ouch... right before an election campaign as well

 

just like it says in your sig "i just don't care" :)

 

 

 

but the surprising thing is that 83% of the U.S. would agree with a constitutional ban...so it's not really that bad politically....but u have to admire him for doing with what he believes in...

 

in that case its surely a propaganda stunt... thought through by his 'team' of course!

 

Why do people think that stuff that people or politicians do that sometimes don't favor the majority is propaganda????? Please let me know..... :embarrased:

 

how can it not be propaganda with it occurring so close to a presidential election!!

yeah' date=' that's another thing that always bugs me.[/quote']

 

religion??

 

no, the idea that religion somehow has a place in politics.

 

i'm not accusing anybody here of doing this, but this whole thing reminds me of how people i know will look at arabic countries and talk about how the islamic religion is too closely integrated with the government, then five minutes later reject same sex marriages on the basis that it offends their christian ideals.

 

as for the whole "majority rules" thing, should the majority still rule if the majority supports something that's essentially unconstitutional? "marriage" may be a religious concept, but the fact remains that it's also a government institution, and if the government will let married people have benefits like tax breaks and insurance breaks, etc etc, it is WRONG to deny that to ANYBODY.

 

*agrees*

ouch... right before an election campaign as well

 

just like it says in your sig "i just don't care" :)

 

 

 

but the surprising thing is that 83% of the U.S. would agree with a constitutional ban...so it's not really that bad politically....but u have to admire him for doing with what he believes in...

 

in that case its surely a propaganda stunt... thought through by his 'team' of course!

 

Why do people think that stuff that people or politicians do that sometimes don't favor the majority is propaganda????? Please let me know..... :embarrased:

 

how can it not be propoganda with it occurring so close to a presidential election!!

 

I agree with you Ian, that Bush is being too populist here, but let me give the opposing argument:

 

In California and Massachusetts there are somewhat major movements to make "gay marriage" legal. Actually, in Massachusetts it is now legal. Bush could be said to be responding to this turn of events, a turn that has just recently presented itself.

thank u ginger....

 

 

And just to let u guys know...CNN is a liberal news station so of course they are going to be biast in one way....i just think that this thing should not be allowed

this is what I don't understand about America, all the states seem 'independent' of one another. For example, its legal to gamble in Las Vegas but the bordering state deems it illegal. Have I got that right? :o

I don't wanna criticize/attack anyone here, but what would be so bad about homosexual couples being married? I don't really see what negative effect that would have.

thank u ginger....

 

 

And just to let u guys know...CNN is a liberal news station so of course they are going to be biast in one way....i just think that this thing should not be allowed

 

Just because you think CNN is a "liberal news station" doesn't mean their poll data should be discredited.

 

Evoking arguments like "liberal news station" is a little too judgemental, a little to prejudicial, a little too Rush Limbaugh.

I don't wanna criticize/attack anyone here' date=' but what would be so bad about homosexual couples being married? I don't really see what negative effect that would have.[/quote']

 

People are arguing that it undermines the sanctity of marriage.

 

I obviously disagree, but they're saying "marriage" has a set definition.

this is what I don't understand about America' date=' all the states seem 'independent' of one another. For example, its legal to gamble in Las Vegas but the bordering state deems it illegal. Have I got that right? :o[/quote']

 

You have that right.

 

The Constitution of the United States is a very small document governing a relatively small number of issues. The 13th "rule" states that the individual states have domain over all other things.

 

And those other things encompass a lot, the gambling example included.

 

Bush wants to add to this ovearching Constitution.

I don't wanna criticize/attack anyone here' date=' but what would be so bad about homosexual couples being married? I don't really see what negative effect that would have.[/quote']

 

People are arguing that it undermines the sanctity of marriage.

 

I obviously disagree, but they're saying "marriage" has a set definition.

 

That (the sanctity thing) sounds so medieval. :stunned: It reminds me of the times when red-haired women were considered witches. :-/

Thanks cuz i really like being compared to Rush Libaugh..... :/

 

 

But anyways Jewel....it's not that it will hurt anyone...it's just that well morally it is wrong to Bush and to a lot of other people.....

this is what I don't understand about America' date=' all the states seem 'independent' of one another. For example, its legal to gamble in Las Vegas but the bordering state deems it illegal. Have I got that right? :o[/quote']

 

 

In the states, each state each has it's own rights sepearate from the Federal Government, so it can make it's own laws which are proposed to legislation, so Nevada can deem gambling legal while a bordering state can deem it illegal.

Thanks cuz i really like being compared to Rush Libaugh..... :/

 

 

But anyways Jewel....it's not that it will hurt anyone...it's just that well morally it is wrong to Bush and to a lot of other people.....

 

 

I didn't mean to compare you to Rush ... just automatically called CNN liberal or Fox conservative doesn't seem to be a clear, let alone stipulated, concept.

 

Yeah, a lot of people do believe it is morally wrong. But is it right for those people to legislate that?

Homosexual relationships existed in ancient times, long before the USA of today "existed". I thought we lived in modern times. :stunned:

i agree with bush

I don't wanna criticize/attack anyone here' date=' but what would be so bad about homosexual couples being married? I don't really see what negative effect that would have.[/quote']

 

People are arguing that it undermines the sanctity of marriage.

 

I obviously disagree, but they're saying "marriage" has a set definition.

 

That (the sanctity thing) sounds so medieval. :stunned: It reminds me of the times when red-haired women were considered witches. :-/

 

 

That's really what it comes down to. Basically, Christians in this country strongly feel that marriage is a certain thing, and allowing homosexuals to be "married" destroys that concept.

Well we have to look at who has the "real" power here...and this would be congress and Bush...Bush has the right to propose an ammendment not having to ask the people what they think...

 

 

and as far as labeling the news stations....CNN is conservative a lot of the time they are showing one side of the issue like the war in Iraq the only focused on the bad side of the war and all but Fox just told it like it was...didn't give an opinion either way

Well we have to look at who has the "real" power here...and this would be congress and Bush...Bush has the right to propose an ammendment not having to ask the people what they think...

 

 

and as far as labeling the news stations....CNN is conservative a lot of the time they are showing one side of the issue like the war in Iraq the only focused on the bad side of the war and all but Fox just told it like it was...didn't give an opinion either way

 

So Fox is objective and CNN is now?

OK. That's your opinion.

I would suggest worrying more about the content of the news and less on how it's being delivered. It really sounds like you're towing a party line.

Homosexual relationships existed in ancient times' date=' long before the USA of today "existed". I thought we lived in modern times. :stunned:[/quote']

 

 

yeah but that still doesn't mean that it wasn't looked down upon...but the places that kind of accepted it were Greece and Rome and such....but what does that have to do with now???

cnn is so not conservative

Homosexual relationships existed in ancient times' date=' long before the USA of today "existed". I thought we lived in modern times. :stunned:[/quote']

 

 

yeah but that still doesn't mean that it wasn't looked down upon...but the places that kind of accepted it were Greece and Rome and such....but what does that have to do with now???

 

 

What does it have to do with now?

Christians in the U.S. keep trying to portray homosexuality as unnatural. That's an underlying current in this debate: The demonization of these people.

 

And it's wrong.

Well we have to look at who has the "real" power here...and this would be congress and Bush...Bush has the right to propose an ammendment not having to ask the people what they think...

 

 

and as far as labeling the news stations....CNN is conservative a lot of the time they are showing one side of the issue like the war in Iraq the only focused on the bad side of the war and all but Fox just told it like it was...didn't give an opinion either way

 

So Fox is objective and CNN is now?

OK. That's your opinion.

I would suggest worrying more about the content of the news and less on how it's being delivered. It really sounds like you're towing a party line.

 

 

Towing a Party Line??

cnn is so not conservative

 

People are always throwing around conservative, liberal, etc ... I don't see much of a difference between CNN, Fox, MSNBC, the networks ... I don't know. It just seems like this big blame game to start labeling them.

Homosexual relationships existed in ancient times' date=' long before the USA of today "existed". I thought we lived in modern times. :stunned:[/quote']

 

 

yeah but that still doesn't mean that it wasn't looked down upon...but the places that kind of accepted it were Greece and Rome and such....but what does that have to do with now???

 

 

What does it have to do with now?

Christians in the U.S. keep trying to portray homosexuality as unnatural. That's an underlying current in this debate: The demonization of these people.

 

And it's wrong.

 

what you said :)

 

Btw, I think it's really good that we can talk about this without ending up in arguments. *thumbs up*

Well we have to look at who has the "real" power here...and this would be congress and Bush...Bush has the right to propose an ammendment not having to ask the people what they think...

 

 

and as far as labeling the news stations....CNN is conservative a lot of the time they are showing one side of the issue like the war in Iraq the only focused on the bad side of the war and all but Fox just told it like it was...didn't give an opinion either way

 

So Fox is objective and CNN is now?

OK. That's your opinion.

I would suggest worrying more about the content of the news and less on how it's being delivered. It really sounds like you're towing a party line.

 

 

Towing a Party Line??

 

Yes.

 

I'm not suggesting that's a bad or a good thing.