Bush to make homophobia a centerpiece of his campaign

[Shodan]

@MrVisible

Oh, and you may want to rethink your tactic of “Hey, Clinton did something roughly similar! You can’t dis Bush for doing something moronic when Clinton did it too!” You see, besides it being really old, it assumes that everybody marches in lockstep with a political party, and never criticizes the party they’ve allied themselves with, or anyone associated with it.

In case you didn’t read the actual thread before posting, I was responding to this -

@Sofa King

If you can’t see the cynical origins behind this virtually unique Republican attempt at progressive social engineering, then you are totally fucking blind.

So it would seem that I am not the one who is totally fucking blind. YMMV, as might your reading comprehension.

And I don’t remember any criticism of Clinton or Gore based on this issue. Feel free to cite any.

And my assumption was not that no one will ever criticize their own party. The assumption was that the Usual Suspects will bash Bush no matter what, even on matters where liberals get a free pass, and that therefore their criticism is too hypocritical to be worth much.

It is rather similar to the poll on Bush’s recent Mars initiative. The AP reported that, when asked about the program but not told who suggested it, Democrats split almost evenly on whether or not it was a good idea. When told that Bush suggested it, they opposed the same program 2 to 1. IOW, they decided, not based on the merits of the proposal, but based on who suggested it. A good idea becomes bad as soon as Bush suggests it.

Which is why Stoid’s recent thread about how bad the American middle is because they can be persuaded to support Bush was so silly. (I would link to it, but is the search engine working?) Democrats are the ones responding to Bush and his programs irrationally, not least here on the SDMB.

SPOOFE essentially said everything else worthwhile on the topic. I am even considering adopting this -

Once again, we see that a Republican can’t take a piss without the psycho-left having hallucinations of some Poor Victim being on the other end of the stream.

as a sig line.

SPOOFE, what do you say?

Regards,
Shodan

[Homebrew]

@Shodan

In case you didn’t read the actual thread before posting, I And I don’t remember any criticism of Clinton or Gore based on this issue. Feel free to cite any.

Will this do

Another of Carpenter’s wishful inaccuracies is that the gay establishment excused Clinton for signing the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The National Stonewall Democrats think Clinton was wrong to sign DOMA. His ads touting his support for the bill to conservatives were reprehensible, and we’re glad his campaign pulled them in response to swift, strong criticism from national gay organizations. However, the support Clinton received from gay organizations was based on his strong record on a wide range of other gay issues, including his support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, his executive order banning the use of sexual orientation as a factor in denying security clearances, his commitment to appointing openly gay and lesbian people to his Administration, and the unprecedented attention he gave to the AIDS crisis.

Carpenter’s claim that those who support imperfect Democrats suffer from some sort of battered wife syndrome shows how much he misunderstands the political world. In gay politics, you always have to consider the alternative. In the current presidential race, it’s George W. Bush, the Republican candidate who actively supports anti-gay sodomy laws, doesn’t think gays are fit to be parents, supports the ban on openly gay people in the military, opposes hate crimes legislation and gay and lesbian employment rights, and withholds support for domestic partnership benefits for gay and lesbian people. He’s the exact opposite of Al Gore on every one of those issues.

[MrVisible]

@Shodan

It is rather similar to the poll on Bush’s recent Mars initiative. The AP reported that, when asked about the program but not told who suggested it, Democrats split almost evenly on whether or not it was a good idea. When told that Bush suggested it, they opposed the same program 2 to 1. IOW, they decided, not based on the merits of the proposal, but based on who suggested it. A good idea becomes bad as soon as Bush suggests it.

Picture, if you will, a meeting room in a small corporation somewhere on the east coast.

“I could use some coffee,” says Suzy.

Steve leaps up from his seat. “I’ll make some!”

As Steve heads for the break room, a collective sigh is heard from the assembled office staff.

You see, somehow, Steve always manages to make terrible coffee. It’s a relatively simple procedure, but Steve always brings back witheringly strong, bitter mud, instead of the hearty brew the coffee machine is capable of producing. The fact that Steve has gone to make the coffee is a sure sign, based on his past performance, that the end of the meeting will see a table littered with nearly-full coffee cups. Nobody likes Steve’s coffee.

Now if Nina had gone to make the coffee, that’d be a different story.

And the moral of the story is: You can accurately judge someone’s ability to complete a task successfully based on their past record of screwing things up.

The reason I’m convinced this particular space initiative is a bad idea is that it comes from an administration with an astonishing number of bad ideas to its name.

One more example: I went to a mechanic a while ago. My car came back more screwed up than ever. I took it back to try and have him fix whatever he did. It came back screwed up differently. I then took it to a different mechanic, who fixed it. Did I hate the first mechanic? No. Was I paranoid, or delusional? No. Would I be an idiot to assume that bringing my car to him the next time it needs repair would get the job done? Emphatically, yes.

A good idea becomes a bad idea in the hands of someone who can’t execute it well. And based on his performance in office so far, I wouldn’t trust Bush to cut the ribbon at the local stripmall opening without screwing it up.

[Chefguy]

Morford’s take on the situation.

[county]

@Scylla

Trying to suggest that this action is homophobic is just idiotic, as has been pointed out.

But, if we’re talking about actual actions against homosexuals, actual legislation, correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t think Bush has actually done anything.

Other than catering to homophobes among others I certainly agree with your point that this is not a homphobic program.

I do disagree with the comment about “I don’t think Bush has actually done anything.”

The president of the United States does something simply by holding a particular view. This particular president has had his underlings running around the beltway trying to “out-Bush” each other. Just because he didn’t sign it or endorse it on TV doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. He is responsible.

[Rodrigo]

DesertGeezer
As somebody mentioned in other threads the plural of anecdote is not data.

What you said is the equivalent of “I don’t wear a seat belt because there was one guy who died while wearing it and his car caught fire”.

---

Diogenes
No the argument was having a Dad and a Mum instead of only a Mum.

I imagine that by non-moronicyou mean agreeing with the Gospel according to Diogenes. You appear to think that any differenciation is discrimination. It’s simple. Marriage (in the “west”) has been a guy and a gal before governments existed (even in societies where polygamy was accepted it wasn’t a group marriage, it was succesive one-on-one marriages). Even societies where homosexuality was acceptable or even encouraged, marriage was the same. The “isntitution” of marriage is that. Two men or two women are not a marriage for the same reason nine guys with bats and gloves aren’t a football team, it’s just how it is.

Tax-benefits et al. my point, but you seem unable (not unwilling, don’t flatter yourself) to see the points I raised. First, people don’t get married (in real marriages) for tax benefits, it is insulting even to gays to think they want to marry for money. If all the “administrative” benefits can be got by a private contract, problem solved.

So all who disagree with you are morons? Nice debating technique. We all elect officers (in part) so that they can implement changes we want. By the same token “altering” the constitution (it’s called ammending) can’t be done by Bush’s fiat alone. He needs majorities and the whole “severa states” shit. If the majority of the Americans want it then, that’s democracy. Maybe you’re afraid of the people.

Poor Diogenes opens up a thread and then can only defend it with insults.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Rodrigo

Diogenes
No the argument was having a Dad and a Mum instead of only a Mum.

No, the argument is that two parents are better than one. There is no data to suggest that the sexes make a difference.

I imagine that by non-moronicyou mean agreeing with the Gospel according to Diogenes.

No, dumbass, I mean that you can’t articulate a single rational justification for denying marriage to same-sex couples.
[/quote]

You appear to think that any differenciation is discrimination.

Of course it is, you stupid fuck. That’s what discrimination means.

It’s simple. Marriage (in the “west”) has been a guy and a gal before governments existed (even in societies where polygamy was accepted it wasn’t a group marriage, it was succesive one-on-one marriages). Even societies where homosexuality was acceptable or even encouraged, marriage was the same. The “isntitution” of marriage is that. Two men or two women are not a marriage for the same reason nine guys with bats and gloves aren’t a football team, it’s just how it is.

In other words, you have no fucking argument. Past bigotry does not justify current bigotry. marriage is simply a civil contract and it’s not your fucking business to decide who is entitrled to those contracts and who doesn’t. Like I said. You can’t give us a non-moronic excuse to exclude same-sex couple from marriage contracts. That’s becausr you are a fucking moron.

[quote]
Tax-benefits et al. my point, but you seem unable (not unwilling, don’t flatter yourself) to see the points I raised.
[/quote First, people don’t get married (in real marriages) for tax benefits,[/quote]

The hell they don’t.

It is insulting even to gays to think they want to marry for money. If all the “administrative” benefits can be got by a private contract, problem solved.

There are a number of other benefits that can’t be covered by legal contracts. Spousal coverage on employer insurance policies, for instance.

Not that it matters. You haven’t been able to come with a reason to deny the right of marriage to same-sex couples. You are the one who wants to withhold a basic civil right from them. It’s your responsibility to justify your argument.

So all who disagree with you are morons? Nice debating technique.

Anyone who wants to deny civil unions to same-sex couples is a moron just like anyone who would want to ban interracial marriage would be a moron. The positions simply do not deserve respect…and that’s not a debate point, it’s a truism.

[quote]
We all elect officers (in part) so that they can implement changes we want.

[quote]

Bush was not elected.

By the same token “altering” the constitution (it’s called ammending) can’t be done by Bush’s fiat alone. He needs majorities and the whole “severa states” shit. If the majority of the Americans want it then, that’s democracy. Maybe you’re afraid of the people.

Damn right I’m afraid of the people. 70% of Americans believe in angels and think that Saddam was behind 9/11. The people are fucking stupid. Bigotry is an easy emotion to play on. That’s why it’s important for you to raise your voice when you see garbage like an anti-gay amendment being proposed by dipshits like Bush.

Poor Diogenes opens up a thread and then can only defend it with insults.

Too bad you haven’t been able to refute it. Want to try again for a non-moronic justification to discriminate against gay people?

[IWLN]

@Rodrigo

Tax-benefits et al. my point, but you seem unable (not unwilling, don’t flatter yourself) to see the points I raised. First, people don’t get married (in real marriages) for tax benefits, it is insulting even to gays to think they want to marry for money. If all the “administrative” benefits can be got by a private contract, problem solved.

I have a “real” marriage. The reason that we went and got a marriage license and are legally married in our state has everything to do with money. I don’t know anyone in the government, so it wasn’t just a friendly notification of our committment. If it weren’t for the protection and benefits this legal marriage afforded us, we would have just had a religious ceremony. With barely more than a signature on the license, we received the ability to be covered under eachother’s health care plan. We became the default choice for life insurance and survivor’s benefits. In our community property state, it protected our assets if one of us dies without a will. We can, as closest next of kin, not only see the other one in the hospital, but also make decisions if the other one is incapacitated. I am realistic. If my husband decides to sleep with the babysitter, like my ex did, there are laws that not only make our assets equally ours, but also we are equally responsible for our debts. Of course, there is also sometimes a tax benefit to being married and there are a lot of other reasons I haven’t mentioned. I’m not understanding why a gay couple should have to try and deal with all of the legal and financial situations individually and a straight couple somehow deserves the whole deal.

The thing that really puzzles me Rodrigo, is I can’t come up with ONE thing that gay marriage takes away from my marriage. It doesn’t hurt me in any way I can possibly conceive of. What am I missing? The reasons to be against this are vague and don’t make sense. Tradition doesn’t matter when it infringes on a human right as basic as this. There is no such thing as “the sanctity of a marriage”. It’s the people in it that make that a true or false concept. Citing anything to do with morals doesn’t work, because that’s an abstract concept. I don’t agree with legislated morals. If your objection is the Bible, then go to Leviticus. Three verses before the one that is supposed to condemn gays(Lev.20:13), there is an equal condemnation of adulterers. If, as many of us have, you have been divorced and then slept with another person; you are an adulterer and in the Bible, the punishment of death is the same. Lev. 20:10 should technically mean that say, 40% of the “church-going” people in the U.S. are just as screwed as the gay population. You can’t choose to skip everyother verse, to suit your athestic tastes and your future salvation. As a matter of fact, if all the gay people started going to church and all the adulterer’s stopped, the church would actually have a higher ratio of “good” people vs. “sinners”. So I actually think it would be better if we just forget about what everyone is doing in their bedroom and stick to making fair laws that cover individual rights.

Anyway, your objections to gay marriage aren’t clear. If they aren’t any of the above, then what are they? Give me a little credit for asking nice. I really would like to understand where this comes from. I’m not even going to give you a hard time about “it’s just how it is”, although I may want it for a sig line.

[IWLN]

Oh darn, I forgot we were in the Pit. I’m no good at “Pit language.” Could someone add some dirty words at the end of my post please? :o

[Largo62]

@IWLN

Oh darn, I forgot we were in the Pit. I’m no good at “Pit language.” Could someone add some dirty words at the end of my post please? :o

Grime, fingernail scrapings, sludge, Michael Jackson.
I tried.

[county]

@IWLN

Oh darn, I forgot we were in the Pit. I’m no good at “Pit language.” Could someone add some dirty words at the end of my post please? :o

Sure, please consider this epilogue:

And if that doesn’t satisfy your narrow little brain, then bite me, shitforbrains.

[IWLN]

@county

Sure, please consider this epilogue:

And if that doesn’t satisfy your narrow little brain, then bite me, shitforbrains.

It would make a hellava sig line, wouldn’t it?

[Hamish]

Hey, as long as your president thinks he’s the title character of Brester’s Millions, I would be happy to suggest things to spend on. Maybe Bush could avoid accusations of homophobia if he were to set up an anti-gaybashing task force of some kind. I can think of dozens of environmental iniatives that could use an infusion of cash, and which would benefit future Americans, to say nothing of those of us in The Rest of the World™.

@elmwood

I’ll vote for Bush, though, if he’ll spot me the $4,000 or $5,000 it takes to land myself a mail-order bride from Russia.

“The American republic will endure until the politicians find they can bribe the people with their own money.”
– Alexis de Toqueville

[Siege]

IWLN, I can’t help you out with the language, but I can give you one more cite, this one 5 verses after Leviticus 20:13. To whit: “If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and brings shame on her, he has exposed her discharge and she has uncovered the source of her discharge; they shall both be cut off from their people.” Oh, and while I’ve got my Bible open, there’s good old Leviticus 20:9: “When any man reviles his father and his mother, he shall be put to death.” Somehow, I suspect we’ve got even more people guilty of those two than we do of adultery. I know I’ve been guilty of both, and I find adultery as repellant as some folks do, well, homosexuality.

Then there’s this program. It seems to me Republicans want government out of business’s lives and in people’s lives, while Democrats want government out of people’s lives and in business’s. Me, I’d prefer just enough involvement in both to keep me from being involuntarily screwed by either a person or a business. Unfortunately the latter has happened to me. If Bush does want to reduce the divorce rate, he might want to start where there are the most divorces. As I understand things, that’s the Bible Belt. Oh, and maybe put a mandatory cooling off period for marriage licences, for Brittney Spears, if no one else!

CJ

[Master_Wang-Ka]

Doesn’t surprise me a bit.

Bush hammered thru a bunch of legislation that screwed up education by mandating sweeping changes without actually funding anything. Among those of us with half a brain, this is called “legislating things into and out of existence.”

And then he claimed to be the “education President.”

Knowing this, does it surprise anyone that he now wishes to do nearly the same friggin’ thing with the institution of marriage?

[Rodrigo]

IWLN

I’m no good at pit language either, but I’ll try my hand.
We straights have fucked-up marriage a lot, that is granted. I understand what you say about gay marriage not taking anything away from yout marriage, granted too. My point is that “marriage” (for me at least) means a “guy and a gal” the same way baseball is “nine guys, a bat and four bases”. If someone calls rounders or pesäpallo “baseball” it doesn´t take anything from “real” baseball and although they are similar games they just ain’t baseball.

OTOH, since the advent of widespread voluntary sterility (contraception) and no-fault divorce, marriage has lost a lot of its original meaning so the case for gay marriage is stronger than 100 years ago, not only because of the more positive attitude to gays.
[pit language]fuck, fuck, damn, shit, fuck[/pit language]
My point is also that if marriage is open to gays, then all other options are valid, three-way four-way ten-way marriage, even solo marriage (the whole no discrimination thing) and thus, finally, marriage is useless as a social entity.

I still think it is wrong and also think that a special contract could be devised to cover all “administrative” aspects of marriage, if as some (not all) have implied they want marriage for the tax-breaks.

---

Diogenes
Not getting enough lately, are you? Does using profanity make you fell good, powerful?..maybe we should change your screen name to Diogenes the Peanut .

Are you still crying because Gore didn’t win? or maybe you’re one of those guys who voted for Nader in Florida? Of course Bush won in Florida as all re-counts have shown, even those after the inauguration.

You finally showed your true colours for all to see and you dare call others dogamtic! It’s you against the rabble, you’re the Sun King of the SDMB.

Since non-moronic means “what I like” in your dictionary it is impossible. You win, you win, you’re a genius, wow, you convinced me, super DtC has saved the world from the Homophobics and dumb Presidents!!!

Diogenes locuto est, causa finita est

[Lilairen]

I don’t think forming families and having them recognised by the surrounding community will ever be “useless as a social entity”.

I would instead posit that the formation and recognition of families is the most fundamental social entity that there is. A society that refuses to recognise those families that exist within itself weakens itself by cultivating strife (between those who would fulfil the basic social function of recognising kinship and those who do not) and by losing members of the unrecognised families and their allies to other social constructs.

I know quite a few people who refuse to get legally married because they consider it immorally discriminatory as currently instituted. For them, marriage as currently constituted is useless as a social entity because it no longer fulfils its social function – recognising families. It only recognises families-that-fit-a-certain-narrow-pattern, and they don’t think that’s good enough.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Rodrigo

IWLN

I’m no good at pit language either, but I’ll try my hand.
We straights have fucked-up marriage a lot, that is granted. I understand what you say about gay marriage not taking anything away from yout marriage, granted too. My point is that “marriage” (for me at least) means a “guy and a gal” the same way baseball is “nine guys, a bat and four bases”. If someone calls rounders or pesäpallo “baseball” it doesn´t take anything from “real” baseball and although they are similar games they just ain’t baseball.

No one gives a fuck what marriage is “to you.” You don’t get to impose your personal stupidity on the rest of the world. Are you ever going to articulate a non-moronic justification for discriminating against gay people or are yoiu going to keep spewing the same stupid-ass non-argument for the rest of your life?

OTOH, since the advent of widespread voluntary sterility (contraception) and no-fault divorce, marriage has lost a lot of its original meaning so the case for gay marriage is stronger than 100 years ago, not only because of the more positive attitude to gays.

What the fuck does any of that have to do with gay marriage? Why does the justification for same-sex marriage require the failure of hetero marriage?

[pit language]fuck, fuck, damn, shit, fuck[/pit language]
My point is also that if marriage is open to gays, then all other options are valid, three-way four-way ten-way marriage, even solo marriage (the whole no discrimination thing) and thus, finally, marriage is useless as a social entity.

Ahh…the typical slippery slope argument trotted out by the stupidest among us. Guess what, dipshit, legalizing same-sex unions does not mean that all other options are open. marriage can be defined simply as the union of two consenting adults. That leaves out the desperate red herrings thrown around by nimrods like you.

I still think it is wrong

Why? a

and also think that a special contract could be devised to cover all “administrative” aspects of marriage, if as some (not all) have implied they want marriage for the tax-breaks.

Including employee benefits?

---

Diogenes
Not getting enough lately, are you?
Does using profanity make you fell good, powerful?..maybe we should change your screen name to Diogenes the Peanut .

Funny stuff. If I’m kicking your ass in an argument it must mean that I’m “not getting enough.” Did you learn that debating tactic in middle school? Let me respond in kind. I have no complaints in that area. Your mom keeps me quite busy.

Are you still crying because Gore didn’t win?

Gore DID win, didpshit.

or maybe you’re one of those guys who voted for Nader in Florida? Of course Bush won in Florida as all re-counts have shown, even those after the inauguration.

Actually, Gore won Florida as all legitimate recounts have shown.

You finally showed your true colours for all to see and you dare call others dogamtic! It’s you against the rabble, you’re the Sun King of the SDMB.

Yes, my true colors. I’m for gay marriage and I think you’re a dipshit. What a shock that must be to everyone.

Since non-moronic means “what I like” in your dictionary it is impossible. You win, you win, you’re a genius, wow, you convinced me, super DtC has saved the world from the Homophobics and dumb Presidents!!!

“Non-moronic” means a justification that is based on any kind of a reasoned argument instead of a personal fear of gay sex.

Diogenes locuto est, causa finita est

Rodrigo venit, Oves futuebuntur.

[Otto]

@Rodrigo

My point is that “marriage” (for me at least) means a “guy and a gal” the same way baseball is “nine guys, a bat and four bases”. If someone calls rounders or pesäpallo “baseball” it doesn´t take anything from “real” baseball and although they are similar games they just ain’t baseball.

And “marriage” to the citizens of Denmark or the residents of several Canadian provinces means “a guy and a gal,” and it means “a guy and a guy” and it means “a gal and a gal.” Why should your inability to wrap your mind around that idea mean that others should be excluded from the benefits and responsibilities of marriage?

My point is also that if marriage is open to gays, then all other options are valid, three-way four-way ten-way marriage, even solo marriage (the whole no discrimination thing) and thus, finally, marriage is useless as a social entity.

If the proponents of multiple marriage can present a case that laws limiting marriage to couples are unconstitutional, then more power to them. I have yet to see such a case presented. Since marriage is a contract there can be no such thing as “solo marriage.”

I still think it is wrong and also think that a special contract could be devised to cover all “administrative” aspects of marriage, if as some (not all) have implied they want marriage for the tax-breaks.

There is no “special contract” that can be drawn up between non-married couples to extend to them, for example, the tax status of a married couple. There is no special contract which can create marital privilege. No special contract creates an automatic next-of-kin status. Even when couples draw up wills and powers of attorney and other legal protections, they have been successfully challenged in court. Only marriage guarantees these things.

[IWLN]

@Rodrigo

IWLN

I’m no good at pit language either, but I’ll try my hand.
We straights have fucked-up marriage a lot, that is granted. I understand what you say about gay marriage not taking anything away from yout marriage, granted too. My point is that “marriage” (for me at least) means a “guy and a gal” the same way baseball is “nine guys, a bat and four bases”. If someone calls rounders or pesäpallo “baseball” it doesn´t take anything from “real” baseball and although they are similar games they just ain’t baseball.

Okay, picture me screaming and tearing my hair out!!! Marriage for you can still be a guy and gal. I would agree that “straights” have screwed up marriage to the point where it doesn’t always mean much anymore. I don’t see what that has to do with anything. Are you protecting marriage from the “evil gays”(echo, echo). You probably need to get out more. They’re just like us, except they dress better.

OTOH, since the advent of widespread voluntary sterility (contraception) and no-fault divorce, marriage has lost a lot of its original meaning so the case for gay marriage is stronger than 100 years ago, not only because of the more positive attitude to gays.
[pit language]fuck, fuck, damn, shit, fuck[/pit language]
My point is also that if marriage is open to gays, then all other options are valid, three-way four-way ten-way marriage, even solo marriage (the whole no discrimination thing) and thus, finally, marriage is useless as a social entity.

I agree with what Diogenes said and I think this is a chickenshit delaying tactic, born of fear that the hatred generated won’t be enough.

I still think it is wrong and also think that a special contract could be devised to cover all “administrative” aspects of marriage, if as some (not all) have implied they want marriage for the tax-breaks.

It is just a fucking insult(hey I do speak pit) to play this name game. Gay couples want to get married for all of the same reasons you and I have. Gay marriage makes you uncomfortable, so what? That’s not a valid reason to discriminate. There are straight people getting married that make me uncomfortable. I’m against idiot’s pro-creating. Not my call though. This is not about you or how you feel. This is only about human rights. You do believe gays are human, don’t you. You believe human’s have rights? Just put the two together.

Oh, and your mom’s keeping me quite busy too!