now, much more important than Bloomberg's school are these 2 news... Bush Wants Only Man-And-Woman Marriages 48 minutes ago Add White House - AP to My Yahoo! By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) says Americans should respect homosexuals, but he wants to make sure marriage is defined strictly as a union between a man and a woman. Government lawyers are exploring measures to enshrine that definition in the law, the president said Wednesday. "I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other," he said. Still, he urged Americans not to ostracize gays. "I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own," the president said, invoking a biblical passage from the Gospel of St. Matthew. "I think it is very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country," Bush said. His remarks offered a sop to conservatives who were angered earlier this month after he distanced himself from a House proposal for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., was the main sponsor of a proposal to amend the Constitution to read: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." It was referred on June 25 to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000, and is still trying to bridge the gap between his conservative base and critical swing voters. Some advisers fear any hint of intolerance will alienate middle-of-the-road Americans. Recent polls have shown that just over half of Americans oppose gay marriage, though that opposition has been declining in recent years. A CBS-New York Times poll released Thursday found that 55 percent oppose gay marriage and 40 percent support it. On the other hand, a Supreme Court decision last month that ended the criminalization of gay sex seems to have occasioned a backlash, with more Americans in a recent poll saying such relations should not be legal. Bush's statement touched off passionate responses from groups with an interest in the issue. "There is a real movement for same-sex marriage, and if the president doesn't intervene, and if he doesn't take leadership in this area, we could lose marriage in this country the way we know it," said Franklin Graham, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and the son of the Rev. Billy Graham. "I think the president is doing the right thing." Gay-rights activists and a member of Congress took offense at Bush's comment that "we're all sinners," interpreting the remark as reflecting on gays and lesbians. "While we respect President Bush's religious views, it is unbecoming of the president of the United States to characterize same-sex couples as 'sinners,'" said Matt Foreman, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (news - web sites)'s executive director. Rep. Janice Schakowsky (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., wrote Bush a letter charging that he "seemed to equate homosexuality with sin," and demanding that the president apologize. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush had not meant to single out homosexuals as "sinners." "The president doesn't believe in casting stones. He believes we ought to treat one another with dignity and respect," McClellan said. The Human Rights Campaign, which says it is the nation's largest gay and lesbian political group, branded Bush's exploration of a law on gay marriage a "call to codify discrimination." In 1996, President Clinton (news - web sites) signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allowed states to ignore same-sex unions licensed elsewhere. Bush's aides have said they are studying ways to strengthen the law. "We ask the president to explain to the American people why DOMA does not already meet the objective he set this morning," the Human Rights Campaign said. The group also pointed to a statement by Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) that suggested he had a different view than Bush's. Asked during an October 2000 debate whether homosexuals should have all the constitutional rights enjoyed by each American citizen, Cheney said: "I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area. "People should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into," said Cheney. "It's really no one else's business, in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard." Cheney's daughter Mary is a lesbian. ----------------------------------------------- Vatican Starts Campaign Vs. Gay Marriage 1 hour, 10 minutes ago By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer VATICAN CITY - The Vatican (news - web sites) launched a global campaign against gay marriages Thursday, warning Catholic politicians that support of same-sex unions was "gravely immoral" and urging non-Catholics to join the offensive. The Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a 12-page set of guidelines with the approval of Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II in a bid to stem the increase in laws granting legal rights to homosexual unions in Europe and North America. "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family," the document said. "Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law." The Associated Press was first to report on the outline of the plan in a story Monday. The issue is particularly charged in the United States, where some in Congress have proposed a constitutional ban on gay marriage to counter state laws granting legal recognition to same-sex unions. President Bush (news - web sites) said Wednesday that marriage was defined strictly as a union between a man and a woman and said he wants to "codify that one way or the other." The Vatican document, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons," sets out a plan for politicians when confronted with proposed legislation granting homosexual couples the same rights as married heterosexuals. It also comes out strongly against allowing gay couples to adopt, saying children raised by same-sex parents face developmental "obstacles" because they are deprived of having either a mother or a father. "Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children," it said. It said gay adoptions contradicted the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which holds that the best interests of the child are paramount. The document also says Catholic politicians have a "moral duty" to publicly oppose laws granting recognition to homosexual unions and to vote against them. If the laws are already on the books, politicians must speak out against them and work to repeal them. "To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral," the document said. The Vatican said its guidelines were not only intended for Catholic lawmakers but for non-Christians and everyone "committed to promoting and defending the common good of society" since the issue concerned natural moral law, not just Church doctrine. The document comes after an appeals court in Canada ruled in June that the country's definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman is unconstitutional, paving the way for legalized gay unions. Vermont and some European nations — including Germany, France, Sweden and Denmark — have "civil union" laws giving same-sex couples the rights and responsibilities of marriage. The document doesn't contain any new Church teachings on the issue, repeating much of the Vatican's previous comments on homosexuality and marriage, which it defines as a sacred union between man and woman designed to create new human life. It said homosexuals shouldn't be discriminated against, but said denying gay couples the rights afforded in traditional marriages isn't discrimination. Monsignor Angel Rodriguez Luno, a professor at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, noted in a statement released by the Vatican that homosexual relationships, like other human relationships, need not be legally recognized. Basic friendship, for example, isn't defined legally because it is a private relationship, he said. In a footnote, the Vatican document noted that there was a danger that laws legalizing same-sex unions could actually encourage someone with a homosexual orientation to seek out a partner to "exploit the provisions of the law." On Thursday, a small group of demonstrators from Italy's Radical Party held up banners at the edge of St. Peter's Square to protest the document. The banners read "No Vatican, No Taliban," and "Democracy Yes, Theocracy No." Other opposition to the document came from the Green Party in predominantly Catholic Austria. Ulrike Lunacek, a party spokeswoman, said Catholic politicians should follow human rights conventions, "not the old-fashioned views of the Vatican." "This hierarchy, which also rules on other issues like forbidding the use of condoms to avoid AIDS (news - web sites), is far from reality," she said in a statement. Volker Beck, a lawmaker from Germany's Greens party, which led the drive for the same-sex civil union legislation, described the Vatican guidelines as "a document of narrow-minded fanaticism." A leading conservative politician and a Catholic, Wolfgang Bosbach, gave it a warmer reception: "I assume every Catholic lawmaker will take account of the Holy Father's words in making his decision."

---

i agree with bush. we shouldn't judge gays but we should not glorify them either! marriage is reserved for a man and a woman. if you allow two men to get married where's the limit? how about i want to marry my sheep...if i can marry another man what argument will you use to stop me from marrying a sheep. or marrying my favorite coffee mug. and then my coffee mug can have health benefits. "A sure cure for seasickness is to sit under a tree." -Spike Milligan II

---

II - :))

---

"...how about i want to marry my sheep...if i can marry another man what argument will you use to stop me from marrying a sheep. or marrying my favorite coffee mug...." Sheep??? Man??? COFFEE MUG??? Kisulya!!!!!!!!!!!! Where are you???????????? We need you here! Urgent! Someone is going nuts here.................................. If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntensityInsanity: i agree with bush. we shouldn't judge gays but we should not glorify them either! marriage is reserved for a man and a woman. if you allow two men to get married where's the limit? how about i want to marry my sheep...if i can marry another man what argument will you use to stop me from marrying a sheep. or marrying my favorite coffee mug. and then my coffee mug can have health benefits. "A sure cure for seasickness is to sit under a tree." -Spike Milligan II

---

Absolutely! You can teach your parrot to say “I do” and cheat on you tax return by stating that you are not single! Plus, your parrot will never ask you where have you been all night and who was that blond that you brought home last weekend! But on more serious note, marriage as a legal act was first initiated by church as a union of man and woman, and only later was adopted as a civil law. There was never anything said in that law about union between man and another man. Since we can not know all impacts (legal and social) that this union may bring, I agree with Bush and II that constitution should limit marriage to only opposite sexes. “The more things change, the more they stay the same...” (Machiavelli)

---

I agree - marriage is for a man and a woman. Same sex unions have to be called something else. I'm not ready to throw away more than 2000 years of human history and culture. Homosexuality is, after all, a deviation from normal sexuality. There is nothing wrong with it, but only until minority of population practises it. Remember what happened with Roman Empire ? "...Нашу песню не задушишь, не убьешь..."

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

Zacroy roat u 2. We are talking about marriage between 2 adults; no animals, no kids. The religious origins are irrelevant, society has evolved, and homosexuality is accepted (not among bush and his apes) in the developed world. If you 2 feel in love w/ eachother and became "dirty" 2 pidars in a couple of years and wanted to live together, how would u feel? On a funny note: "I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own," the president said Im confused, what kind of log Bush is talking about?

---

says who? a lot of great civilizations had no problems with homosexual relationship. and in many (including judeo-christian) marrige was between man and womEn... why should a religion dictate people who do they love and marry?... this is a human rights issue... conservatives believe that government should not interfere with people personal lives (religion, family, raising kids), so why are they dictating who to marry?... just another hypocrasy from conservatives..

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntensityInsanity: i agree with bush. we shouldn't judge gays but we should not glorify them either! marriage is reserved for a man and a woman.

---

lyosha http://www.mindspring.com/~snake76 ****************** What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

---

lyosha
******************
What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by snake: says who? a lot of great civilizations had no problems with homosexual relationship. and in many (including judeo-christian) marrige was between man and womEn... why should a religion dictate people who do they love and marry?... this is a human rights issue... conservatives believe that government should not interfere with people personal lives (religion, family, raising kids), so why are they dictating who to marry?... just another hypocrasy from conservatives..

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntensityInsanity: i agree with bush. we shouldn't judge gays but we should not glorify them either! marriage is reserved for a man and a woman.

---

lyosha http://www.mindspring.com/~snake76 ****************** What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

---

then please explain why i cannot marry my dog and why i cannot marry my stuffed animal. Using your logic, why should I not be able to do these things? After all, who are you to tell me that I cannot marry a dog or a stuffed animal? And then I can get some nice tax deductions. Actually, maybe I want to marry a tree. There is a nice tree in my neighborhood and whenever i pass it i cannot help but look at it's large branches and those big juicy roots coming out of the ground...and those leaves...ooo they are so sexy. I want to marry this tree. Why should I not be allowed to do so? If two men can do it, why can't I marry the tree? "A sure cure for seasickness is to sit under a tree." -Spike Milligan II

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tanja: Zacroy roat u 2.

---

а с кем ты говоришь? если тебе не нравится что мы говорим здесь тогда найди себе другой форум где ты будешь людям рот закрывать. "A sure cure for seasickness is to sit under a tree." -Spike Milligan II

---

i am assuming that you are joking otherwise you are just an idiot if you don't see the difference... and on the more serious note, according to our constitution and Universal Declaration of Human Rights all HUMANS are equal... so we should treat them equally... plus, homosexuality is not that "unusual"... the cornerstone of our civilization (Greec) had no problems with it... this issue is not a joke for thousands of people...

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntensityInsanity:

quote:

---

Originally posted by snake: says who? a lot of great civilizations had no problems with homosexual relationship. and in many (including judeo-christian) marrige was between man and womEn... why should a religion dictate people who do they love and marry?... this is a human rights issue... conservatives believe that government should not interfere with people personal lives (religion, family, raising kids), so why are they dictating who to marry?... just another hypocrasy from conservatives..

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntensityInsanity: i agree with bush. we shouldn't judge gays but we should not glorify them either! marriage is reserved for a man and a woman.

---

lyosha http://www.mindspring.com/~snake76 ****************** What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

---

then please explain why i cannot marry my dog and why i cannot marry my stuffed animal. Using your logic, why should I not be able to do these things? After all, who are you to tell me that I cannot marry a dog or a stuffed animal? And then I can get some nice tax deductions. Actually, maybe I want to marry a tree. There is a nice tree in my neighborhood and whenever i pass it i cannot help but look at it's large branches and those big juicy roots coming out of the ground...and those leaves...ooo they are so sexy. I want to marry this tree. Why should I not be allowed to do so? If two men can do it, why can't I marry the tree? "A sure cure for seasickness is to sit under a tree." -Spike Milligan II

---

lyosha http://www.mindspring.com/~snake76 ****************** What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

---

lyosha
******************
What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by snake: says who? a lot of great civilizations had no problems with homosexual relationship. and in many (including judeo-christian) marrige was between man and womEn... why should a religion dictate people who do they love and marry?... this is a human rights issue... conservatives believe that government should not interfere with people personal lives (religion, family, raising kids), so why are they dictating who to marry?... just another hypocrasy from conservatives..

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntensityInsanity: i agree with bush. we shouldn't judge gays but we should not glorify them either! marriage is reserved for a man and a woman.

---

lyosha http://www.mindspring.com/~snake76 ****************** What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

---

People, you are looking at this thing only from a sexual point! The fact that two people can have sex with each-other should not automatically qualify them to be able to get married!!! Let me repeat this again: marriage by its historical and legal definition is a union between man and woman! Union between man and another man is not marriage - call it whatever you like, give to it whatever rights you want, but do not call it marriage because marriage it is not! This is a simple example when government should protect the rights of its citizens from politically correct nutcases pushing their liberal agenda and undermining our moral values! Democrats are trying to use this issue to win some votes but they are the biggest hypocrites themselves (“Don’t ask - don’t tell”). “The more things change, the more they stay the same...” (Machiavelli)

---

i am just curious, how would you feel if the majority of the population will decide that "an unusual" group of people, a minority of people, has no rights to get married... and let's say that minority, that group of people is jews.... let's see.. germans did something like that before....

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntensityInsanity:

quote:

---

Originally posted by snake: says who? a lot of great civilizations had no problems with homosexual relationship. and in many (including judeo-christian) marrige was between man and womEn... why should a religion dictate people who do they love and marry?... this is a human rights issue... conservatives believe that government should not interfere with people personal lives (religion, family, raising kids), so why are they dictating who to marry?... just another hypocrasy from conservatives..

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntensityInsanity: i agree with bush. we shouldn't judge gays but we should not glorify them either! marriage is reserved for a man and a woman.

---

lyosha http://www.mindspring.com/~snake76 ****************** What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

---

then please explain why i cannot marry my dog and why i cannot marry my stuffed animal. Using your logic, why should I not be able to do these things? After all, who are you to tell me that I cannot marry a dog or a stuffed animal? And then I can get some nice tax deductions. Actually, maybe I want to marry a tree. There is a nice tree in my neighborhood and whenever i pass it i cannot help but look at it's large branches and those big juicy roots coming out of the ground...and those leaves...ooo they are so sexy. I want to marry this tree. Why should I not be allowed to do so? If two men can do it, why can't I marry the tree? "A sure cure for seasickness is to sit under a tree." -Spike Milligan II

---

lyosha http://www.mindspring.com/~snake76 ****************** What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

---

lyosha
******************
What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

A v Canade nedavno razreshili!!! If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.

hold on.. and you call yourself a conservative?.. government has to do something? it has to protect moral values?.. who's moral values?.. who says that your moral values are better then mine?.. government should stay away from enforcing any moral or religious values.... we already had communism and fasism.. enough of that!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TAP3AH: This is a simple example when government should protect the rights of its citizens from politically correct nutcases pushing their liberal agenda and undermining our moral values!

---

lyosha http://www.mindspring.com/~snake76 ****************** What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

---

lyosha
******************
What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.