Anti-gay I can see, as Bush is against gay marriage. What about sexist and racist? I am whole-heartedly against that man, but a few pro-Bush roommates of mine said he definately wasn’t racist or sexist. Can anyone please give me some examples of his racist or sexist beliefs/acts?
I should clarify. The title of the OP was a chant at an anti-Bush rally during the inauguration parade. My roommates’ comments were made as they were chanting it.
Oops…meant to say my roommates’ comments were made as the crowd at the rally were chanting it.
That should be the last ‘edit.’
I suspect this’ll migrate to GD at some point, and I doubt it’s worth responding to. But what the heck.
Dub has, as did his recent Democratic challenger John Kerry, proclaimed himself against granting the status of marriage to homosexual unions. That, in itself, does not make one anti-gay, IMHO, although I doubt the President looks at all favorably upon gay lifestyles.
I’ve never seen a thing to suggest that George W. Bush is at all sexist or racist. The only relevant material that comes to mind on a quick reflection is that he’s just nominated the very capable Condoleeza Rice to be our first black female Secretary of State.
Plus Condi (doesn’t she have two zees, incidentally?) is single, has never married, and hangs out on weekends with Laura.
So, draw your own conclusions.
Is it possible that they are exaggerating their opposition to Bush’s policies and beliefs?:
Pro-life = sexist
Against Affirmative Action = racist
Zev Steinhardt
OK. It seems that what we have here, for a General Question is a simple request for actions or statements by President George W. Bush that other people have used as examples of purported racism or sexism.
What we do not have, is an open invitation to debate whether President Bush is or is not racist or sexist.
If someone has a citation for an actual claim that President Bush behaved or spoke in a sexist or racist way, that would be an acceptable response.
Unfortunately, I cannot conceive of such responses not being immediately challenged on various grounds (accuracy, spin, philosophical differences) and a debate erupting.
So we’re going to eliminate the suspense of finding out how long this thread can survive in GQ by sending it directly to GD.
(FWIW, I believe that there is a GQ question present; I simply do not believe that this crowd could answer it in GQ.)
[ /Moderator Mode ]
tom~,
FTR, I was not stating that Bush was sexist or racist (heck, I voted for him). I was trying to answer the OP as to why the crowd would believe that he was racist and sexist.
Zev Steinhardt
zev you gave a decent GQ answer. I just don’t believe that we would get the same sort of response bt everyone else.
So what exactly would it take for you to consider Bush anti-gay? Denying a group of people the same rights everyone else enjoys would sure lead me to believe he’s “anti-” that group of people. And, since you brought up the subject, the same goes for Kerry.
Yes, her name is Condoleezza.
According to wikipedia,: Her name is a variation on the Italian musical term “con dolcezza” which is a direction to play “with sweetness”.
There are certainly people who see racist overtones to the “War on Terror” or the war in Iraq (though I think religion rather than “race” is the issue). Not that I back this myself - but some people see war itself as racism.
That chant goes back at least a dozen years. I recall hearing it applied to Governor Casey of Pennsylvania, an anti-abortion Democrat.
Don’t read too much into it. They’re just hauling out their list of standard “conservative insults” and it hardly matters to them whether or not they’re all accurately applied to the specific target du jour.
Well, panache, I’d have to wonder what “anti-gay” means to any particular person. Surely, advocating prescribing criminal sanctions against homosexual activity could be considered anti-gay, at least by most people.
But does proscribing the sanction of marriage rights - an historically long recognized heterosexual union - while acknowledging the legal sanction of homosexual civil unions, constitute being anti-gay? To some, I’m sure it does, but to others that’s a reasonable stance to take.
Personally, while I self-identify as politically conservative and tend to vote for Republicans (although not 100% of the time), gay marriage is fine with me. This issue, as well as others, such as abortion, will likely never drive my vote.
It all eventually devolves into where gay people fit into a predominantly heterosexual society. I don’t believe in persecuting gays.
But integrating gay life into society without perceived persecutions draws many issues into focus. One issue that comes up regularly is parenting and/or adoption.
The argument about the existence of homosexuality is often, IME, wrongly phrased as being that of a biological/genetic predisposition versus a “choice” that some individuals make. That argument completely ignores developmental issues.
We readily recognize that developmental issues are a factor in someone’s tendency towards being a loving, giving or sociopathic individual. The seemingly interminable irony of the abused child growing up to be a child abuser persists.
So, is parenting by homosexuals likely to produce more homosexual adults? If so, do we, as a society, think that is a good thing or a bad thing?
Although those are admittedly biased sources (don’t have a lot of time at the mo), they are not creating their own data; they are citing independent studies such as this one:
You can also look here for an article by an organization that is not affiliated to any gay cause (that I know of).
Aside from all this, what does it matter if a child grows up to be gay? If a young adult is motivated, intelligent, and hardworking, how does it matter who they love?
Back on topic, I agree with zev. It’s shorthand, like all chants are.
And those are exaggerations why? 
C’mon Brain Glutton! Huh?
I don’t have a lot of good things to say about George Bush. But I will say this - I don’t think the man is sexist or racist. He may be narrow-minded on ideological issues but there’s no signs he judges people based on their gender or race. But I also think Bush’s lack of these vices does lead to one problem. George Bush seems to lack an interest in differing viewpoints. I think his own personal lack of sexism or racism might lead him to assume everybody else feels the same way and these problems don’t exist.
I don’t even wanna count how many pointless times the tirades against President Bush have been made, but this is getting really tiresome.
Cheney voted against MLK day when he was in congress. Also, is the “very capable” Condoleeza that was referred to related to the person who is nominated for Sec of State?