I couldn't believe it at first, but ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44912-2002Jun25.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44912-2002Jun25.html
Bush signs Same-Sex Benefits Act into Law
- Thread starter Starscream
- Start date
I love this board! Everyone hates homosexuals! LOL!
Homosexuality is deviant and wrong and nasty.
Behold the complete absence of vicious flames below:
Homosexuality is deviant and wrong and nasty.
Behold the complete absence of vicious flames below:
Upvote
0
Just so we're clear, I'm very joyed by the news story above (except for the usual crap cited by homophobic religionists).
Upvote
0
Interesting article, I wonder if there's something in the law that states how long one must be a domestic partner of another to claim benifits, and what or if there's some type of proof you need to proivide that you were indeed the domestic partner of someone. I do wonder however how a christian president can sign something into law that goes against Gods teachings.
Mallory,
I for one do not Hate anyone! Even if someone is homosexual there's still hope for their salvation. God loves them just as much as anyone else, they only need to turn from their sin and start following God, they can be saved just like anyone else. While I don't agree with their lifestyle, or the fact that some of them want to push their lifestyle in my face and make me accept it as normal, I have to remember that they are no different than anyone else in the eyes of God, They are real people with real feelings and emotions, What they do is between them and God. Just like anyone else. I'm sure God doesn't view them any different than say someone with a drug or alcahol problem.
Mallory,
I for one do not Hate anyone! Even if someone is homosexual there's still hope for their salvation. God loves them just as much as anyone else, they only need to turn from their sin and start following God, they can be saved just like anyone else. While I don't agree with their lifestyle, or the fact that some of them want to push their lifestyle in my face and make me accept it as normal, I have to remember that they are no different than anyone else in the eyes of God, They are real people with real feelings and emotions, What they do is between them and God. Just like anyone else. I'm sure God doesn't view them any different than say someone with a drug or alcahol problem.
Upvote
0
With all due respect I believe his job is too be an American President, not just a Chrisitan President sevring his fellow Christian Americans.
Upvote
0
Maybe I should have said a president who claims to be a christian. His job as a president is to serve America, but as a christian he needs to also uphold the laws of God. This law serves to promote people living together without ever having to think about, or even consider marriage.
Upvote
0
Blackhawk
Monkey Boy
- Feb 5, 2002
- 4,930
- 73
- 52
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
but the President is not divorced from who he truly is. And He says he is a Christian. His job is to do what He believes to be the right thing based upon our Constitution and other laws. So he is the President of all but he can still look towards his Christian beliefs when he makes a decision.
BHWK
Upvote
0
Read the article. It's very simple. He's allowing people to choose the beneficiaries of their life insurance.
I don't see how you could argue against that notion. My life insurance, should I die, goes to my parents at the moment. Should my mother pass before me, my father will get it all.
How is that any different? And what basis does the government have decided who I will my life insurance too? I paid into it all my life, it should go where I want it to go.
I don't see how you could argue against that notion. My life insurance, should I die, goes to my parents at the moment. Should my mother pass before me, my father will get it all.
How is that any different? And what basis does the government have decided who I will my life insurance too? I paid into it all my life, it should go where I want it to go.
Upvote
0
Morat what makes this different is it's a federal benefit, I don't think they have to pay into it, but I'm not sure either.
Upvote
0
hmmmmm now that I've been thinking about this some more. I wonder if Bush looked at this as a homosexual issue, Or if the press is just touting it as such because it was the homosexuals pushing for it.
Thinking more on the subject, it would benifit everyone. Someone could name any other person as beneficiary such as, a cousin, friend, or even leave it as a donation to some charity etc...
In any case I shouldn't have been so quick to jump to a conclusion about the presidents faith in God.
I better start praying about that
Thinking more on the subject, it would benifit everyone. Someone could name any other person as beneficiary such as, a cousin, friend, or even leave it as a donation to some charity etc...
In any case I shouldn't have been so quick to jump to a conclusion about the presidents faith in God.
I better start praying about that
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
It doesn't matter. Life insurance is a benefit. Whether they pay for it, or it's company (or government) paid for, the policy-holder designates a beneficiary.
Is there any particular reason this beneficiary can be "anyone but their same-sex life partner"? I can name my father, my friend, the executor of my will, my brother...any person I so choose.
Unless that person is gay and I'm having a relationship with them?
Seems sorta strange.
Is there any particular reason this beneficiary can be "anyone but their same-sex life partner"? I can name my father, my friend, the executor of my will, my brother...any person I so choose.
Unless that person is gay and I'm having a relationship with them?
Seems sorta strange.
Upvote
0
Morat,
No, I don't think anyone should be exluded for any reason, read the post I made just after the reply I made to you. God showed me how blinded, and quick I was to jump to a conclusion about this entire issue. I was merely seeing this as a gay issue, (that's how the press portrayed it) now I think there's more to it than that.
I was quick to judge, and now I thank God for showing me that, and pray he helps me to not do so anymore.
I'm sure the president looked at more than just the gay issues when he signed the act into law. At least I hope he did!
No, I don't think anyone should be exluded for any reason, read the post I made just after the reply I made to you. God showed me how blinded, and quick I was to jump to a conclusion about this entire issue. I was merely seeing this as a gay issue, (that's how the press portrayed it) now I think there's more to it than that.
I was quick to judge, and now I thank God for showing me that, and pray he helps me to not do so anymore.
I'm sure the president looked at more than just the gay issues when he signed the act into law. At least I hope he did!
Upvote
0
If a "christian" president cannot execute the duties of his office without inflicting his religion into those duties, then that president should resign. The same thing for judges, governors, representatives, etc.
In order to be a public official, an individual must be able to separate their private viewpoints and enforce the law of the land and uphold the Constitution. Individuals who have problems doing this shouldn't be in office in the first place.
Upvote
0
Actually, no. He cannot. When making decisions for the whole country, a president (judge, governor, whatever) has to make decisions that satisfy certain criteria.
Such decisions must stand (or fall) based upon non-religious criteria. If they cannot, then the person in question is derelict in their duties. There has to be a separate, non-religious reason behind the action. If there isn't, then it's a clear case of mixing church and state, pure and simple.
For example, just because someone has a religious-based belief that blacks and whites should not marry, that does not give them the write to write such a law, or sign it into effect.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I think that gays should have equal rights but not extra benefits over heterosexuals JUST BECAUSE they are gay. I don't agree with homosexuality, but I think that they should be treated as human beings.
Upvote
0
Blackhawk
Monkey Boy
- Feb 5, 2002
- 4,930
- 73
- 52
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Okay I said that "His job is to do what He believes to be the right thing based upon our Constitution and other laws." So I know the president can't say the Bible says this is true and base his decision on that.
But a president in many ways does what his concious tells him to do. He does not have to go to the people everytime he signs a bill. SO when he is signing a bill a president looks deep inside himself to what he believes is the right thing to do. If he is a Christian many Christian values are there. So he uses them to make his decision. And many decisions are made this way.
But I never said that the President can say I believe this because I am a Christian and that is all. I just said that he can use his own beliefs. And if he is a Christian will then Christianity greatly influences his beliefs. There is just no way around it.
blackhawk
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
And if those decisions do not have a non-religioius justification, then they are wrong. A president's conscience is not supposed to take precedence over the law and the Constitution.
That is the problem. If the religion of the president influences his actions so much that it affects his judgement and causes him to make unconstitutional decisions, then that president should resign.
I am not saying that the president should give up his religion. But if he cannot make a judgement using non-religious criteria, then he is obviously too biased to be the president for the entire country. He is unfit for office and should resign.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
