Modern or Backward?

[Miss Maryland]

The amount of support the President has recieved from the American people is alarming, especially when it comes to preventing same sex marriages, continuing to enforce the the patriot act, and introducing abstinence-only programs in state schools. The United States may have a reputation as being the 'new great world power' and a thoroughly modern country. But Bush's recent State of the Union address reflects how archaic and outdated the sentiments and values of the majority of the american people actually are.

At least that's my opinion. What do you think?

[hr]...and there was much rejoicing.

[Plette]

I know this is a rather boring contribution, but I share your sentiment completely.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

When the country is ruled essentially by the interests groups with the most money, that's an entirely regressive step because that's essentially what's been happening for the past few millenia. It's no exaggeration to say the American Presidency can be bought.

[A Thinking Guy]

I fully understand that you're American Miss M, so I don't look like too big an ass lording it over some "furriner."

I wouldn't say that any VAST majority of Americans agree with Bush on his most controversial points. Polls indicate most Americans are absolutely against making homosexual behavior illegal, and I believe a majority of Americans support civil unions (not sure, any fact checkers out there?)

As for the abstinence education, it hasn't exactly taken effect around here. But Chicago is an island of civilization in the midwest, I can't speak for the country (no offense meant, Iowa.)

I guess all I wanted to say is that Bush's rhetoric-- or more accurately his speechwriters' rhetoric-- captivates only a few people all of the time, more people some of the time, and some people none of the time. Hmm...that was Rumsfeldian...(and he went to my high school! how terrifying is that...[charlton heston too..., seriously])

Can't wait to have these conversations in person at St Andrews starting in September.

PS- just for the record, I myself am 100% for homosexual/transsexual marriage and 10000000% for Bush to be dealt out of the White House and back to the Texas Rangers. And schools- you can't be too liberal with those contraceptives!

[mossop]

[s]Unregisted User A Thinking Guy wrote on 03:21, 22nd Jan 2004:
PS- just for the record, I myself am 100% for homosexual/transsexual marriage and 10000000% for Bush to be dealt out of the White House and back to the Texas Rangers. And schools- you can't be too liberal with those contraceptives!


Hahaha!

[hr]
http://www.geocities.com/stauwfc

[SiouxieSioux]

I tend to agree with Miss mayland. It appears as though Bush is reverting back to the traditional white-bread America, exerting his Texas mentality(gun-hoe, no shit, men are men kind of thing)on an othewise progressive society. I know this is a HUGE assumption but it would not surprise me if he was racist, too.

[hr]Harry: Ah-ah, I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I've kind of lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum - the most powerful hand gun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, do I feel lucky. Well, do ya punk?"

[dan greenberg]

The thing is, the State of the Union address, that's a domestic thing. I don't think it's meant to be listened in to by the rest of the world, nor is it directed to them. The State of the Union Address I believe is for Americans. In that respect, Bush spouting rhetoric about Americans being the hardest-working, most intelligent, all around best people in the world, and thus having the best people in the world, I see that more as a part of his re-election campaign. Butter up the people, make them feel good, and secure their votes. It appeals to their nationalism and patriotism. And really, what American presidential candidate is going to tell Bush that he's wrong, that America's not so great. That admonition made public is political suicide, and Dean is the only one that I've heard even hint at it so far. And frankly, that Americans being the best part, I whole-heartedly agree!

[katiem]

"I wouldn't say that any VAST majority of Americans agree with Bush on his most controversial points. Polls indicate most Americans are absolutely against making homosexual behavior illegal, and I believe a majority of Americans support civil unions (not sure, any fact checkers out there?)"


Don't make statements like the one above which is not based in fact. I think you meant well by your post, but get your facts straight.(no pun intended). The majority of Americans DO NOT support civil unions. Americans are more likely to support civil unions than actual legally recognized same-sex marriage, but we are still not dealing with the majority of the country. As far as most polls indicating that Americans are 'absolutely' against making homosexual behaviour illegal...what polls? In a December poll by the New York Times, the question was asked: "Do you think homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?" Forty-nine percent thought it should not be legal.

[A Thinking Guy, sometimes]

I stand corrected.

"The latest CBS News/New York Times Poll found that 55 percent would oppose a law allowing homosexual couples to marry, giving them the same legal rights as other married couples, while 40 percent would favor such a law.

And a Gallup Poll found opposition to so-called gay unions — alternatives to marriage such as the law in Vermont -- to be around 57 percent."

My lazy researching took me only as far as a right-wing site, so here's finger's crossed they didn't tweak the numbers. Assuming they haven't, it seems opposition to so-called "so-called" gay unions (grrr..right wingers...) is the same as opposition to marriage. Surprising.

These polls were from August 2003. Thanks for the fact-check.

PS- these still show that a pretty large chunk of the nation ISN'T against homosexual marriage/union. But agreed, there's a very long way to go.

PPS- On a slightly different topic: what on earth is going across the channel? The proposed banning of religious symbols such as yarmulkes, cross necklaces, hijabs, "religious looking" beards, and even certain bandanas in France smacks of thinly veiled intolerance.

Mister Chirac seems to have good intentions, in a twisted way, but putting a lid on public expressions of faith seems like shaking a Champagne bottle and hoping it doesn't explode. For god's sake, what's wrong with a bloody hijab?? Whom does it hurt?!

This is perhaps the ONE thing American schools do particularly well- allow for religious freedom. I'm going to go put on my Agnostic Fedora and head over to my school.

[Haunted]

is it so controversial to ban homosexual marriges?
marrige is a christian thing and it is clear that homosexuality is not a christian thing. Of course Gay bishops are even more contrary to christianty. why does everyone place so much prestige on marrige?

[exnihilo]

With the heaviest of all possible sighs: marriage is a Christian thing? Now who needs a fact checker?

[Pam]

Marriage is a legal thing. We aren't talking about a big white wedding in a cathedrial. We're talking about a legal standing that gets favoured more than being single.

[SiouxieSioux]

Its wrong to state that marriage is a christian thing. Thats biased. Every religion has marriage, right? So in that case marriage is every religion. Alternatively, if you are aetheist, its aetheist. Depends on what you believe.

[hr]IMAGE:www.img7.photobucket.com/albums/v21/macphista/rotk_press_dance.jpg
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, Drill Instructer:God has a hard on for Marines, because we kill everything we see. He plays His games, we play ours. To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls. God was here before the marine corps, so you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the corps!

[adam anthony]

well... can I play too???

Marriage as I think everyone has determined so far is a religious thing (not favorable to one). In america, and I'm sure in other coutries there are tax incentives and things like that... this is the legal part of the union. Marriage is not a contract between the state, its a covenant between God (whatever religion you are) and two people... The state should play no role in who gets married, as long as it happens in synagoge (sp.) or church, or whereever!! The Marriage starts in the place of worship...

Just for a little fun, the Bible also says that if someone touches the skin of a dead pig they should be stoned to death... or if I work on Sunday, I should be killed. Should we take everything it says literally. It mentions homosexual issues at best 3-4 times. Paul's whole message, the whole message of the Pentateuch and basically the whole New Testament... is love. Simply put. Love everyone as you love god and show no bias or judgement upon those who you know. Just a thought.

[SiouxieSioux]

In my view the bible is extremely biased, subjective and judgemental(obviously). However you have to look at the context of the time. The thing is though if someone told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?

[hr]IMAGE:www.img7.photobucket.com/albums/v21/macphista/rotk_press_dance.jpg
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, Drill Instructer:God has a hard on for Marines, because we kill everything we see. He plays His games, we play ours. To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls. God was here before the marine corps, so you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the corps!

[Guest]

[s]SiouxieSioux wrote on 11:32, 23rd Jan 2004:
Its wrong to state that marriage is a christian thing. Thats biased. Every religion has marriage, right? So in that case marriage is every religion. Alternatively, if you are aetheist, its aetheist. Depends on what you believe.


Thank the lord someone with some sense.

(PS I'm not christian, or am I? Shit I don't know, maybe I'm an agnostic, but I'm not so sure)

[Guest]

[s]Haunted wrote on 02:30, 23rd Jan 2004:
is it so controversial to ban homosexual marriges?
marrige is a christian thing and it is clear that homosexuality is not a christian thing. Of course Gay bishops are even more contrary to christianty. why does everyone place so much prestige on marrige?


.. because obviously followers of Judaism and Islam and Buddha also have Christian marriages.. what??

If you don't look outside your box, your as bad as Bush. Anyone else bothered by the fact that in a country with an ENOURMOUS variety of religions, and a supposed FREEDOM OF RELIGION and a separation of state and religion (hence no prayer in school etc) Bush is using the Christian Bible to justify his actions?? Bring on the elections, he can't be out of there soon enough!!

[Guest]

What gays don't have as a result of not allowing same-sex civil unions:

1. A right to see their partner in hospital in ICUs (as are not next of kin), to make decisions concerning their partner's treatment in the case of an accident, to make decisions concerning ending life-support treatment. (This has to be the family, even if the partners are in their 80s)

2. A right to inherit property (like a shared house that is in the other's name), money, posessions upon death, again, even if both are 80 and have spent 60 years together.

3. A right to adopt their partner's existing children to put them in position as a legal guardian. (Not talking adopt other children, just the children that might live with them anyway). To see why this is a problem, see 1 as well as other varied reasons involving signing forms, etc. In the case of death of the original parent, children might then be put into foster care instead of being allowed to live with the one person who is left who they have spent their entire lives with until this point (I appreciate this issue is somewhat separate from civil unions, but also inseperably entwined.) And please don't post about giving the children to the original birth father/mother, not always a possibility as the child might be the result of a one night stand and we know how many single mothers are out there whose husbands don't know of their kid's existance and prefer it this way.

What we gain by opposing gay unions:

1. A feeling of superiority that our unions, be they Muslim, Buddhist, or Civil, are somehow more special.

2. A group to look down on from our moral highground.

I think it is a sorry state of affairs in which think our happiness can be taken away from by granting happiness to other people. Not an entirely Christian thing to feel, that.

I have lived in the states and will never live there again, it is exactly this type of thinking that disgusts me. The pursuit of happiness and all men created equal my arse.

[Guest]

[s]adam anthony wrote on 12:59, 23rd Jan 2004:
well... can I play too???

The state should play no role in who gets married, as long as it happens in synagoge (sp.) or church, or whereever!! The Marriage starts in the place of worship...



Which of course leaves out the atheists as they don't deserve equal rights.

[Eliot Wilson]

[s]Miss Maryland wrote on 01:31, 22nd Jan 2004:
The amount of support the President has recieved from the American people is alarming, especially when it comes to preventing same sex marriages, continuing to enforce the the patriot act, and introducing abstinence-only programs in state schools. The United States may have a reputation as being the 'new great world power' and a thoroughly modern country. But Bush's recent State of the Union address reflects how archaic and outdated the sentiments and values of the majority of the american people actually are.


Why are these things archaic and outdated? Because you disagree with them? Whether I believe in same-sex marraige/civil partnership agreements/contracts/whatever or not is irrelevant; but I don't think we can simply say that those who don't are archaic. What's your objective measuring stick?



[hr]
Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."