Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV

Originally posted by: Warbler
Ric you may not be aware, but no everyone in my country agrees with Bush's stance on homosexuality.

I myself see nothing wrong with letting homosexuals do what they want.

I AGREE. EVERY PERSON DESERVES TO HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS EVERYBODY ELSE.

I'm gald to see you guys agree with me. For those who don't agree, please try and put yourself in a gay person's shoes - for whatever reason you are attracted to people of the same sex as yourself. You don't know why, you don't neccesarily want to be, society says you shouldn't be. It's probably very scary, frustrating and confusing. Luckily, in the modern world, we have begun to accept that these people do exist, and to a large extent *most* of us are happy to let them get on with it. But imagine that you are one of these people, and you have a partner, and you are trying to lead as normal a life as possible together. But that partner is not legally recognised as your partner. He or she has no say in what happens should you die and they are not able to collect any life insurance. There are also certain tax breaks etc that married couples are entitled to. Or, taking my life as an example - I met and fell in love with an American. We got married and after filling in lots of paperwork and paying lots of fees, I was granted permission to come and live here. If I was gay and she was a man, this would not be allowed, and we would be seperated by the atlantic, which would suck. I can't think of any more examples right now but hopefully you see my point. I understand that people don't want the sanctity of marriage to be tainted, but I don't believe that gay people who legitamately wish to be legally bound should be denied that right. Gay marriage was legalised in England last year, and it didn't cause the unravelling of society.

And for those who oppose gay marriage (or homosexuality in general) on religion grounds, I thought the church and the state were supposed to remain seperate (a very wise decision IMO). I recently learnt that there have only ever been 27 amendments made to the constitution, and these were for important and worthwhile reasons that arose as America developed and grew and realised that the existing constitution needed to change: I'm talking about things like ending Slavery and giving women the vote. But should gay marriage be banned? Do we really need to abuse the constitution in this way, to actually BAN something that would benefit many and hurt few? You may not agree with it, but do we really need to go so far as AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION!? Of course not. George Bush and the republicans are playing the gay card to appeal to right wing christian voters, and in doing so they are *almost* breaking the church/state division. If anything should be constitutionally banned, it should be exploitation of voters in this way.

P.S. Back on topic - I recieved a letter from Tony Blair because I wrote to him about dropping the debt owed to England and other countries by the third world. He replied with a 3 page letter outling exactly what he planned to do at the G8 summit to try and convince other World leaders to join him in dropping the debt. Unfortunately. London was attacked by terrorists during the G8 summit, which meant Tony Blair had to leave early and media attention was taken away from the summit.

The letter was no doubt written by his secretary or assistant, but it's possible Mr.Blair dictated it. At any rate, he signed it.