Jump to content

Laura Bush says gay marriage


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

She's right. Though I disagree with abortion other than in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother, it is a woman's right to do so.

I also have no issue with gay marriage. I don't see why people get all bent out of shape over it. What 2 men or 2 women do in their own bedroom does not have any impact on my life or that of my family. 2 people who love each other should be allowed to marry.

I bet you care what two women do with one guy in his bedroom, though. Especially if the guy is you, eh? I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have no issue with gay marriage. I don't see why people get all bent out of shape over it. What 2 men or 2 women do in their own bedroom does not have any impact on my life or that of my family. 2 people who love each other should be allowed to marry.

Gay "marriage" has nothing to do with what 2 men or 2 women do in their own bedroom.

And your last sentence is just a falsehood. There are a lot of reasons we don't let 2 people "who love each other" marry. Nevermind that it's a red herring, since the issue isn't the 2 people in the first place (marriage is not an institution designed for the protection of adults).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gay "marriage" has nothing to do with what 2 men or 2 women do in their own bedroom.

(marriage is not an institution designed for the protection of adults).

Excellent points. If it was about protection, many states and companies have provided it through their policies related to civil unions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government should be OUT of the marriage business altogether, gay, straight or otherwise.

But lets get real, she is trying to sell books here.

100% true.

As for abortion, there's too many alternatives that could be used that would satisfy just about everyone but won't happen because then it takes a political wedge issue out of play...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100% true.

As for abortion, there's too many alternatives that could be used that would satisfy just about everyone but won't happen because then it takes a political wedge issue out of play...

We have a winner! That is exactly why abortion is still an issue in spite of so much debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's right. Though I disagree with abortion other than in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother, it is a woman's right to do so.

I also have no issue with gay marriage. I don't see why people get all bent out of shape over it. What 2 men or 2 women do in their own bedroom does not have any impact on my life or that of my family. 2 people who love each other should be allowed to marry.

I'm Pro choice, I believe a woman has the right to do whatever to her own body.

As far as the gays, just take the word out marriage, call it union, whatever. Its not a marriage, thats man and woman. I think gays and lesbians should get benefits afforded married couples, just call them unions.

As far as Laura Bush saying it I bet the Republicans are drinking cases of Maalox right about now. :P

Edited by nativefalcon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm Pro choice, I believe a woman has the right to do whatever to her own body.

As far as the gays, just take the word out marriage, call it union, whatever. Its not a marriage, thats man and woman. I think gays and lesbians should get benefits afforded married couples, just call them unions.

As far as Laura Bush saying it I bet the Republicans are drinking cases of Maalox right about now. :P

You're right, she does. She can say no. She can use birth control, etc.

What she does, however, to another human being is another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm Pro choice, I believe a woman has the right to do whatever to her own body.

As far as the gays, just take the word out marriage, call it union, whatever. Its not a marriage, thats man and woman. I think gays and lesbians should get benefits afforded married couples, just call them unions.

As far as Laura Bush saying it I bet the Republicans are drinking cases of Maalox right about now. :P

the bold is not exactly true otherwise euthanasia would be legal. however what rights she has to her body doesn't really apply to the abortion debate b/c what she is doing she is doing to another human being.

however i still to this day cannot understand the argument against gay marriage. if two adults consent to getting married they should be allowed to. we should not discriminate against a person based on race, religion, age, ethnic background, sex, or sexual orientation. what's scary is a lot of the arguments against gay marriage also can, and probably were, used against interracial marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

however i still to this day cannot understand the argument against gay marriage. if two adults consent to getting married they should be allowed to. we should not discriminate against a person based on race, religion, age, ethnic background, sex, or sexual orientation. what's scary is a lot of the arguments against gay marriage also can, and probably were, used against interracial marriage.

I don't know which arguments you'd be referring to, but the one I made has nothing whatsoever to do with interracial marriage, and indeed cannot.

Marriage as a societal institution is for the protection of children, not adults. The purpose is to attach children to their natural parents. We're turning that on its head with a push toward gay "marriage," because we are twisting it from a child-centered institution to an adult-centered institution. As one odd example, a child in the northeast was recently taken from its natural mother and given to the natural mother's estranged same-sex "spouse" because the "spouse" (who was not the child's mother) had "parental rights" by virtue of the "marriage." So we have a woman who has no BIOLOGICAL connection to the baby being arbitrarily awarded custody by the state over and against the natural mother. Why? Because the natural mother was now a Christian and did not approve of the lifestyle to which the "spouse" was exposing her child. So she did not allow visitation with the "spouse" (who, lets say again, was NOT a natural parent). That's what happens when you detach biology from the problem of assigning children to parents -- the state is really the only institution left to do this. And the state does it not with the best interest of the child (being raised by its natural parent) in mind, but with political correctness in mind.

And the irony is that I keep hearing that opponents of gay "marriage" will have a lot to answer for 30 years from now. I believe the opposite is true. In 30 years, if this march toward making marriage indifferent toward children is achieved, gay "marriage" advocates will have a less stable society to answer for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know which arguments you'd be referring to, but the one I made has nothing whatsoever to do with interracial marriage, and indeed cannot.

Marriage as a societal institution is for the protection of children, not adults. The purpose is to attach children to their natural parents. We're turning that on its head with a push toward gay "marriage," because we are twisting it from a child-centered institution to an adult-centered institution. As one odd example, a child in the northeast was recently taken from its natural mother and given to the natural mother's estranged same-sex "spouse" because the "spouse" (who was not the child's mother) had "parental rights" by virtue of the "marriage." So we have a woman who has no BIOLOGICAL connection to the baby being arbitrarily awarded custody by the state over and against the natural mother. Why? Because the natural mother was now a Christian and did not approve of the lifestyle to which the "spouse" was exposing her child. So she did not allow visitation with the "spouse" (who, lets say again, was NOT a natural parent). That's what happens when you detach biology from the problem of assigning children to parents -- the state is really the only institution left to do this. And the state does it not with the best interest of the child (being raised by its natural parent) in mind, but with political correctness in mind.

And the irony is that I keep hearing that opponents of gay "marriage" will have a lot to answer for 30 years from now. I believe the opposite is true. In 30 years, if this march toward making marriage indifferent toward children is achieved, gay "marriage" advocates will have a less stable society to answer for.

1. just to clear the air first I never claimed to have heard those arguments from you that i alluded to in the post you quoted. the arguments I was referring to are ridiculous examples such as "what's next, a man can marry a dog?"

2. the example you used is obviously either a miscarriage of justice or there is more to it. Either way I don't understand how it is pertinent to the discussion as to whether we as a society should allow gay marriage.

3. if marriage is for only the protection of children then why allow those that do not or cannot have children to marry or remained married? what would be the point? seems like a red herring in the debate. Also gay couples can adopt and live very child centric lives. One issue with it that I see is that the government gives benefits to married couples, such as lower income taxes. another example I can thing of is the instance where a partner may be excluded from the health care decision making process should one person be medically incapacitated. If this person does not have a healthcare POA the decisions regarding their care that a spouse should make may go to someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know which arguments you'd be referring to, but the one I made has nothing whatsoever to do with interracial marriage, and indeed cannot.

Marriage as a societal institution is for the protection of children, not adults. The purpose is to attach children to their natural parents. We're turning that on its head with a push toward gay "marriage," because we are twisting it from a child-centered institution to an adult-centered institution. As one odd example, a child in the northeast was recently taken from its natural mother and given to the natural mother's estranged same-sex "spouse" because the "spouse" (who was not the child's mother) had "parental rights" by virtue of the "marriage." So we have a woman who has no BIOLOGICAL connection to the baby being arbitrarily awarded custody by the state over and against the natural mother. Why? Because the natural mother was now a Christian and did not approve of the lifestyle to which the "spouse" was exposing her child. So she did not allow visitation with the "spouse" (who, lets say again, was NOT a natural parent). That's what happens when you detach biology from the problem of assigning children to parents -- the state is really the only institution left to do this. And the state does it not with the best interest of the child (being raised by its natural parent) in mind, but with political correctness in mind.

And the irony is that I keep hearing that opponents of gay "marriage" will have a lot to answer for 30 years from now. I believe the opposite is true. In 30 years, if this march toward making marriage indifferent toward children is achieved, gay "marriage" advocates will have a less stable society to answer for.

Several months ago I did a little (very little) research and found that similar arguments against inter-racial marriage were indeed used. I cannot remember what the particular arguments were, but they were almost identical to some of the ones we hear being used to prevent gay marriage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Laura Bush. I think she's pretty smart, and compassionate too.

In all honesty, I think I would like GWB personally; especially if I met him prior to him being "born-again". But I think he allowed himself to be manipulated by some of the people he chose to associate with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. if marriage is for only the protection of children then why allow those that do not or cannot have children to marry or remained married? what would be the point? seems like a red herring in the debate. Also gay couples can adopt and live very child centric lives. One issue with it that I see is that the government gives benefits to married couples, such as lower income taxes. another example I can thing of is the instance where a partner may be excluded from the health care decision making process should one person be medically incapacitated. If this person does not have a healthcare POA the decisions regarding their care that a spouse should make may go to someone else.

I didn't say it was SOLELY for the protection of children. But the primary reason society has an interest in marriage and in fact the ONLY reason government has an interest in marriage is to preserve the nuclear family -- to ensure that children have a right to be attached to their natural parents. That some small percentage of couples cannot have children are able to marry doesn't undo that. Pretending that same-sex couples should have the "right" to marry and having the state award custody rights to the non-biological "parent" even where the biological parent is willing and fit to raise the child does.

Adoption is a different matter -- you can adopt a child without being married. But this isn't a case of adoption. In an adoption the birth parents are giving the child up. In this case the birth mother wanted to raise the child and the child was given to a "parent" with no biological attachment whatsoever. Adoption is also not the norm, and that's for a reason. Adoption is a worthy goal, and one we should support, but it does not replace birthparents as the primary child-raisers any more than a hotel can replace a home.

The purpose of marriage as an institution is to attach children to their parents to ensure a more stable society. We are undoing that, and it's going to be ugly when it unfolds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several months ago I did a little (very little) research and found that similar arguments against inter-racial marriage were indeed used. I cannot remember what the particular arguments were, but they were almost identical to some of the ones we hear being used to prevent gay marriage.

I don't dispute that SOME of the arguments were used. That doesn't make the two situations identical, and it is really a completely false comparison for the reasons I've stated. The primary purpose of marriage is not undone by two people of different races being married. It is when two people who have neither the biological ability nor any legitimate pretense to EVER having the biological ability to procreate get "married."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm Pro choice, I believe a woman has the right to do whatever to her own body.

As far as the gays, just take the word out marriage, call it union, whatever. Its not a marriage, thats man and woman. I think gays and lesbians should get benefits afforded married couples, just call them unions.

As far as Laura Bush saying it I bet the Republicans are drinking cases of Maalox right about now. :P

Why? Laura and George can disagree on politics and still have a healthy marriage. I find relationships of any kind boring when you agree 100% with what/how the other person thinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll clarify:

I have no issues with gay marriage. The act of 2 consenting adults getting married has no adverse impact on me and my family. There is no reason that 2 people who want to enter in to a marriage contract and obtain the same benefits of a heterosexual couple should not be able to simply because they are of the same gender.

You must live on an island surrounded by no one and coming in contact with nothing.

Either that or you are blithely dismissing the points I've made above without considering them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live on top of a hill and unfortunately I come in contact with more people every day then I would really care to.

I haven't dismissed your points, I just don't agree with them.

Until this post you failed to address them in any respect, and in fact merely re-stated your conclusory position. I'd call that being dismissive.

If 2 men or 2 women choose to get married under the eyes of God (if they believe in one) and would like the same benefits of that union afforded by the government to a heterosexual couple, I have no issue with it. Why should the government be able to say that one can have benefits over another simply because they do not agree with their sexual orientation.

That's a different matter entirely. I ABSOLUTELY agree that homosexual couples should be given the same benefits -- tax benefits, ability for hospital visitation, descent and distribution rights, etc. -- as married couples. That can be done without extending the marriage contract and all of the child custody and child welfare issues involved in it to homosexual couples and having the government artificially attach children to "parents" without regard to biology.

Most of the opposition to this comes from the Christian right in which they believe it is a sin, from what I understand. To say this is to imply the God is fallible because he has created this "abomination." I don't believe that homosexuality is a learned trait.

None of that is really pertinent to the discussion. If the opposition to gay marriage were solely based on religious dogma, I'd agree with you (I do not, for example, favor laws which require that Christian communicants believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, though I do believe that is correct doctrine). But there is a patently secular purpose for forbidding gay "marriage" while allowing heterosexual marriage. And if we take that purpose away, then I defy anyone to explain why government should be involved in marriage at all.

Put another way, why do 2 consenting adults need the government's sanction on their relationship, absent protection of children? Why would a gay couple WANT the government involved in their relationship? What happened to "keep government out of our bedroom?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That can be done without extending the marriage contract and all of the child custody and child welfare issues involved in it to homosexual couples and having the government artificially attach children to "parents" without regard to biology.

What effect does that have on parents who adopt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What effect does that have on parents who adopt?

I already addressed that. Adoption is a different circumstance. The case I referenced did not involve an adoption. It involved a "married" gay couple where one of the "parents" was given custody even though she was not the natural parent at all. And the sole basis for her being a parent was NOT a legal, valid adoption. It was a gay "marriage" that did nothing to alter the biology and (more to the point) had a perfectly fit biological parent OBJECTING to the assignment of parentage to the non-biological parent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say it was SOLELY for the protection of children. But the primary reason society has an interest in marriage and in fact the ONLY reason government has an interest in marriage is to preserve the nuclear family -- to ensure that children have a right to be attached to their natural parents. That some small percentage of couples cannot have children are able to marry doesn't undo that. Pretending that same-sex couples should have the "right" to marry and having the state award custody rights to the non-biological "parent" even where the biological parent is willing and fit to raise the child does.

Adoption is a different matter -- you can adopt a child without being married. But this isn't a case of adoption. In an adoption the birth parents are giving the child up. In this case the birth mother wanted to raise the child and the child was given to a "parent" with no biological attachment whatsoever. Adoption is also not the norm, and that's for a reason. Adoption is a worthy goal, and one we should support, but it does not replace birthparents as the primary child-raisers any more than a hotel can replace a home.

The purpose of marriage as an institution is to attach children to their parents to ensure a more stable society. We are undoing that, and it's going to be ugly when it unfolds.

One miscarriage of justice doesn't not prove that gays should not be allowed to marry. Legally having or raising children has nothing to do with marriage and therefore does not belong in the debate regarding the legality of same sex marriage. We can argue what the purpose of marriage should be, from a societal, historical, psychological, moral, religious, or whatever other paradigm you so chose however the fact remains that the discussion at hand in this thread is regarding the legality of the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know which arguments you'd be referring to, but the one I made has nothing whatsoever to do with interracial marriage, and indeed cannot.

Marriage as a societal institution is for the protection of children, not adults. The purpose is to attach children to their natural parents. We're turning that on its head with a push toward gay "marriage," because we are twisting it from a child-centered institution to an adult-centered institution. As one odd example, a child in the northeast was recently taken from its natural mother and given to the natural mother's estranged same-sex "spouse" because the "spouse" (who was not the child's mother) had "parental rights" by virtue of the "marriage." So we have a woman who has no BIOLOGICAL connection to the baby being arbitrarily awarded custody by the state over and against the natural mother. Why? Because the natural mother was now a Christian and did not approve of the lifestyle to which the "spouse" was exposing her child. So she did not allow visitation with the "spouse" (who, lets say again, was NOT a natural parent). That's what happens when you detach biology from the problem of assigning children to parents -- the state is really the only institution left to do this. And the state does it not with the best interest of the child (being raised by its natural parent) in mind, but with political correctness in mind.

And the irony is that I keep hearing that opponents of gay "marriage" will have a lot to answer for 30 years from now. I believe the opposite is true. In 30 years, if this march toward making marriage indifferent toward children is achieved, gay "marriage" advocates will have a less stable society to answer for.

Excellent commentary.....but just a little to deep for most on this thread...why waste it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...