Bush calls for constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages

[~Yuckfou~]

Should they be given the same rights as heterosexual couples to marry?

no.

 

[throdgrain]

heh

this thread needs more replies like this

Its actually true as well :/

 

[L_Plates]

All in all bush is a power lovin wanker, please lock the thread.

 

[Krazeh]

no.

why?

 

[Bodhi]

I'd love to jump in with all this Bush bashing but I'm afraid I have nothing against the guy. He's a shitload better than Al Gore, Bill Clinton and that Terry bloke standing against him this year. So what if he isn't the smartest guy in the world - he doesn't need to be, he has advisors to tell him the non-retarded course of action in most situations.


I find it sad that we have reduced ourselves to a nation of Bush/Americana haters. Especially when you look at the toilet of a country and arsehole of a Prime Minister we have. Maybe people should consider their glasshouses before they go hunting for rocks to throw at people.

 

[Tom]

Well said.

 

[nath]

Not so. Lots of people do think Blair is a cocklord. That doesn't mean we can't criticise Bush's administration. It's not like what America does has no effect on us, so I think everyone is well in their rights to moan about him. Bush is a retard and a terrible president.

 

[Tom]

But then again, you don't exactly have another presidency to compare him against, unless you know of other presidents presiding over airliners crashing into expensive buildings, and subsequent wars being fought over it.

I've never even met the guy, so I can't say how intelligent he is. I can say, that I don't believe everything I read in the newspapers, or on the internet. Some people obviously do.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

But then again, you don't exactly have another presidency to compare him against, unless you know of other presidents presiding over airliners crashing into expensive buildings, and subsequent wars being fought over it.

I've never even met the guy, so I can't say how intelligent he is. I can say, that I don't believe everything I read in the newspapers, or on the internet. Some people obviously do.

Nice to see you rate what happened on a scale of how expensive the buildings are.

Oh and get down from the bloody box before you do some harm.

 

[Dubbs]

Honestly, some people should try turning their bloody brains on before posting on a subject such as this. I've been right wing for many years (thought Lady Thatch was great... but wasn't to read up on her at the time and was only young and impressionable), loved the whole yuppie thing and wanted to be one as I was going through school watching the champagne quaffing 911 driving geezers lording it about.

A lot of growing up and reading has gone on since then and it's only once you do start reading that you can form any kind of credible opinion on these things.

Mine is that Bush is a complete cock!

He's done so much to sever ties with the rest of the world that, quite frankly, he deserves the fallout he's going to get. Unfortunately the rest of the US don't deserve it but at least it might wake them up to realise there ARE other countries out there that aren't just there to be co-erced into using US corporations for everything. Unfortunately the big corps are so engrained into the lobbying and senate sectors of US government that even the most opposite of presidents won't stop the rot. They can stop crap like the same-sex marriage stuff though.

I'm not gay, can't bloody stand the thought of that shit (pardon the pun ) but I have friends that are and as far as I'm concerned they should all be allowed toget on with it. What I object too though is the tax breaks. They are funadamentally there to help a man and wife when they start a family. Same sex that ain't happening boys! So don't give them the tax break unless they successfully adopt, the pink pound is rich enough.

As for the question about whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt - I've still not 100% made my mind up on that one....

 

[Krazeh]

I'm not gay, can't bloody stand the thought of that shit (pardon the pun ) but I have friends that are and as far as I'm concerned they should all be allowed toget on with it. What I object too though is the tax breaks. They are funadamentally there to help a man and wife when they start a family. Same sex that ain't happening boys! So don't give them the tax break unless they successfully adopt, the pink pound is rich enough.

What about couples who are unable to conceive children but get married, is it acceptable for them to receive the tax breaks that are given to any other married couple?

 

[nath]

But do heterosexual couples who don't have, or have no intention of having kids get tax breaks? If so, homosexual couples should. If not, fair enough.

edit: bah.

 

[Dubbs]

What about couples who are unable to conceive children but get married, is it acceptable for them to receive the tax breaks that are given to any other married couple?

No. It should be abolished and re-introduced as a childcare-benefit tax break.

People should want to do the marriage thing for love reasons not money-off vouchers.

 

[Tom]

Its an accepted fact that societies tend to be more stable if their populations are in long term relationships. Thats why tax breaks are offered for marriage.

 

[Stazbumpa]

[tuppence]

I have no problem with same sex marriages at all ever. I couldn't care less. Where my point of view turns nasty, however, is when they want children. Blokes can't impregnate blokes and vice versa with women. It ain't going to happen.
Its a lifestyle thing and I don't believe they should have their cake and eat it if they choose that lifestyle. Same sex relationships cannot naturally bear children and I don't believe science should step in to fix it like it can with hetero couples who have something wrong with their reproductive plumbing. I COULD be damaging to the children from a developemental point of view, lets be fair there is nowhere near enough research to say either way at the moment, although to be honest the amount of shit a child would get in the playground off kids with "normal" parents is mind boggling.

[/tuppence]

 

[Dubbs]

Its an accepted fact that societies tend to be more stable if their populations are in long term relationships. Thats why tax breaks are offered for marriage.

There's too much of this "accepted fact" stuff going on these days, question is - Is it a PROVEN fact. Answer? Probably No as marriage has been around for longer than anyone can remember so it's accepted as fait accompli.

Society is changing and the "establishment" needs to keep up if it's not to be opposed by the majority.

Bush is pushing America backwards.

I still can't decide on the smae-sex couple child adoption though.... on a similar subject, do you think that couples with known, serious genetic disorders that would likely be passed to baby be prevented from having children?

Now there's a late night teaser for you!!!

 

[Tom]

Oh come on Staz, I can't believe you're saying that children might be emotionally damaged by same-sex parents? Isn't this the same kind of attitude that dictates that children shouldn't learn about their bodies until they;re in secondary school?

I don't have the figures to hand, but I'm pretty certain that children growing up in orphanages will tend to suffer more emotional stress than those growing up in 'unusual' homes?

 

[Tom]

do you think that couples with known, serious genetic disorders that would likely be passed to baby be prevented from having children

Absolutely they should be allowed that choice. Who are we to tell a person they cannot propogate their genes? Its disgusting that people should even think that (not that I'm presuming you do).

 

[GekuL]

You can't judge whether someone will make a good parent based on their sexuality. To say that the childs upbringing would be affected (in a negative sense) suggests that all straight parents provide a stable upbringing; when we know this isn't true.
As to marriage; personally, the only reason I can see for it is a legal one. Doesn't having to prove your love in such a way suggest a certain lack of trust in the first place?

 

[Xavier]

Nice to see you rate what happened on a scale of how expensive the buildings are.

Oh and get down from the bloody box before you do some harm.

DMW, please, chill the fuck out. It's rare for me to ask, but you seem to be on a mission atm to take prods at Tom, if you've an issue hit the PM button on this post.

Xav

 

[Deadmanwalking]

DMW, please, chill the fuck out. It's rare for me to ask, but you seem to be on a mission atm to take prods at Tom, if you've an issue hit the PM button on this post.

Xav

Erm, so if i just insulted peoples intelligence, by trying to make myself look all high and mighty. It would be ok?

GEORGE BUSH ROCKS!!!*











*May be complete bullshit.

 

[Tom]

You can't judge whether someone will make a good parent based on their sexuality. To say that the childs upbringing would be affected (in a negative sense) suggests that all straight parents provide a stable upbringing; when we know this isn't true.
As to marriage; personally, the only reason I can see for it is a legal one. Doesn't having to prove your love in such a way suggest a certain lack of trust in the first place?

Legalities aside, isn't one of the important things about marriage that a couple are committing themselves to eachother for the rest of their lives, in front of their family and friends? The ceremony is a public declaration of their love for each other.

I don't have much experience of this whole malarky, my parents were hardly 'lovey dovey', although they're still married after 40 odd years together.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Legalities aside, isn't one of the important things about marriage that a couple are committing themselves to eachother for the rest of their lives, in front of their family and friends?

Yeah legalities aside, people commit robbery to help their family

Legalities aside, everything's alright.

IMO!!!

IMO!!


*Phew think im safe*

 

[fatbusinessman]

Oh come on Staz, I can't believe you're saying that children might be emotionally damaged by same-sex parents? Isn't this the same kind of attitude that dictates that children shouldn't learn about their bodies until they;re in secondary school?

I wouldn't think so, no.

I have to say that I agree with Staz on this one - human psychology is immensely complicated, and the 'natural way' of things is that a child has one male parent and one female parent. There is every possibility that being brought up with same-sex parents could be psychologically damaging to the child. I'm not saying it would, and I'm not saying it wouldn't. It's just something that could do with consideration.

 

[Tom]

I wouldn't think so, no.

I have to say that I agree with Staz on this one - human psychology is immensely complicated, and the 'natural way' of things is that a child has one male parent and one female parent. There is every possibility that being brought up with same-sex parents could be psychologically damaging to the child. I'm not saying it would, and I'm not saying it wouldn't. It's just something that could do with consideration.

If thats the case (and I doubt it is, but thats my opinion), then surely the next thing is to consider the options - orphan growing up in care/orphan growing up in same-sex family.

Now I reckon I could guess pretty accurately which is potentially less damaging.

 

[GekuL]

Legalities aside, isn't one of the important things about marriage that a couple are committing themselves to eachother for the rest of their lives, in front of their family and friends? The ceremony is a public declaration of their love for each other.

I'm sure that is a significant reason for some, but I don't think marriage is necessary to do that, except maybe "officially". And still seems to undermine what you are supposed to be declaring, having to provide proof in such a way. Perhaps I'm letting logic get in the way?

BTW, my parents didn't marry until I was about 15, and that was only when they had to consider the legal implications of inheritance.

 

[nath]

You bastard!




Sorry :\

Anyway, I think the reasons for marriage are irrelevant. Heterosexual couples are allowed to and as such, I think homosexual couples should be too. The only reason I can see for not allowing it is a religeous one.. and America is supposed to be secular.

 

[Frizz]

Now I reckon I could guess pretty accurately which is potentially less damaging.

I reckon i could aswell, in a modern school, do you know how much shit some kids take, because of what they wear? Now considering how irrelevent in comparison that is, to having "gay" parents, imagine how much shit the child would get because of said parents. Even then, that's just one issue, there are many others, including what the child would think about the parents ("You're not my real daddy's/mummy's etc) and how the child would deal with living in a "different" household (nature/nurture possibly).

Todays, and yesterdays society simply is not ready for such things, and untill people's views change, it should be so that S-S marriages shouldn't be allowed to adopt. The potential psychological repurcussians are too much as far as i'm concerned.

 

[GekuL]

You bastard!

 

[nath]

I reckon i could aswell, in a modern school, do you know how much shit some kids take, because of what they wear?

lol.. that reminds me of when homer was picking a name for bart.. he chose it on the basis of whether kids could make fun of it.

For once, I'm with Tom on this one. I think being stuck in a home is far worse than enduring bullying yet being in a loving stable family environment. Kids will find reasons to bully other kids if they want to, regardless of their situation.



edit: soz, gekul.. I just couldn't resist the incredibly poor joke :\