P2P-Zone - View Single Post

Ramona_A_Stone · 25-02-04, 02:42 AM

I'd just like to point out that the adjective "polarized" is not appropriate to describe the issue of gay marriages between the candidates, as neither (Kerry nor Bush) supports it. Certainly in the arena of public discourse it's a polarizing issue, but then so is everything from the banality of popstar tit flashes on up. The difference between them (Dumb and Dumber) is one of a few degrees but it's hardly diametrical: Bush makes no bones that he would oppose it aggressively while Kerry, it seems, would oppose it, but be PC about it.

For the record, although Kerry does oppose constitutional amendments defining marriage, his careful rhetoric at this point is the he "'prefers' civil unions and will reject any state or federal laws" that could be used against equal protections for those in them. He was one of only 14 senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, but he has stated that he "personally opposes gay marriage."

In my opinion this is a nutless attempt to seem superficially gay-friendly (gays and those who find "gay-sympathetic" issues critical are probably a good deal less than 10% of the vote--my guess, I have no stats) while trying to simultaneously appease the roughly 50% of Democrats who oppose gay marriage--and figuring the other 50% will probably still prefer "anyone but Bush." I say nutless, but I guess all you can really blame him for is thinking that soulectomies are a prerequisite for candidacy.

I know a few gays who are "staunch Republicans" (ie: rabid enough to support Bush in spite of the facts) but I think it's a fair bet that the vast majority of gays feel they have good reason to detest Georgey-Porgey. (with all his mumbling about God and "Faith-Based Initiatives;" bad form if not scary to begin with and pretty consistently proving why)

Seems all Kerry has to do is be a few degrees less of an outright bigot on this issue to cop the votes of those who see it as an issue, and as far as I'm concerned that's exactly all that he's done.

Yes, I'll be voting for the lesser of two evils (not just because of this issue) but I predict if Kerry is elected I'll probably be talking smack about his administration about 87.5% of the time, whereas I bitch about Bush 92.3% of the time. And, lol, I'm wondering if the Young Republican Faction here will still be calling me unpatriotic because I'm critical of a president? No matter, I'm sure they'll find ways to disagree with me even if the shoe's on the other foot (or would that be the same foot?) and I'm doing "their job".

And good point tambourine dude, but to be fair, gays have gravitated most strongly towards AIDS activism in the states even though neither here nor globally of course is it a strictly "gay issue"--and these appointments may speak more to the fact that many straight Americans have been somehow lulled into thinking otherwise than sheer tokenism.

But do I wonder if Bush is planning on forming a Department of Interior Decoration...

25-02-04, 02:42 AM	#8
Ramona_A_Stone Formal Ball Proof Join Date: May 2000 Posts: 2,948	I'd just like to point out that the adjective "polarized" is not appropriate to describe the issue of gay marriages between the candidates, as neither (Kerry nor Bush) supports it. Certainly in the arena of public discourse it's a polarizing issue, but then so is everything from the banality of popstar tit flashes on up. The difference between them (Dumb and Dumber) is one of a few degrees but it's hardly diametrical: Bush makes no bones that he would oppose it aggressively while Kerry, it seems, would oppose it, but be PC about it. For the record, although Kerry does oppose constitutional amendments defining marriage, his careful rhetoric at this point is the he "'prefers' civil unions and will reject any state or federal laws" that could be used against equal protections for those in them. He was one of only 14 senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, but he has stated that he "personally opposes gay marriage." In my opinion this is a nutless attempt to seem superficially gay-friendly (gays and those who find "gay-sympathetic" issues critical are probably a good deal less than 10% of the vote--my guess, I have no stats) while trying to simultaneously appease the roughly 50% of Democrats who oppose gay marriage--and figuring the other 50% will probably still prefer "anyone but Bush." I say nutless, but I guess all you can really blame him for is thinking that soulectomies are a prerequisite for candidacy. I know a few gays who are "staunch Republicans" (ie: rabid enough to support Bush in spite of the facts) but I think it's a fair bet that the vast majority of gays feel they have good reason to detest Georgey-Porgey. (with all his mumbling about God and "Faith-Based Initiatives;" bad form if not scary to begin with and pretty consistently proving why) Seems all Kerry has to do is be a few degrees less of an outright bigot on this issue to cop the votes of those who see it as an issue, and as far as I'm concerned that's exactly all that he's done. Yes, I'll be voting for the lesser of two evils (not just because of this issue) but I predict if Kerry is elected I'll probably be talking smack about his administration about 87.5% of the time, whereas I bitch about Bush 92.3% of the time. And, lol, I'm wondering if the Young Republican Faction here will still be calling me unpatriotic because I'm critical of a president? No matter, I'm sure they'll find ways to disagree with me even if the shoe's on the other foot (or would that be the same foot?) and I'm doing "their job". And good point tambourine dude, but to be fair, gays have gravitated most strongly towards AIDS activism in the states even though neither here nor globally of course is it a strictly "gay issue"--and these appointments may speak more to the fact that many straight Americans have been somehow lulled into thinking otherwise than sheer tokenism. But do I wonder if Bush is planning on forming a Department of Interior Decoration...