Bush promotes measure against gay marriage

[Styles 0]

For the 100th time, for people who skipped high school government class and don't know how anything works (i.e. netslob), Bush has nothing to do with it. So you can say Bush hates gays and want to send them to concentration camps all you like, but as the executive he has no authority to pass such a law other than to sign off on the law passed by both houses of congress, and it's already died there. Bush, like every other president in history takes a side on an issue (which is why Kerry couldn't be president, don't think he could handle that part), and acts as previously mentioned a "cheerleader" of sort for the congressmen on the side of the issue he agrees with. He has no other influence.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

He's not (JOTW).

[Styles 0]

He's not (JOTW).

I don't know how that could have escaped me this whole time. I guess I missed the thread where this was revealed. No wonder him and Marney we're always fighting like a married couple!

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

He's mentioned it a few times in the past. Lately, he mentioned it in the "Would You" thread in the LS&D folder.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I feel scared that someone is tracking my posts now. Spaceman Spiff, are you sure you aren't one of John Ashcroft's secret agents?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Perhaps we have a Wonkitator on our hands, Jobber.

Actually, at times I feel like I'm dealing with Flack.

 

Heavily armored with party line orthodoxy, and always hunkered down in well defended positions, Hack and Flack may momentarily waver under a determined attack, but they never suffer comprehensive defeat in battle. Even the most powerful Warriors eventually weary of hammering on them and will quit the field thoroughly exhausted without having made the tiniest dent in Hack and Flack's tough shields.

 

I'd say that's Mike to the letter except that they have a crossover index of 1 and I get the feeling that he hasn't always been a one-party ticket kind of guy.

[Guest combat_rock]

Honestly, I can't see what Bush has to gain by pushing this. He already has the religious conservatives, so he doesn't need to do this. He's only putting off people in the middle.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Perhaps Bush actually doesn't believe in gay marriage? There's a wild concept.

 

Oh, and I've known for a while that JOTW likes the baloney pole ... err, not from personal experience or anything ... umm --

 

Soooo, how about that Mikey Moore? He sure is fat...

[Guest combat_rock]

Because, anyone with enough political savy (read: bullshitting skills) to become president isn't going to push a constitutional ammendment that would never pass and would likely cost him votes. He probably thinks there is something to gain here. He might actually be right, come to think of it. There are a lot of minorities that ussually vote democrat, but are deeply religious, and might go for this.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

No they won't...

[Guest MikeSC]

this whole thing smacks of bigotry. Bush hates gays, so he'll go out of his way make it hard on them (no pun intended).

Yeah, Bush hs shown such hostility to homosexuals to date.

this whole "sanctity of marriage" thing...bullshit. it doesn't exist. if it ever did, STRAIGHT people ruined it along time ago.

Thank you no fault divorce!

all marriage basically is is a collection of papers that say that if it doesn't work out, she gets everything. that's all it really is. letting gays do the same thing will not harm this "sacred institution". if gays want to have loveless and unfulfilling marriages like everyone else, who are we to stop them? hell, Morman men marry as many women as they want, but we don't look at that as a violation of the "Holy bond of marriage". but it's their religious tradition and besides, their STRAIGHT, so it's ok.

Just checking --- you are aware that you aren't in the same ballpark as factual accuracy, right?

yeah i know, people are afraid of gays.

PETRIFIED!

it's "unnatural" and "goes against the way we were made" or whatever nonsense. well, what people fail to realize is, being gay is genetic. they're born that way.

Don't care. At all. "Whom you nail" is not really a valid civil rights classification, if you ask me --- and if the MOST note-worthy thing about yourself IS whom you nail, then you are of little use to society.

there are gay animals...they don't make a conscience decision to just "become gay". and neither do people, because for the simple matter of fact that being straight is easier.

While I don't discount this crushing logic, you do realize that you can use this to claim that murdering people is genetic. After all, who'd CHOOSE to be a murderer when not being one is much easier?

and i love the argument "But if we let gay people get married, soon people will want to marry animals or household items or whatever...". that's the connection you make? when two consenting adult human beings who love each other and want to legally consummate their love, you put that on par with someone fucking a goat or a vaccuum cleaner? and these people have the fucking nerve to call gays sick?

Nobody actually makes that argument outside of, well, you. However, polyamory and incest do become problematic issues for marriage, like it or not.

Bush likes to throw his religious beliefs into the ring as a reason to not allow gay marriage. again, bullshit. here's the thing, George: there is no God.

netslob = Nietzche?

and even if there were, if he created everyone and everything, then that means he created gays too. remember, "He made us in his own image". God would see gays as his own children, the same as straights.

Ditto murderers. Ditto rapists. You see how flimsy your logic is?

just leave these poor people alone. they aren't hurting a soul. they enough things to deal with in their day to day lives without the government cracking down on them. they just want to live their lives like everyone else. remember "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", George? does that only extend to straight Christians?

Wow, such hostility wrapped in such glaring factual inaccuracies.

Because, anyone with enough political savy (read: bullshitting skills) to become president isn't going to push a constitutional ammendment that would never pass and would likely cost him votes. He probably thinks there is something to gain here. He might actually be right, come to think of it. There are a lot of minorities that ussually vote democrat, but are deeply religious, and might go for this.

Who's to say this will cost him votes at all? This helps solidify his conservative base and doesn't hurt him with moderates as, rightly or wrongly, most Americans oppose it.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

Oh, and Jobber, did I miss something or did you say you weren't heterosexual?

See, Jobber's being all confusing, because over in the "Would You?" thread he distinctly makes reference to possibly eating the cooch.

 

Maybe he's one of them there fellows who swings BOTH ways.

[EricMM 0]

Slapnuts whats the harm in making marriage feasible between a man and a man to anyone who is strait?

 

It's a cost benefit analysis here people...

 

You will ensure that more gay people stay in commited relationships for the rest of their lives, and make their lives better and happier. Marriage has certainly had that effect on people throughout the ages. You can say that a man and man who live together and share all their things are 'basically' married, but it's not really the same thing. Marriages are important, and if they're so good for society, shouldn't as much as society as possible be able to get them?

[Jingus 0]

One of the late night talkshow hosts (forgot which one, they all sound alike to me) had a good line the other night:

 

"Republicans are now trying to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Yes, they're now defining "marriage" as a sacred lifelong bond between a man and Britney Spears."

 

All the fighting over this is bullshit. If gays want to marry each other, I don't care; just let them do what they want. Constitutional amendments are supposed to be used only for MAJOR problems in the country that need fixing, like giving women the vote, racial equality, enacting/cancelling prohibition, and so on. It shouldn't be used for a petty partisan pissing contest.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

I feel scared that someone is tracking my posts now. Spaceman Spiff, are you sure you aren't one of John Ashcroft's secret agents?

Psssst. You might want to make arrangements to not be home tonight. Just a heads up

[Guest combat_rock]

Who's to say this will cost him votes at all? This helps solidify his conservative base and doesn't hurt him with moderates as, rightly or wrongly, most Americans oppose it.

 

Because, while they might oppose it, most moderates don't care enough to actually sway their vote for it. And the moderates that are for it aren't going to like it. And again, he already has the conservative, religious vote.

[MrRant 0]

Some moderates may vote his way just based on the fact they don't want their situation to change.