View Full Version : George Bush: Homophobe
Saw this article on MSN today.
I can't say I'm surprised.
It scares me that a c#nt like him is in charge of one of the most important political powers in the world.
George Bush is a homophobic redneck twat! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4360783/)
funny how the "most enduring human institution" isn't open to homosexuals....because, you know, they're not human or anything....:rolleyes:
It's terrible....not just for George Bush but for a country that calls itself the "Land of the Free." :none: Too bad that freedom isn't granted to everyone.
:rolleyes:
This topic's going to be met with public whiplash - there's
already too much opposition to Bush's amendment in support
of civil equality. Rendering that portion of the demographic
as "constitutionally disregarded" isn't something that the
deciding courts are going to wanna deal with if at all possible.
Interesting the way he says it. Makes it sound like a union between a man and a woman is rock solid. Never mind the high divorce rate. As long as it's two people of the oposite sex, I guess.
He can argue that it must be like that cause the children need a mother and a father figure. But that argument falls flat since children seem to be developing quite nicely by having two fathers or two mothers. And besides - there are plenty of single mothers out there and nobody's shouting out loud about the lack of a father figure as directly as in this case.
IMO it's still better to have two loving gay parents then a screwed up, abusive and uncarring straight ones.
Other then the family issues I see no possible case to even ARGUE against. There just aren't any substantial arguments to back his points up. He's got NOTHING.
And I REALLY want John Kerry to win now... like I didn't before. ANYBODY but Bush. :p
madeldoe
25-02-2004, 08:21
Unfortunately, by the looks of it, these statements might actually help Bush to win the election. If the reps back Kerry, its more likely that Edwards will run independent [unless ofcourse Kerry picks him as his running mate], and the 'gay' population will most likely vote for Edwards since hes the most pro-gay rights out of all of them..minus Nader of course. but hes another story :rolleyes:
And I REALLY want John Kerry to win now... like I didn't before. ANYBODY but Bush
lol hes anti-gay marriage too :none:
Anyhow, being in the smack dab middle of the 'will it be banned or not' debate ['it' being gay marriage] thats happening in San Francisco, i just feel so ashamed. For those who dont know what im talking about, ill give u the story in a nut shell: Since the California family code states that marriage should be between 'man and woman', it has been illegal for 'gays' to marry. :rolleyes:
Just typing this makes my blood boil...how hypocritical. For a country to state that it will NOT have a national religion, then goes around and bases every single one of its laws on a specific religion, is SO mind blowingly hypocritical it infuriates me...anyhow ive vented too much..ill stop here and get back to the point.
It scares me that a c#nt like him is in charge of one of the most important political powers in the world
try living here..but like a wise man once said.."i love the place i live but i hate the people in charge"
Originally posted by nataku
Just typing this makes my blood boil...how hypocritical. For a country to state that it will NOT have a national religion, then goes around and bases every single one of its laws on a specific religion, is SO mind blowingly hypocritical it infuriates me...anyhow ive vented too much..ill stop here and get back to the point.
Exactly. Massive hypocracy. They (ab)use christianity only when it suits them. When it's clear as day that they're only hidding their ignorance and intolerance behind dogmas of which they know very well most are completely ridiculous. It's just that they don't WANT to know they are. It suits them to follow SOME of the comandments. But not ALL of them. Just the "convenient" ones. If Americans are such good christians why don't they follow the ultimate teaching Jesus gave. The one that should be the base of the religion: "Love your enemy." Oh no. That would be so unnatural to follow, right? So much easier to accept commandments that were written for SPECIFIC PEOPLE (the jews) 2000 years ago... the commandments that were probably necccessary (or at least acceptable) THEN, but can be interpreted as pure intolerance today, more then 200 years after the french revolution when people were granted civil liberties.
Originally posted by freddie
If Americans are such good christians why don't they follow the ultimate teaching Jesus gave. The one that should be the base of the religion: "Love your enemy." Oh no. That would be so unnatural to follow, right? So much easier to accept commandments that were written for SPECIFIC PEOPLE (the jews) 2000 years ago...
Ho-oh...O_o......
Even if the Bible is full of unfair things, may be it's a little hard and simple to reduce Christianism to this...
I think , in the main religions, Christianism is the one which evoluates the more...
But is this problem just really a RELIGIOUS PROBLEM or might it be too a simple CIVILIZATION problem?...
I mean the bases of our civilisations are the "Machism"....because of the men who were a long time ago the only ones to work and to feed their families, because of the physical strengh of the men....such things....
In France , governement & religion are separated for " 150-200 years....but 10 or 15 years ago, the homosexuality was still considered as a CRIME by the law....
Soviet Union was, if my memory is good, agaisnt the religion....but 15 or 20 years ago, you could go for 12 years in Siberia if you were homosexual...
So....is it , indeed , just a religious power or the resistance of MEN who controlled the society for centuries?....
For them a Gay man is an "under-man" and an homosexual woman is somebody which escapes to their control....so they think they could be bad exemples to follow to the babies that they could educate....
PS:...I'm not a feminist against men, I just try to understand situations looking at the history....
PowerPuff Grrl
25-02-2004, 21:18
Aw Bush!
When will you learn that the most enduring human institutional is prostitution, not marriage you daft cow!
Well, I guess you can get confused with that, eh? What with Britney Spears, J.Lo, Larry King and other valiant heterosexuals upholding the value, integrity and true appreciation of that "sacred" institution we know as marriage. :rolleyes:
I can see right through this though. Your whole war on terrorism is bull, so is your economy, and what's worse; even Republicans are claiming to vote Democratic next election. So what do you, you pull a Vatican and blame it all on the homosexuals. God! You think the most troubling issue the States is facing now is recognizing homosexuality amidst everything else!
Anyhoo, maybe I'm just naive but I honestly feel a good portion of the US's population don't agree with this. I think in San Fransisco they're handing out marriage licenses to gay couples despite it being illegal in the State of California, I don't know. This article (http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2004/02/24/gay_marriage/index_np.html) is pretty sweet, it kinda gives you hope. In case some people here aren't familiar with Salon, you have to view a commercial to read the whole thing. Left-leaning news websites have to get their cash somewhere right?
Khartoun2004
26-02-2004, 01:07
Like many of you I was pissed when I heard about it. I find it really interesting that the day after Bush started his re-election campaign he official declares his support for a ban on gay marriage. Talk about changing the subject. He's down in the election polls, so he decides to take the spotlight off of the economy, which sucks right now, jobs being shipped over seas, Iraq, and all the other things he's fucked up in 3 years.
I agree that the supreme court if they have a cell left in their brains will call him on this issue. He is trying to set a very nasty precedence in this country. Over the course of our 240 something year history not once has discrimination been written into our constitution. Granted people have been left out. i.e African Americans, but never has an amendment to the constitution been made to strip US citizens of their rights or to farther limit them. IMHO it is very unamerican and Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Madison, Adams, ect. are rolling over in their graves.
The president again has forgotten that the wonderful constitution also calls for the seperation of church and state. Not ever person in the US is christian. Infact it wasn't even founded by christians. His argument that gay marriage defiles traditional marrige is based solely on his religios views and has nothing to do with the actual laws of this country. His "Bill" is illegal.
Secondly, the rights stance that gay marriage will ruin families is a crock of shit. These families already exsist in society, whether they acknowlegde them or not. The proposed amendment will cause more harm to families than allowing gay marriage will. Leaglizing gay marriage will give those families already in place the chance to protect themselves in times of crisis and death. As usual the fundamentalists of this country are totally backwards and their arguments can be made void by simple logic. That tells me a lot about their IQs.
kishkash
26-02-2004, 02:21
Bush isn't only a homophobe...he is many other a thing...but lets not go down THAT long dark hallway...
all i can do is ask myself over and over...WHY...why did people vote for such a daft git....WHY *thankful she is in Canada where people aren't as stupid*
Aw Bush!
When will you learn that the most enduring human institutional is prostitution, not marriage you daft cow!
:lol:
Khartoun2004
26-02-2004, 02:40
Originally posted by kishkash
all i can do is ask myself over and over...WHY...why did people vote for such a daft git....WHY *thankful she is in Canada where people aren't as stupid*
But the poor citizens in the US didn't vote him into office. Al Gore won the popular vote. It was the conservative bastards on the Supreme Court that put him into office. *Goes off to Florida to kill the hanging chads.* Yes, Bush only likes the SC when they hand him power, but not when they do their job correctly. :cough: state of the union address :cough:
madeldoe
26-02-2004, 06:33
Whats funny is Bush stated in a primary debate in 2000 was that this issue should be left to the states. But ofcourse now that the elections are coming up..hes now backing a fucking ammendment banning it? :rolleyes: And Jaques is right..hes just using our constitution to score cheap political points to jump-start a faltering campaign."
His "Bill" is illegal.
Not only that, its unconstitutional. What about gay atheists? Passing a law thats based on a religion, in which they are imposing that RELIGION onto those who dont even believe in it. *sigh* I wonder what Cheney thinks of all this..or if his gay daughter holds any influence on his attitude towards this whole fiasco...
Khartoun2004
27-02-2004, 04:17
I would just like to say that I love Jaques. I knind of miss her being my state senator her in Massachusetts, but I think she'll be of more help to the gay rights cause working fro the HRC.
I know her brother, he was one of my teachers sophomore year.
madeldoe
28-02-2004, 02:15
Yea she sounds like a reasonable person. Heya since your form mass and all..how is it that your senator opposes gay marriage, but your state has legalized it?
Anyone happen to cath the debate thursday between, kisinitch, sharpton, edwards and kerry? it was hilarious :D
Unplugged
28-02-2004, 02:38
off topic:
nataku, you're really HOT :liplick: :yes:
on topic:
I think George Bush is trying to appeal to the lowest, darkest, most ignorant side of humanity - fundamentalism - to get votes. And unfortunately, it is a good strategy because even the ones who might appear tolerant, they have a mask, they are politically correct but when somebody of great importance (on a worldwide political level, that is) shows intolerance and fundamentalism, these people who have masks find a way to express their true behaviour by voting for such a man. Same that happened with Hitler - he didn't just 'trick' many people, he appealed to the lowest and darkest side of frustrated people who wanted to find scapegoats for their own problems so they could feel better.
So his strategy is basicaly this: if you vote for them (Democrats), you're voting for those abnormal gay people and 'sexual perversion', you're voting for terrorism, you're not patriotic etc. I mean, there was already 'sex scandals' about John Kerry the press, obviously manipulated by some republican source to try to destroy his image. Gladly, they have not succeeded.
As I said, his campaign is and will be based on appealing to the lowest there is.
I really hope he doesn't win again. If he does, I'm probably gonna have to say that Americans are definitely stupid :none:
madeldoe
28-02-2004, 03:23
Originally posted by staringelf
off topic:
nataku, you're really HOT :liplick: :yes:
lol thanks :rose: your pretty cute yourself, still have the mohawk right? have i mentioned how much i loooved mohawks :heh: *cough* back on topic
I really hope he doesn't win again. If he does, I'm probably gonna have to say that Americans are definitely stupid :none:
Judging from the overall attitude of that debate, everyone wants Bush out of the presidency. Each candidate would rather loose to the other runners than lose to Bush. Everytime a question was asked on their views or plans, the runners twisted their answers to an attack on Bush, which i found highly amusing. I was really hoping that Edwards would win, but now I would definately back Sharpton. Being a reverend, you would assume that his views on gay marriage would be the same as Bush, but it was exactly the opposite. His views on the Nafta, the economy and the war in Iraq is also much better than any one elses. So.. Sharpton all the way!! LOL :D
Mossopp, but the vice prisident's daughter is a lesbian who had came out :dknow: and the vice prisident supported his daughter and both bush :dknow:
Originally posted by sunwalk
Ho-oh...O_o......
Even if the Bible is full of unfair things, may be it's a little hard and simple to reduce Christianism to this...
I think , in the main religions, Christianism is the one which evoluates the more...
Wow, wow!! Slow down!! I didn't say I reduce the WHOLE of christianity to this. I'm just exposing one aspect (one weakness if you'd like) of it. Like all other religions it has it's good and bad dogmas. Ones that are based on wisdom and morality and others unjust and unsubstantiated ones based on untolerance and ignorance. And as every religion there's a danger of people using the later ones to suit their own needs (like Bush is doing here).
As far as I'm concearned it's pretty simple. It's ridiculous to even DISCUSS the justness of this. Of course atheists shouldn't be limited by laws of religion, but neither should anyone else... relgion and state should be CLEARLY seperated. So there shouldn't even be a valid discussion about this. This is an ilegal unconstitutional proposal, that would opose many international conventions of human rights (not that the US pays much attention to those anyway) :P
ypsidan04
28-02-2004, 21:48
Originally posted by freddie
IMO it's still better to have two loving gay parents then a screwed up, abusive and uncarring straight ones.
And I REALLY want John Kerry to win now... like I didn't before. ANYBODY but Bush. :p
Even conservatives should see it that way. They can't have a good argument against that.
Unfortunately, Kerry is not all that different. He has said he does not agree with gays getting married, but usually he just dodges the question. (I'm paraphrasing):
Reporter: What is your view on gay marriage?
Kerry: Well, um....., ah....THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES TO WORRY ABOUT!! Like the federal budget, job losses, and foreign policy!
I think San Francisco is performing a necessary act of civil disobedience here, and I'm glad that court after court has allowed them to continue - despite what Bush or Schwarzenegger says against it. And if anyone is interested, you can send flowers to random gay/lesbian couples getting married in S.F.:
Flowers for Al and Don (www.darrenbarefoot.com/flowers)
Here's another good article you might want to see: Clickee (http://www.freep.com/features/living/senior23_20040223.htm)
Originally posted by Khartoun2004
Secondly, the rights stance that gay marriage will ruin families is a crock of shit. These families already exsist in society, whether they acknowlegde them or not.
I know a lesbian couple with a son, pretty well actually.
And very nice post, btw :rose:
Originally posted by Khartoun2004
But the poor citizens in the US didn't vote him into office. Al Gore won the popular vote.
It's sad enough that 49% of the voters voted for him. :grustno:
kerry is pro civil union for same sex ppl with benefits, but he is against same sex marriage. there is religious sanctity behind "marriage" and i can't argue with religious beliefs. i hate bush.
i hope kerry wins, he is cooler than edwards, although edwards is all about working class roots and blahblahblah, kerry is better for a president, he is better with foreign policy and has done a bunch for civil rights and women
I heard something Bush said the other day... "...a marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal and as the president I must strive for the ideal..." (something in that respect)
Is he for real or just trying to be funny?! An ideal?!! An ideal where more then half of people get divorced? An ideal when probably 80% of straight couples don't even talk to eachother properly after a few years? An ideal where people murder their parners, abuse their children, sometimes get married for money?! That kind of an ideal is that? WTF?!!
Ideal thing is LOVE. No matter in which shape or form. God this is so obvious!! Why does it even have to be said? :none:
madeldoe
29-02-2004, 19:45
lol cuz Bush is an ape.. I hope anyone wins..even Kerry. Kerry and Edwards are against gay marriage, personally. But they dontagree with the ammendment Bush was proposing, which was to ban gay marriages. But damnit i hope Sharpton wins! :D
ypsidan04
05-03-2004, 02:58
The other day, Schwarzenegger said that he would allow gay marriages if the people of California voted for that to be legal. It's not that he's against gays, he just wants people to follow the law. That gives him some more respect in my book. But I know Bush wouldn't feel the same way. :bebebe:
Schwarzenegger also said "I believe gay marriage should be between a man and a woman." :rolleyes:
Arnold probably holds the same bigoted veiws as Bush, the only difference being that Arnold has the sense not to broadcast them.
Originally posted by ypsidan04
The other day, Schwarzenegger said that he would allow gay marriages if the people of California voted for that to be legal. It's not that he's against gays, he just wants people to follow the law. That gives him some more respect in my book. But I know Bush wouldn't feel the same way. :bebebe:
I'm not COMPLETELY sure that's not just a petty excuse for his intolerance. :/
ypsidan04
07-03-2004, 00:19
Originally posted by Mossopp
Schwarzenegger also said "I believe gay marriage should be between a man and a woman." :rolleyes:
Arnold probably holds the same bigoted veiws as Bush, the only difference being that Arnold has the sense not to broadcast them.
At least he would defer to the people's opinion. Bush wouldn't even do that. He'd throw up every roadblock imaginable. If people in California voted to accept gay marriages, then would accept it. Unfortunately, even in one of the most Democratic states in the country, that's not going to happen any time soon. I'm almost certain he's intolerant, because he's not on our bandwagon. But he's willing to put the will of the people above his own conservative opinions. Bush would come up with some way to obstruct democracy, even if most people were accepting of gay marriages - which is still far from the case.
Khartoun2004
08-03-2004, 08:35
Originally posted by nataku
Yea she sounds like a reasonable person. Heya since your form mass and all..how is it that your senator opposes gay marriage, but your state has legalized it?
Anyone happen to cath the debate thursday between, kisinitch, sharpton, edwards and kerry? it was hilarious :D
Nataku, I have no fucking clue. Just for the record... I can't stand John Kerry. I don't understand people that say he's the democrats' best chance at kicking Bush out of the White House. The guy changes his position on everything in each speak he makes.
Personally I think its bullshit that he opposes a constitutional amendment on the federal level, however he then turns around to support it on at the state level. God he pisses me off.
I still stand by my position that Dean or Clark are our best hope for a win in november, hell even Edwards is a better choice than that moron Kerry.
Side note... To everyone that lives near Boston, on March 11th the house and senate will meet again to 'discuss' gay marriage. There's going to be a huge ralley out side the state house at 8am. If you can make it I strongly suggest you go because we can use all the support we can get.
ypsidan04
09-03-2004, 04:32
About Kerry, he does change his opinion on things. He was talking locally here to a group of Arab-Americans (Detroit Metro area has the largest Arab population outside the Middle East), and he told them how Israel's "barrier" around the West Bank is a roadblock to the Peace Process. Then he turns around and tells a group of Jews that Israel has the right to defend itself. Talk about telling people what they want to hear. :rolleyes: But regardless, I think it's next to certain that he will be on the ballot in November. But anyone's better than Bush.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.