If one violates the 14th Ammendment both do.

Right?


That's exactly right.

[bobbylien]

Tell you what...

You want gay marriage I'll trade you abolishing Affirmative Action.

DEAL. ;)

[rastaman]

Yo Pittsburgh,

Speaking of mental illness, Reagan had huge memory problems during his second term--did he not? Reagan didn't even recall his second term his brain had already turned into MUSH.

[rodeojones903]

Yo Pittsburgh,

Speaking of mental illness, Reagan had huge memory problems during his second term--did he not? Reagan didn't even recall his second term his brain had already turned into MUSH.


Well, atleast the two of you have something in common.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Tell you what...

You want gay marriage I'll trade you abolishing Affirmative Action.

If one violates the 14th Ammendment both do.

Right?


Compromising is good when you can't get what you want. But I think this is one of those instances where liberals will be able to have their cake and eat it too.

[Nathan Brazil]

Compromising is good when you can't get what you want. But I think this is one of those instances where liberals will be able to have their cake and eat it too.


Compromising is never good. That's how the conservatives and liberals have managed to end American freedom.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Compromising is good when you can't get what you want. But I think this is one of those instances where liberals will be able to have their cake and eat it too.


Compromising is never good.Â*Â*That's how the conservatives and liberals have managed to end American freedom.


If you can't compromise then you often lose everything. I'd rather gain 1 out of 10 of my goals instead of none.

Those who don't know when to compromise often go down as idealists who failed to achieve anything they were fighting for.