Bush's new marriage initiative
 

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Jan/01172...ion/129894.asp

I think educating the population about the responsibilities, choices, and lifestyle that a healthy marriage should embody will very likely deter more unstable couples from making a rash decision to enter into that union, however I can't justify spending $1.5 billion to do so. There are more important issues that need attention (and funding).

Several people I've spoken too on this issue have brought up Bush's proposal of amending the constitution to outlaw homosexual marriage, but in relation to this issue, I feel that marriage means a lot more to the government then "combating the evils of homosexuality." It's a paycheck; married coples are more likely to own property, make more money (higher tax bracket) and hold a steady household income. A married couple has each other to depend on financially and is a lot more secure then a single person who may lose everything and not recover, possibly ending up on welfare. But, I also believe that we all have the choice and coupled with my hate of social welfare programs, I think this idea is ludicrous.

I also am inclined to believe that there is an ulterior motive here on the part of the president to gain the support of group of voters that almost cost him the 2000 election. Before I take a firm stand on that, however, I would like to see what the Bush administration has said to prompt this article to report that "short on specifics, the White House nevertheless made it clear that the 'healthy marriage initiative' is a response to pressure from conservative Christians." The article never said how they made it clear. I think he believes in his cause but I can't deny that he wouldn't have taken these steps had it not been for pressure from a large group of potential voters.

I question how many of Bush's proposals will actual go through, and which ones are just simply broken promises. I mean, with between the illegal imigrants proposal, the NASA proposal, and this new Marriage proposal, you have to admit its very unlikely it'll all get done.

I know its an election year, but does Bush honestly believe anything he requests will be done? By trying to do everything, nothing will get done.

Sky Warrior Bob

I remember how this appeared in my daily Newspaper:
"Bush proposes spending $1.5 billion dollars to Advance Heterosexual Marriages," Perhaps it was a misleading heading with a rather biased angle, but I'm more or less inclined to agree with the stance. I heard that a lot of people critical of this plan were just bitter because they wanted to see that whole biggoted constitutional ammendment proposed.

It's simply moronic to spend that much money trying to promote a given lifestyle and no others. Where's the subsidies for johns who like banging hookers, Mormons and Muslims who dig polygamy, swinging singles who enjoy fucking, queers and their slightly different relationships and families, and celebutes? This is simply descrimination. I wonder what they'd be saying if Bush started a billion dollar initiative promoting the specific health issues of white skin...

What albotross did we of the alternative lifestyles kill to deserve an ostrocism so great, that people would demand an ammendment to the very constitution just to prevent the recognition of our loving unions? You'd think that as long as there were hermaphrodites, intersexuals, as well as transgendered and transsexual people abouts that everyone would have realised how rather weak the whole concept of sexual norms and gender are. What happens when a women marries a hermaphrodite? Are hermaphrodites forbidden to marry because they'd be "gay" either way? Will they be allowed to run the gambit and marry either because it's "straight" either way? Will they be half married?

First off I'd like to say, aren't you Canadian Devon? If so, what's this 'we' stuff.

This is a legitimate question. They cut and dry part of the answer is prostitution is illegal, both for health issues and the flagrant abuses of prostitutes before it was made illegal. Second, hetero-married couples make babies and are more financially and emotionally stable than non-married people. The government wants money(which is power), and the government wants order(so they don't have to work at it), and perpetuation of the species is good. That's how governments are.

If Polygamy could be proven to help make the government money and maintain social stability, the government would back it.(the opposite was 'proven' true by very biased folks) If Homosexual marriages could be proven effective for this(in other countries), then the government will likely encourage all of them to tie the knot. And of course singles who screw around are not good for the government. Governments watch their own asses closer than anybody elses.

Once again, if you're Canadian none of this effects you, so shut up. If not, bitch away. Also, hermaphrodites are assigned official 'sex' based on their psychological gender. So a feminine hermaphrodite is female on the books, masculine is male on the books. Just, FYI. Also, while Homosexuality is not, transexuality is still registered as a psychological disease.(and someone transgendered was likely transexual first, and officially 'diseased'). It's all bogus, but not apt to change.

Well, I'm not surprised (and neither is anyone else maybe) that Bush is trying to protect "traditional" mariiage and degrade others yet again. Hell, remember how he reacted top Texas repealing the sodomy ban?

Well, isn't that a stunning piece of rhetoric. Don't do something like that again.

I see, now we're on an "us" and "them" basis. I'm sorry us Canadians are communal enough to accept Americans into our concept of agragation. I'll respect our place as alien foreigners outside the fatherland from now on. Of course, I said "we of the alternative lifestyles", which means by we, I was alluding to folks like myself who are queer (That's how pronouns work you see, they alude to the subject.)

I see, and how does promoting something that's a tax exemption like dependants and marriage get them money? As for perpetuating the species, there's 6 billion people and the trend for the last few tens of thousands of years has been that we multiply... Is a subsidy REALLy neccessary? Aside from that, how's spending 1 billion dollars effective economically? That kind of money could pay for the annual fee of maintaing your average military.

But of course, civil rights could never be beneficial! Homosexuals won't be productive unless they're oppressed and denied the recognition of their unions which made them happy. I'll bet if you just cut gays, they'll bleed gold to! Great economical thinking there.

Well, Mashirosen already dealt with your first sentence, so I won't bother with it. Actually, currently a lot of hermaphrodites and intersexuals merely had a sex picked for them at birth when a doctor went "eeny meeny miny mo". And of course, it usually winds up badly (Many folks grow up unhappy with their genitals having been permanently mutilated while others get assigned the wrong sex.) Furthermore, many of them are perfectly happy being sexually ambiguous, so it's not as simple as picking male or female. Of course, this sort of makes the burauocracy throw a fit and just sort of declare a sex because everything must be black and white for them (Mixed race! Impossible! Mixed sex! Impossible!) And transsexuality is not registered as a "Desease", it's seen as a "condition" and there's a world of difference. In any case, a good lot of transexuals just want the medical establishment to fuck off and let us control our own lives as they did with gays in the 30's.

I'm just saying, even if American passed a law saying all males between 12 and 27 years old have to be killed. It wouldn't oppress you. I have nothing against Canadians. My very best friend is a Canadian, my grandfather is Canadian, my grandmother is, by marriage-naturalization, Canadian.


They make more money than than they give away. If they didn't politicians wouldn't live in huge houses. They can't steal money the government lost.

I actually threw this in because making babies is fun. And besides, the more babies the more young lads can be consripted into aforementioned military. Also, they get subsidies for raising the kids instead of dumping them on the streets.(which is also a worldwide trend made 'cool' by American teens, which goes to show you, American teens are dumb enough to believe anything is cool)

One, civil rights has never done me any good. Well, you know, college and stuff.(I love qoutas) Also, I hope you're not lying about that gold thing, cause I don't need another aggravated assault charge, and if I don't get gold out of it, I'll be unhappy.

Also, do you need to be officially 'married' to be happy. I was just wondering. Just give the government the finger and marry each other off the books. Or, go to a country that allows it, why be a part of a country you disagree with. If I wasn't lazy and too attached to my almost-enough-credits, I'd move to England or Canada.

<If Polygamy could be proven to help make the government money and maintain social stability, the government would back it.>

I find this painfully false. "Oh, well, it'll mantain social stability, we can ignore all this religious stuff that we've been doing..."

<Second, hetero-married couples make babies and are more financially and emotionally stable than non-married people.>

If this is true, then why would Bush be against Gay Marriage? They don't have children? What? What about Adoption? I mean, if they're against Abortion then they must at least support some adoption, right?

<The government wants money(which is power), and the government wants order(so they don't have to work at it), and perpetuation of the species is good. That's how governments are.>

I sure HOPE that's not how governments are. When the homies that made this country wrote "Congress shall make no law..." as the first phrase in the Bill of Rights, I don't think they were thinking, "Now... will this give me more power?"

I'd say it's more likely that because our government is so powerful it's becoming more corrupt.

Yes, our government did start out good. But it's not that it got powerful and right now it's starting to get corrupt. Corruption started along time ago and is well set it. Very well set it. Washington was a great and noble guy, but I don't think you'll find an equivalent in our government today

Edit: FYI, I don't support banning gay marriages. Personally I disagree entirely with the government sanctioning or prohibiting(or awarding or punishing) any marriage whatsoever.