GW Bush for amendment against gay marriage, what's next, Apartheid?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by AhmedFaisal, Feb 25, 2004.

  1. AhmedFaisal Guest

    #1
    Seriously, that was the last straw for this redneck punk. I have seen gay couples out there that have a better, longer lasting and more loving & caring relationship than most married heteros I know (me being hetero myself). And I have also seen gay couples being more loving and caring parents then hetero couples. This crap is so dug out of the ugliest middle ages junkbox it makes me nauseatic. Next thing they will vote for Apartheid in schools and universities. To quote the man freely, "Its time to put GW Bush and the neocons where they belong, in history's junkyard of discarded lies!". Sorry for the rant, but I got a couple of friends that are gay (men and women) that feel seriously discriminated by this BS from GWB and his cronies, they are hard working, tax paying, law abiding citizens, too, you know.
    Cheers,

    Ahmed
     
  2. IndyGopher macrumors 6502a

    IndyGopher

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2001
    Location:
    Indianapolis, IN
    #2
    A couple of things...

    First, relax, it won't happen.

    Second, this is in no way the least bit surprising. Of COURSE he supports an amendment to ban gay marriage. That's pretty central to the conservative mindset. There are of course exceptions.

    They couldn't pass a flag-burning amendment. They couldn't pass the Equal Rights Amendment.
    When people who oppose these sorts of things go ape****, the backlash against their extremism does more harm than good. Step back, review your history, and trust that knee-jerk passion-of-the-moment causes almost NEVER get the backing they need for a movement of this size. Granted, Prohibition did, but it didn't last. When you react this way, the implication (or at least the inference) is that you are the lone sane voice out there, and that really puts people off.
     
  3. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #3
    Maybe this should be in the political forum ??
     
  4. AhmedFaisal thread starter Guest

    #5
    I agree with you...

    You are right of course. But when you or people dear and close to you are affected by this kind of low style political behaviour it becomes hard to stay rational. It doesn't affect me myself much (hetero german living in the US at the moment) but it does affect some very good friends very much and it pains me to see them become the political stabbing tool of a man like that. These are real people with real feelings and shouldn't be abused like that.
    Cheers,

    Ahmed
     
  5. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #6
    Re: GW Bush for amendment against gay marriage, what's next, Apartheid?

    I don't see how not letting people marry leads to institutionalized discrimation. Gay people have the exact same rights as everyone else. This isn't anything close to an apartheid type affair, there is no institutionalized discrimation, everyone is free to marry whomever they want but that doesn't mean the state or nation has to recognize it.
     
  6. scem0 macrumors 604

    scem0

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    back in NYC!
    #7
    If the state or nation does not recognize a gay marriage but recognizes a hetero marriage then your statement that gay people have the same rights as everyone else is false.

    scem0
     
  7. AhmedFaisal thread starter Guest

    #8
    Re: Re: GW Bush for amendment against gay marriage, what's next, Apartheid?

    Fact is, that it does recognize marriage between men and women which certain rights and benefits attached. Such are inheritance, right to information in hospitals, right to refuse testimony in court, tax benefits, being on the same health insurance as your partner etc. etc.. Some of these can be obtained of course by legal paperwork however there have been many occasions where that was not sufficient as people were still refused information, wills were still overturned etc. etc.. Why should gay people that have decided to stay together and support eachother in a relationship similar to a hetero couple be refused to have these benefits when from the emotional part and the part of commitment they invest equally?
    Cheers,

    Ahmed
     
  8. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #9
    How is state recognition of a marriage a right?
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
     
  10. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #11
    Re: Re: Re: GW Bush for amendment against gay marriage, what's next, Apartheid?

    Marriage is an institution that exist long before any of these benefits that it allows even existed. Marriage is a cultural tradition of the super-majority in this country and as such should be protected. The tradition cannot be redefine by the courts nor the government no matter what laws are passed. Small minorities seem bent on using the government to infringe on these traditions. Contrary to what some may believe, majorities have rights too.

    The governement should work to allow benefits for everyone but marriage should not be open for redefinition by a small minority of people. And they should not be trying to use the tools of government to hijack it for their own uses.
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    Re: GW Bush for amendment against gay marriage, what's next, Apartheid?

    That 'tradition' you speak of once consisted of forced and arranged marriages as well as plural marriage. Should that have been redefined? Would you advocate going back to the time when women were the property of their husbands, because that's how marriage has traditionally been defined? What gives you the right to freeze the definition of marriage we use in 2004? Why not the 1904 definition? Or the 1304 definition? Are we that much better than previous generations to presume we have it perfect right now?
     
  12. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #13
    Re: Re: GW Bush for amendment against gay marriage, what's next, Apartheid?

    Clearly, I was stating that it is completely dependent on the tradition of the super-majority at the time. If the super-majority of people feel that gay marriage should be included in the "tradition" then there would be no problem, but that is clearly not the case.
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    Re: Re: Re: GW Bush for amendment against gay marriage, what's next, Apartheid?

    It's not up to the majority, it's up to the courts. If things like this were decided by the majority you'd still see drinking fountains labeled 'colored'.
     
  14. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #15
    Re: Re: Re: GW Bush for amendment against gay marriage, what's next, Apartheid?

    my view of the US and its constitution is to protect all its citizens from oppression by the State. that's been turned on its head in this case.

    do you, in fact, personally know anyone who's gay?
     
  15. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #16
    Re: Re: Re: Re: GW Bush for amendment against gay marriage, what's next, Apartheid?

    Yes, majorities have "rights" -- but minorities have "rights", as well. And a majority can not infringe on a minority's "rights" -- that what "rights" are all about.
     
  16. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #17
    Re: Re: Re: Re: GW Bush for amendment against gay marriage, what's next, Apartheid?

    I glad we have to courts to run the democracy, I would hate to actually be able to vote and have it mean something.

    If the majority still supported racial discrimation, then it would still exist. The support for racial discrimination changed during the civil rights movement.

    If the courts were all that mattered, then MLK Jr. would have been filing lawsuits and not protesting on the street for all the public to see!
     
  17. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #18
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GW Bush for amendment against gay marriage, what's next, Apartheid?

    Very very true.

    But what happens when the minority "rights" conflicts with the majority's rights? If giving rights to the minority, means taking rights away from the majority, does that do either party justice?

    EDIT: gay marriage is the example
     
  18. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #19
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GW Bush for amendment against gay marriage, what's next, Apartheid?

    cite examples
     
  19. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #20
    Re: Re: Re: Re: GW Bush for amendment against gay marriage, what's next, Apartheid?

    I have yet to see anybody being oppressed with or without marriage.

    Yes, but I don't know any gays that are actively pushing to get married. From what they told me, there are a number of gays that don't want marriage and don't really care about the whole gay marriage thing.
     
  20. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #21
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GW Bush for amendment against gay marriage, what's next, Apartheid?

    seriously, are you blind?
     
  21. Dippo macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #22
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GW Bush for amendment against gay marriage, what's next, Apartheid?

    Would you like to cite some examples of this oppression?

    EDIT: Well, I will come back later to see how this thread has progressed
     
  22. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #23
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GW Bush for amendment against gay marriage, what's next, Apartheid?

    ah, turned the tables. very clever.

    i can do so and even stay on topic. if you're asking about state oppression, it can be demonstrated in the rights denied to gays -- marriage, inheritence, insurance sharing, lack of protection in having to incriminate one's spouse.

    this one is harder to prove, but i know gays who have either been denied jobs or fired because of their orientation.

    depending on your definition of "oppression," i've seen gay-bashing on the streets of chicago. mostly verbal, but i've seen two actual fights. one, to support the stereotype, was a group of sailors beating up a couple gays outside Berlin nightclub, about 10 years ago. (it was broken up quickly)

    honestly, just because you either choose to not acknowledge a problem, or really are just blind to it, shouldn't mean that you can declare that the problem exists nowhere.

    i know quite a few gays who are very upset w/ yesterday's announcement, though not surprised. some would indeed like to get married, the rest would like the option. none have yet voiced to me that they don't care.
     
  23. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #24
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GW Bush for amendment against gay marriage, what's next, Apartheid?

    Untrue. One of the major civil rights Supreme Court decisions (Brown v. Board of Education) outlawing segregation in public schools, came in 1952, near the beginning of the modern civil rights movement. Even after the civil rights acts of the 1960s, the court actions were required to ensure the enforcement of their provisions.
     
  24. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #25
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GW Bush for amendment against gay marriage, what's next, Apar

    Nobody is taking away your right to be married. It is shear lunacy to say that that equal inclusivness of rights equals less of it for you. In fact the opposite is true.

    If I hate Joe it does not mean Joe's marriage cheapens my marriage. My marriage is between me and my wife. Are you not going to get married because of homosexual marriage? I even know of a heterosexual couple that is refusing to get married because of the laws against gay marriage. So there. That's real evidence that marriage discrimination hurts heterosexual marriages.
     

Share This Page