September 2017

S M T W T F S
     12
34 56789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Tuesday, November 9th, 2004 08:00 pm (UTC)
Gays, abortions. Do you think they cared that much?
(Anonymous)
Wednesday, November 10th, 2004 07:55 am (UTC)
I think quite a few of them sincerely believe that given a foetal "gay gene" test, quite a few "pro-choice" parents would choose to terminate pregnancy once it is known that the foetus has the gene. And this, from a particular viewpoint, can be construed as genocide.

Moreover, gays themselves tend not to have children who might be at risk of the military draft, or subjects to excessive taxation in the future due to today's rampant budget deficits, etc; therefore, the litmus test is most likely Bush's stance on gay marriage, but even some heterosexuals do not care much about marriage nowadays.
Wednesday, November 10th, 2004 05:15 pm (UTC)
You are not the same anonymous, are you? (But the same as above, right?)

The gayocide theory is interesting, but I doubt it has anything at all to do with the real issuea in these past elections.

The second paragraph smells of some conspiracy theory (we need children in order to institute draft? I did not get it), but I am sure if you explained what you meant in more detail, I would be able to grasp it better.
(Anonymous)
Wednesday, November 10th, 2004 07:17 pm (UTC)
To put it succinctly, having no children makes a person somewhat more likely to adopt the "apres nous le deluge" (sorry for no accents) attitude. And who knows, maybe some "macho" gays voted for Bush to spite "girlie men" advocating gay marriage.
Wednesday, November 10th, 2004 10:17 pm (UTC)
I am sure there are all sorts of strange people around, even people who vote for one candidate so spite the other ("anybody but Bush" etc). However, I do not think they played an important role in these past elections.