``He (Bush) believes that there are ways that states can deal with some of the issues that have been raised, for example, visitation rights in hospitals, or the right to inherit, or benefit rights, property rights, but these can all be dealt with at the state level, without overturning the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.''
First, I want to say that I respect those who decide that homosexual marraige is immoral. Although I dont agree with them, a lot of my morals come from my religion... honosty, dont kill, love/honor your parents and reciprocity. I just never picked up on the whole ban gay marriage thing. Although disgusting, I don't view it as immorral.
And because I don't view it as immorral, I beleive that they should have equal rights that comes with marriage... hospital visitation, benefit rights, property rights... what Bush said above. So I was surprised when I read this, cause I did not know that Bush supported them having those rights without getting officially married. But if Bush supports giving them those benefits of marriage without officially being recognized as a marriage, then exactly what is the purpose of banning gay-marriage?
Well, Bush, along with all the others, want to protect the sanctity of marriage. However, marriage is a religious sacrament. So basically they are interferring with religion, which in my opinion, is violating "separation of church and state".
I also want to point out that although his morals is to ban gay-marriage, he's still showing support for homosexual unions (which includes having sex). This seems hypocritical to me. What is also hypocritical to me is those people (mainly men) who LOVE to watch lesbians go at it (because it turns them on), then say homosexual relations are immorral. If you think a specific typ of sex is immorral, you should not be getting your jollies from it! (Sorry if saying this is offensive to anyone)
Comments