Jump to content
Jambands.ca

george w. does it again


meggo

Recommended Posts

Well, I agree with the freaker but I'm not sure money and power weigh heavily on the same-sex marriage issue. It's a morality thing, albeit one that is tied into winning the scary right-wing Christian vote, so, actually, I guess it is about money and power! [Confused]

It's just that I honestly believe Bush thinks he's right on this as an issue in and of itself, and the electoral pay-off is just gravy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not on here to share insightful information. i'm here for music. anything else I'm going to feel free to spew whatever comes off the top of my head so you can eat a dick.

so you think dubbya should be for gay marriages??

I'm pretty sure its an election year. Going against an issue most americans don't want probably isn't a good idea. I don't agree with his decision but I think he took the right stance if he wants to see four more years. Most amercians are pretty conservitive when it comes to this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually, being a intense liberal I am happy to see ol' w take that stance.. I don't believe it will have any sort of effect on the general populus in regards to how they will vote... It will alienate himself from those that are strongly in favour, and that my friends, means more democratic votes!!!!

and that makes me happy!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nothing wrong with stereotypes? americans don't seem to have a problem stereotyping arabs as terrorists. Or gays. If we agree that this is a religious thing then aren't we stereotyping all fundamentalist christians who believe that gay marriage taints the sanctity of marriage?

i'm trying to wrap my head around this myself. This shit still has to go through congress but 38 states have already banned gay marriage so that requirement is met. So a MAJORITY of americans are against it. Why is that?? well I think its because a MAJORITY are inhabited by ignorant people. or as i refer to them. RED NECKS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red neck hicks, you have not spent much time in the states have you. And if you have I am sorry you were with the wrong crowd. Next time you can make it south send me a shout out and my crew and I will try and relieve you of your misguided views. Many people all over the country (US) are changing the way people look at marriage and working vary hard to change it. W. has no choice but to speak on it, and come on who really thought he would be cool with it. My problem is his call for an amendment to the constitution. Its a total farce and will never happen. The whole thing is to divert attention from real problems (the corrupt rebuilding of Iraq, a sluggish economy, and of course broad misuse of intelligence leading up to the invasion.) Just to say it flat out most Americans are not redneck hicks. It is just not true

--Don’t blame me I voted in the majority--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by purple foot:

nothing wrong with stereotypes? americans don't seem to have a problem stereotyping arabs as terrorists. Or gays. If we agree that this is a religious thing then aren't we stereotyping all fundamentalist christians who believe that gay marriage taints the sanctity of marriage?

i'm trying to wrap my head around this myself. This shit still has to go through congress but 38 states have already banned gay marriage so that requirement is met. So a MAJORITY of americans are against it. Why is that?? well I think its because a MAJORITY are inhabited by ignorant people. or as i refer to them. RED NECKS.

1. What's wrong with stereotypes? Lots, but let's forget that for a moment. Just because Americans have "no problem stereotyping Arabs as terrorists" (which is a sweeping generalization in itself, to say the least) doesn't mean that you're forgiven for indulging in such behaviour yourself.

2. Despite what I just said, I think that the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians do believe that gay marriage taints heterosexual marriage. I mean, if you're a fundamenalist Christian, one of the fundamentals would be that sex is for procreation and nothing else. I actually agree with MarcO though, when he said that Bush genuinely thinks that he's right about this one. I don't think that he's personally being cynical about the whole thing, or that he's trying to buy votes - face it, the man's a born-again Christian, and they are as fundamental as you get.

3. "americans don't seem to have a problem stereotyping arabs as terrorists. Or gays." Ummmm... do you mean that Americans have no problem stereotyping Arabs as gays, or gays as terrorists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Texas (for example):

Marriage is both a legal and a ceremonial event. Legal marriage grants between 120-300 state rights and responsibilities, depending upon the state of residence. On the federal level, more than 1,049 rights and responsibilities are granted.

Because same-sex couples are unjustly denied the right to marry, same-sex couples and their families are denied access to rights including:

-The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.

-The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.

-The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.

-The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.

-The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.

-Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.

-The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.

-The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.

Such inequities impose added costs on these families, such as increased health insurance premiums, higher tax burdens and the absence of pension benefits or Social Security benefits in the event of a partner's death.

Some same-sex and transgender families consult attorneys to draw up legal documents such as powers of attorney, co-parenting agreements and wills, that will at least permit them to declare who they wish to make health care and financial decisions for them if they become incapacitated; how they wish to share parenting responsibilities or, in the event of a breakup, custody of a child; and what they want to happen to their property when they die. However, these are not a substitute for legal protection under law and cannot provide the broad range of benefits and protections provided by law.

http://www.lgrl.org/marriageequality/rights/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...