|
Post by Kodyn on Mar 11, 2004 15:41:20 GMT -5
Whats your stand on Bush's idiotic State of The Union?
I'll throw my 2 cents in after I get some responses.
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Mar 11, 2004 16:17:08 GMT -5
I'll assume you mean his support of the amendment to ban gay marriage. Here goes...
I think it's ridiculous, and simply a campaign stunt. He realizes that he's not going to get many homosexual voters anyway, and has decided to try and shore up other voters who don't like the idea of gay marriage. If his support of it gets him elected, he's a freakin' genius.
That said, the amendment itself is unconstitutional. If through some ass-backwards stroke of luck it does pass and become an amendment, it will go the way of prohibition within a few years. I'm not fond of the idea of gay marriage, but sooner or later it's going to happen.
That wasn't as big as I thought it would be. Go figure.
|
|
JacenSolo
Artificer
Aim: JacenSolo55
Posts: 1,048
|
Post by JacenSolo on Mar 11, 2004 17:35:54 GMT -5
If homosexual people want to get married why not let them? Will it hurt you in some way? No. Will it make them happy? Yes.
I also must say that the Catholic Church will never agree to marry homosexual people. If they want to get married they are going to need to get married in a court of law. The government will never be able to force the Church to marry homosexual people.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Mar 11, 2004 21:37:24 GMT -5
You see, while you guys take steps to ban it, we're taking steps to legalizing it.
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Mar 11, 2004 21:39:32 GMT -5
God bless Canada...And i fully support Gay marriage, they are people too, why should they not have EVERY single right that other people enjoy every day? You know why this is even an issue, because religion. Religion is ruining the world, people are upset because they think that if they allow this to happen, god will hate them, gimme a break people.
|
|
|
Post by Static Burn on Mar 11, 2004 22:36:13 GMT -5
Well, seeing as you've already defined it as idiotic, making this less of a debate and more of an anti-Bush discussion, my opinion clearly doesn't matter.
But, to be honest, I didn't watch the SOTU speech. However, I'm one of those people who actually respects Bush and realizes that he's not the idiot that people make him out to be.
So, religion is ruining the world, even though religion is as old as the world is and has been one of the largest contributing factors to making the world the way it is now?
As for my opinion on gay marriages, I believe that the marriages themselves may not be a bad idea. However, the reaction that people have towards it may nullify the good that it brings, especially because marriage is a priveledge that is rooted in religions, and I would say that most Americans believe themselves to be "religious" people. I do think that a "legal union" as seen in... Vermont, I believe it is, may be a better course of action.
On a side note, the marriage licenses/certificates issued to gay couples in San Francisco are not actually valid, seeing as California state law does not allow judges to legally issue marriage licenses/certificates to gay couples. According to state standards, those judges should be in prison right now, but God knows how much controversy that would cause.
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Mar 11, 2004 23:05:50 GMT -5
10 pts to Static for a very nice argument!
Elfie, if it weren't for the ridiculous simplicity of your argument, I'd be shocked at the length.
I said basically all I have to say on the subject. I do agree that civil unions may be better, but it's being made an issue simply because of the word "marriage." It's retarded, in my opinion.
And I agree with Static about the respect for the President.
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Mar 12, 2004 12:45:42 GMT -5
How can you respect him?? He actually lost this election, he lied to the entire world about WMD in Iraq, costing the lives of around 500 american soldiers, and you respect him?
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Mar 12, 2004 14:34:30 GMT -5
I respect him because he had the fortitude to go in and do what he thought was right. He tried as hard as he could to work with the UN, but when they refused to continue to press the issue, he disregarded them. Most people don't remember or choose to forget, but Clinton disregarded the UN in Kosovo.
WMDs aside, we freed a whole nation of people from a tyrannical dictator. Given, we've not found any WMDs. But that may or may not be Bush's fault. He was told there were WMDs with relative certainty. I'm sure everyone here would've done the same thing - attacked the dictator who murdered his own people and who was HIGHLY suspicious about WMDs.
It was a war. Lives are lost in war. By your justification, we should never have entered WWII, Vietnam, or any other war. Besides, in the loss of those 500 we've saved thousands more that Saddam would've killed over the last year anyway. We've eased tension in the region a bit, and may even establish a new democracy.
As far as the election goes, if he didn't win, why is he our President? They don't usually put losers into office.
Besides, would you REALLY have wanted Gore to try and handle 9/11 and everything afterwards? The thought of that scares me a bit...
|
|
|
Post by Static Burn on Mar 12, 2004 15:23:12 GMT -5
1) Bush didn't lose the election. Anyone who actually thinks that doesn't know how the American electoral system actually works.
2) Bill Clinton, as well as many others, have said there are WMDs in Iraq. I guess Saddam was just pretending to have WMDs in hopes that we'd invade his country and overthrow him.
3) Many Presidents have cost more lives than that. Even so, the lives that were lost in Iraq were necessary sacrifices to save the lives of the Iraqi people. I know that's the same thing you've been hearing all along. I remember seeing a report a while back about how, despite the fact that people were complaining about the number of soldiers lost in iraq since the beginning of the war, it was less than the number of people killed in Washinton DC since the beginning of the war.
I respect Bush because I agree with most of his views, and I think that he's been doing a good job considering the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Kodyn on Mar 12, 2004 15:47:53 GMT -5
As far as the election goes, if he didn't win, why is he our President?
It's called Florida, and Electoral Congress. Its the reason I will never vote. Even if someone wins the popular vote, the Electoral Congress can put his opponent in office. And Bush has a lot of sway with Florida, so...
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Mar 12, 2004 18:35:31 GMT -5
JacenSolo: Your argument is a good one, but I would also add that if the government's not forcing the church to marry people, then the church should get the hell out of government too. Static Burn: I'm not even gonna dignify any of that bullsh!t with a response. @morbaruk: Yeah, the electoral college is the reason I stopped voting too, but I'm thinking about voting again once a worthy candidate comes along -- if all us sensible people stop voting, we're essentially leaving the election to people like Static Burn, and that scares the Forking hell out of me. As for gay marriage: Well, I personally believe that marriage in and of itself is just plain wrong, but if gays want to have the same right to self-inflicted eternal pain and suffering that straight people have, what's the harm? It's actually more a punishment than a treat.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Mar 12, 2004 19:41:27 GMT -5
There is a fundamental doctrine that has existed in North America for over 300 years. It is known as the idea of separation of church and state. Some people take this doctrine as it was intended, but others twist its wording. I know one person who has been taught by his minister that separation of church and state really only means that the state should stay out of the church and not vice versa, which is absurd, in my opinion.
In 1967 when then Justice Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau announced that he would legalize homosexual acts, he said that "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation". Similarly, I believe that there's no place for the state in the churches of the nation. Therefore, if a recognized church chooses to marry homosexuals, I don't see what business the state has passing laws that nullify this decision. By that same token, I don't see what business the state has forcing churches to marry homosexuals. Religion should be free of the influence of the state.
Futhermore, one must consider the other definition of marriage, the one that provides government services and costs to those who are married. I strongly believe that homosexuals can love each other just as much as heterosexuals, but while one group gets tax breaks as a result of this love, the other group is being left in the cold.
Many would consider an appropriate solution to this to be civil unions, to segregate homosexual marriage from heterosexual marriage. I think this sends the wrong message to homosexuals. Instead of telling them that they are equal in society, it tells them that we'll put up with them even though we still regard them as second class citizens, and that's wrong, in my opinion.
Most people believe that the bible is open to interpretation. Why should a government impose its interpretation on other sects? In legal matters, homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. In religious matters, churches shuold be allowed to decide what interpretation best suits them and act accordingly. That's where I stand right now on the issue, and I'll admit its not based on religious text; its based on what I think is right, but I think that's okay.
|
|
|
Post by Alicia on Mar 12, 2004 20:29:35 GMT -5
I'm disgusted by the idea of gay marriage. I was taught it was wrong, that's what I believe. My parents are also Catholic, so you can see where that idea comes from. My father and I recently had an arguement about this topic. While I think gay marriage is disgusting, any arguement made is based on the idea that it's against god, or that marriage was not made for two people of the same sex. God has absolutely no place in the government. Yes, I'm aware when the government was created it was under god, but since then god has been taken out of government, so it doesn't matter what is right in the eye's of god. Also, in some states you cannot adopt without being married. That means gay people will never have the chance to bring up a child. When getting married, having a child, there are certain breaks the government cuts you...Gay people never get the benefit of such. My father's arguement was...It's wrong. God is against it.
Yeah, this is the type of family I was brought up in.
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Mar 12, 2004 20:40:45 GMT -5
I know I can't convince you, but I am curious about your views. Do you also believe that homosexual actions should be illegal like they used to be?
|
|
|
Post by Static Burn on Mar 12, 2004 23:01:55 GMT -5
Is that because you simply have no response to my bullsh!t?
Pretty much, here's the fact of the matter. The religious community says it's wrong to allow gay marriages. The gay rights community says it's wrong not to allow gay marriages. Therefor, there is no solution you can take without pissing someone off. That's why I go for civil unions.
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Mar 13, 2004 17:01:37 GMT -5
They did a recount in Flordia and Gore had more votes than Bush...therefore giving Gore the most points, therefore hes the rightful president
Well i just feel like explaining my point of view, cuz it seems i blame everything wrong in the world on religion. Well, my parents baptized me, but we never attended church. My parents are not deeply religious people, but they believe that there is a god in one sense. However me, i believe there is no god. The universe was created by a giant explosion and everything evolved from a single celled organism. Also, if there WAS a god, why would he let things like 9/11 happen? I dont think its in his master plan to let 2000 innocent people die because of the acts of 15 idiotic arabs. But through all of this, i still respect all of your opinions...god the Debate forum is great!
|
|
|
Post by omeguz on Mar 13, 2004 17:32:39 GMT -5
I agree with Pinata on this one static...open your eyes!
|
|
|
Post by DarkAngel on Mar 13, 2004 17:33:45 GMT -5
Well apparently they are open, cause he IS typing, unless he can somehow read and respond to a message without seeing...STATIC CAN YOU?!
|
|
(LK)
Artificer
Posts: 733
|
Post by (LK) on Mar 13, 2004 19:40:10 GMT -5
what's the point, it isn't a debate if you all agree on the same thing you know
|
|