<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Correction:
I think it's stupid that people act like this is such a horrible thing to do and that it's descrimination. It's his opinion, and his belief. He has one just like you have yours. There's nothing "sad" about it. Get over it. You don't even live here.

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Flexor:
Can't say I'm surprised.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Flexor:
His opinions shouldn't be law. That's what you'd call a dictatorship.

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Correction:
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Correction:
Then how the hell else is he supposed to make decisions? If you were president and make gay marriage legal everywhere in the country, I could say the EXACT same thing. "Your opinion shouldn't be law!"
No, his opinion IS law. That's what makes him president.

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Molgrew:
Wasn't a dear friend of yours a girl in a boy's body

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DSettahr:
Correction, you fail to understand that it is not the Presidents job to make the rules, only to enforce them.

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Matthew Pate:
For the first, why is no one up in arms about banning licorice? I mean, that stuff's thousands of times offensive than any gay marriage; gay marriage doesn't trick you into thinking it's actually a normal flavoured jelly bean, only to leave you gasping for breath as you taste its awful licoricy flavour, and run gagging to spit out the disgusting substance into the bin...</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gandalf1120:
Matthew: Hate is fueling this fire. Whether it be religious or not, people hate the thought of gays getting married.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
A recent nationwide CNN poll found that by a margin of 64-32, those surveyed said gay marriages should not be recognized in law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages.
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">At what point is a religious belief so antiquated or so irrelevant that it should have no basis on law? Bishop Jones is not going to be forced to marry two men in the same way that Rabbi Goldenstein isn't going to have pork shoved down his mouth; but those who would like to have pork or marry whomever they love should be able to without a bunch of people trying to legislate something that doesn't concern them and has no effect on them.</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Correction:
And here is a prime example of him doing his job: enforcing a rule which he believes in.

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
His opinions shouldn't be law. That's what you'd call a dictatorship.
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
President or not, it's not his decision to make. He's supposed to run the country, not run people's lives and force others to follow his beliefs.
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
People voted for George (or any president) because they agreed with the direction he wanted to take the country in.
But the president can't just make ammendments to the constitution without consulting the people's representatives. So his opinion doesn't automatically become law.
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Correction, you fail to understand that it is not the Presidents job to make the rules, only to enforce them.
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
What about a ban against interracial relationships? That's believed by some to be morally wrong (both religious and nonreligious types). Would there anything sad about that, Correction?
All I mean, Correction, is that you can be sincere... and still be sincerely wrong.
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
btw, something I forgot to mention, you don't have to be liberal or conservative or green to see that this subject is 100% religiously motivated. Something that should not even be considered by the government.
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
It's morally wrong to steal, kill, rape, lie...
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
The similarities between interracial marriage and gay marriage are numerous and powerful. In both cases those who wish to partake already have the "right to marry", just not the person that they want to.
I've said it before, and I've no doubt I'll say it again; giving the rights to two people of the same sex to marry in no way reduces the rights of anyone else in any way.

*Why* do some people want to ban it? Because it's "icky"? Because their religion disagrees with it? For the first, why is no one up in arms about banning licorice? I mean, that stuff's thousands of times offensive than any gay marriage; gay marriage doesn't trick you into thinking it's actually a normal flavoured jelly bean, only to leave you gasping for breath as you taste its awful licoricy flavour, and run gagging to spit out the disgusting substance into the bin...

And don't you think that if suddenly religious beliefs are made into law you might find yourselves not only when trying to marry the person that you love, but when you're trying to get an Ice Cream Crunchie (damn, they're good...) at the 7-11 on a Saturday (which is closed, of course, it being wrong to work on the Sabbath), or eat pork? What about when your girlfriend is arrested for not wearing clothing that completely covers her? And what if a neighbouring tribe rapes and pillages your town for Odin?

At what point is a religious belief so antiquated or so irrelevant that it should have no basis on law? Bishop Jones is not going to be forced to marry two men in the same way that Rabbi Goldenstein isn't going to have pork shoved down his mouth; but those who would like to have pork or marry whomever they love should be able to without a bunch of people trying to legislate something that doesn't concern them and has no effect on them.
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
By definition of the Constitution the President only enforces the laws made by Congress. Y'all are crying out that this is a dictatorship. It's not. To amend the Constitution, you have to have 2/3 of both House and Senate and you have to get 3/4 of the state legislatures to approve of the amendment. This will be impossible to pass.
The gays will marry..trust me.
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Terra111:
What a familiar topic.

Anyway, as long as it would be only an opinion, it would be all right, but here the case is that Mr. Bush wants to enforce his beliefs. And that is wrong.


</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Flexor:
Precisely.

If bush is against gay marriage, then he just has to not marry another guy. And the same applies to whoever is against gay marriage. No matter how many people believe in those values, they have no right to force it upon others.

</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
His job isnt to enforce rules that he believes in, its to enforce the rules that congress decides upon. And since congress represents the people, ideally, it would be the people that make this decision.
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
What I don't like about Bush is how he seems to have given his Executive branch too much power. What I remember from the Social Studies classes while living on that side of the pond is that the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches should be equal in strength and should be able to have some influence on the other through the system of checks and balances. None should be able to overpower the other.
</font>