Main > Everything Else
election irony
Grasshopper:
Allroy, I agree that the whole 'gay marriage' issue does expose Bush's hypocrisy. On the one hand he continually bangs on about promoting 'freedom' around the world, but then goes to extraordinary lenghts to deny a minority in his own country a basic right enjoyed by the majority.
I would assume that changing the US constitution requires a lot of time and effort. Bush's attempt to push through a constitutional bar to gay marriage smacks of vindictiveness, and makes me question his priorities.
Democracy is not about 51% of the population having absolute control over the remaining 49%. It's about give and take, and compromise. Granting gay people the right to marry would have no significant effect on the straight majority. So why not give them that right? I just don't get it. What happened to the principle of 'live and let live'? Isn't that what America 'the great melting pot' is all about?
Actually I would go further. I would like to see the right to 'marriage' extended to people in non-sexual but dependant relationships, for example a brother and sister living together. I don't have a strong opinion on whether such relationships should be called 'marriage' but they should definitely be legally equivalent to marriage.
mahuti:
Playing devil's advocate... Gay people have the same rights as straits. A gay man CAN marry a woman. A gay woman can marry a man. A strait man cannot marry a strait man, a gay man cannot marry a gay man. The issue is "same sex marriage" not sexual orientation. That's probably what it really comes down to... I'm not naive enough to think that the people screaming for same sex marriage are all a bunch of straits that need health care.
Anyway, I do agree that a constitutional ban seems stupid, and a waste of time... this is an issue that should be left up to the states. Unfortunately, since ALL states have to observe marriages given in other states, it must become a national issue.
It's a pretty big issue, regardless of sexuality. It opens the door to a lot of issues, law, money, inheritance, family. I can see why people are so vehement on both sides of the issue. I think it trivializes the issue putting it down to only a religious & moral one, though... regardless of who's doing it, Bush, or the same-sex camp. Like the other 3rd rail issues, Social Security, medical law & health insurance, and the tax code, the whole marriage thing is something that should really be examined, but is difficult. Arbitrarily changing the structure of a legal system that has been in practice for thousands of years, really should have some thought behind it.
TA Pilot:
If it was a population map, and the vote was split about 50/50, wouldn't the areas of the circles for the blue and the red be about equal? I'm not about to start counting them, but it's obvious to me that they're not.
Depends on the scale of the circles.
TA Pilot:
Can someone explain to me why gay people have different RIGHTS than straight people do?
Marriage isnt a right - its a privilege. It is defined by the state as the people of the stae would have it.
Plainly, the people want marriage defined as a union of a man and woman.
Zakk:
--- Quote from: TA Pilot on November 07, 2004, 04:13:49 pm ---Marriage isnt a right - its a privilege.
--- End quote ---
Dang, and I thought it was a union under God. Sure glad the goverment can straighten that out. Can they get rid of a few of the commandments too? It would make things a lot more fun.