Barbara Bush Endorses Gay-Marriage

[Smallc]

That's exactly how abortion is going as well. Soon we'll all look back and won't believe how barbaric our society was. That seems to be the trend.

Sure we will.

[BC_chick]

That's exactly how abortion is going as well. Soon we'll all look back and won't believe how barbaric our society was. That seems to be the trend.

Actually, the fact that abortion is still such a thorny issue all these years later proves that the debate is NOT virtually indisputable and thus it is not an inherent part of human morality. It's a gray area and will probably remain that way for generations to come. The same thing goes for capital punishment.

Can you say the same thing about about slavery? Women's right to vote? Civil-rights for minorities? Does anyone other than the fringes of society dispute those issues anymore?

That's exactly my point about there being a universal truth to equality unlike many other debates that continue on generation after generation.

Edited February 5, 2011 by BC_chick

[Guest American Woman]

That's exactly how abortion is going as well. Soon we'll all look back and won't believe how barbaric our society was. That seems to be the trend.

It is pretty barbaric to force women, by lack of choice, to endanger their lives going to back alley butchers, so one can only hope the trend keeps going towards freedom of choice.

For the record, the other Barbara Bush has said that she believes abortion, as well as homosexuality, is a personal matter.

Barbara Bush, in stunning contrast with the position her husband has maintained for the last 12 years, contends that abortion is "a personal choice" and that Republicans should drop the rigid anti-abortion plank from the party platform.

In an interview released yesterday* with three news magazines, Mrs. Bush described abortion and homosexuality as "a personal choice . . . (a) personal thing." She said, "The personal things should be left out of, in my opinion, out of platforms and conventions." link

*Article date: Friday, August 14, 1992

Edited February 5, 2011 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

....It is pretty barbaric to force women, by lack of choice, to endanger their lives going to back alley butchers, so one can only hope the trend keeps going towards freedom of choice.

That's all well and good, but it is equally "barbaric" to abort fetuses for arbitrary reasons. Barbarism is very much in fashion all the way around.

[Moonlight Graham]

It is pretty barbaric to force women, by lack of choice, to endanger their lives going to back alley butchers, so one can only hope the trend keeps going towards freedom of choice.

Nobody "forces" women to do that. That is their choice. It is also their choice, except in cases of rape, to allow a man to insert his penis inside her vagina, and without proper protection on both sides.

The whole "pro-choice" thing is contradictory to me, because it seems women have the power to make several choices that decides whether a baby being conceived or not. Women just do not want to accept the responsibility of their choices.

[Guest American Woman]

Nobody "forces" women to do that. That is their choice.

More like it's their non-choice.

It is also their choice, except in cases of rape, to allow a man to insert his penis inside her vagina, and without proper protection on both sides.

Sometimes proper protection results in an unwanted pregnancy. Also, people are human, and thus women sometimes act on their sexual urges just as men do. But note that when there isn't "proper protection on both sides" only one side has to deal with a pregnancy. Now we could say that women shouldn't ever allow a man to insert his penis inside of her unless she's willing to get pregnant and carry that pregnancy to term, but that would be slightly ludicrous, don't you agree?

The whole "pro-choice" thing is contradictory to me, because it seems women have the power to make several choices that decides whether a baby being conceived or not. Women just do not want to accept the responsibility of their choices.

And this whole line of thought is difficult for me to understand. The women made the choice to have sex, not to have a baby. Having to make the decision to have an abortion or carry the fetus to term in the event of an unexpected pregnancy, having to go in for the medical procedure if abortion's the decision, is taking responsibility for their choice.

[Smallc]

Women just do not want to accept the responsibility of their choices.

Though I would agree that there are some women who (unfortunately) use abortion as a form of birth control in order to avoid taking responsibility for their decisions...that is a very broad and sweeping generalization that I most certainly can't support.

[Moonlight Graham]

Sometimes proper protection results in an unwanted pregnancy.

Yes, this is an unfortunate risk of sex for pleasure.

Also, people are human, and thus women sometimes act on their sexual urges just as men do.

They do, but it is still a choice. People are "human", meaning humans make mistakes, but if you make a mistake by your own conscious choice then there is a price to pay. I have no sympathy for people who use this excuse. If someone doesn't want a baby, yet is stupid enough to be involved in a penis going into a vagina without proper protection, they should pay the price, not the new life.

But note that when there isn't "proper protection on both sides" only one side has to deal with a pregnancy.

True. But a woman still has a choice to allow the penis to enter her vagina or not. If not, that is considered rape, which is a whole other ballgame.

Now we could say that women shouldn't ever allow a man to insert his penis inside of her unless she's willing to get pregnant and carry that pregnancy to term, but that would be slightly ludicrous, don't you agree?

No. A woman should know the risks and responsibilities that comes with a penis entering the vagina. The man should also.

And this whole line of thought is difficult for me to understand. The women made the choice to have sex, not to have a baby.

As i've stated, having sex comes with the known risk that the woman can get pregnant. This is a choice. One that is not considered seriously enough by many people.

Having to make the decision to have an abortion or carry the fetus to term in the event of an unexpected pregnancy, having to go in for the medical procedure if abortion's the decision, is taking responsibility for their choice.

Well, i will say that i know having an abortion is not easy. But for those that have an abortion it is a lot easier than having a baby, otherwise women wouldn't make that decision. This is just my opinion, others like yourself of course will disagree. Hot button issue!

[Bonam]

But note that when there isn't "proper protection on both sides" only one side has to deal with a pregnancy.

Not true. While only "one side" becomes physically pregnant, the pregnancy can have a profound impact on the lives of both of the individuals involved. Both people have to "deal with it".

[August1991]

Sorry to jump into the middle.

NAGMT? (Not another gay marriage thread)?

But the fact is, incontrovertibly, that a lot of gay people do care. Thye want to use the word "marriage" because it connotes a normalization of homosexual relationships within society.

As I once argued with Black Dog (the comparison utterly enraged him), if it doesn't have whole eggs, it's not mayonnaise.

There is "mayonnaise", and there is "salad dressing". IOW, let's be clear in our descriptions.

Nevertheless, Black Dog managed to convince me to favour gay marriage over civil union.

----

My quibble with gay marriage activists is that they treat opponents as bigots unworthy of citizenship rights in a civilized society. IMV, a civilized society does not impose morality on individuals. You can oppose gay marriage and still be a civilized human being worthy of voting rights in a democracy.

To get serious for a moment, there have been a string of young conservatives and children of top Republican politicians, who have taken sides against their parent's views on gay rights issues. A lot of polling data does demonstrate that opposition to gay marriage and gay rights in general is skewed by age, much more than political views, religion, gender, race, economic level, or any other significant marker. That makes the fight against gay rights a loosing cause for any social conservatives to plant their flags on. Even young evangelical Christians are turning away from them on all of this "defense of marriage" crap.

I suspect that in the future, "modern Christianity" will take precedence over "backward" Islamic or unAmerican beliefs on this issue.

America is a country of individual freedom; when it comes to partisan disputes, too many Americans seem to forget this.

Edited February 6, 2011 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, on 05 February 2011 - 05:01 PM, said:

But note that when there isn't "proper protection on both sides" only one side has to deal with a pregnancy.

Not true. While only "one side" becomes physically pregnant, the pregnancy can have a profound impact on the lives of both of the individuals involved. Both people have to "deal with it".

Yes, true. Unarguably true in the sense I was referring to it. Both people have to deal with 'after the pregnancy' if it goes to term, which is a different matter entirely from "dealing with the pregnancy" -- or to put it more clearly, to deal with being "physically pregnant," since that's I'm referring to. It's being physically pregnant that's a major life-changing consequence of having sex for only one side, and again, that's what my response was in regards to.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, this is an unfortunate risk of sex for pleasure.

A pregnancy is sometimes an unfortunate risk of sex for pleasure, but sex is intended to be pleasurable, so surely you're not suggesting that people only engage in sex for pro-creation purposes?

Furthermore, while pregnancy can be viewed as an "unfortunate" result, a child should never be viewed that way.

They do, but it is still a choice. People are "human", meaning humans make mistakes, but if you make a mistake by your own conscious choice then there is a price to pay. I have no sympathy for people who use this excuse. If someone doesn't want a baby, yet is stupid enough to be involved in a penis going into a vagina without proper protection, they should pay the price, not the new life.

Honestly, this sounds like a mindset from the Dark Ages. If women only had sex when they wanted a baby, there's be a helluva lot of frustrated men (and women) running around. Or there wouldn't be enough prostitutes to go around, and I don't think most women would be ok with their guy having sex with a stranger. But at least the men could be having sex! Women, on the other hand, could only have it when they want a baby. No sex for pleasure, just for procreation.

True. But a woman still has a choice to allow the penis to enter her vagina or not. If not, that is considered rape, which is a whole other ballgame.

Yes, she does have a choice, and she should have a choice after, too. The fact that only one partner has to deal with the consequence of being pregnant shouldn't result in only men being able to have sex for pleasure, and I have to hope that's not the mindset that you are promoting.

No. A woman should know the risks and responsibilities that comes with a penis entering the vagina. The man should also.

People can know the risks, but unless we suddenly find ourselves living in an alternate universe, that's not going to change the reality of the world we live in; and in the world we live in, people -- both men and women -- do more often than not have sex purely for pleasure. If one chooses to have sex purely for pleasure and is unprepared/unable to bring a child into the world, then sometimes the choice not to bring the child into the world is being responsible for having sex.

As i've stated, having sex comes with the known risk that the woman can get pregnant. This is a choice. One that is not considered seriously enough by many people.

I agree. That's the Real World. We are human. We are going to sometimes have sex for pleasure. If a woman doesn't ever want a child, you're in effect saying she should go through life a virgin. Absolutely ludicrous.

Well, i will say that i know having an abortion is not easy. But for those that have an abortion it is a lot easier than having a baby, otherwise women wouldn't make that decision. This is just my opinion, others like yourself of course will disagree. Hot button issue!

I think "easier" isn't the issue here. What's "right" for the person involved, and that very much affects the child that would be brought into the world, is what's at issue. It's about doing what's right for that individual, not about doing what's easiest.

But it is, as you say, just your opinion, and that's why I don't feel as if you have the right to take away the choice from others who do not share your opinion -- and that's the crux of the issue.

[Guest American Woman]

My quibble with gay marriage activists is that they treat opponents as bigots unworthy of citizenship rights in a civilized society. IMV, a civilized society does not impose morality on individuals.

That's the whole point -- not allowing gay marriage IS imposing the opponents' morals on individuals.

You can oppose gay marriage and still be a civilized human being worthy of voting rights in a democracy.

Which is why those opposing gay marriage do still have voting rights.

I suspect that in the future, "modern Christianity" will take precedence over "backward" Islamic or unAmerican beliefs on this issue.

"UnAmerican" beliefs? You lost me there.

America is a country of individual freedom; when it comes to partisan disputes, too many Americans seem to forget this.

Yeah, right. "Americans" seem to forget that. But gay marriage rights isn't particularly a "partisan" dispute. I do agree with this article: Barbara Bush's 'nonissue' advocacy:

Another way to tell if you're old: how much you care that Barbara Bush supports gay marriage. It's a "nonissue" for most people under 30 years old, said R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, a group of openly gay GOPers.

Most younger Republicans - especially those like Bush with gay friends - think equal rights is a no-brainer, said Cooper.

But her public support is important to educate older members of his party ...

So it's every bit as much an 'age issue,' as has already been pointed out.

[Shady]

It is pretty barbaric to force women, by lack of choice, to endanger their lives going to back alley butchers, so one can only hope the trend keeps going towards freedom of choice.

That's a false choice. It's not an either or situation. And freedom of choice doesn't mean freedom to kill. Thanks to ultrasound and especially 3D-ultrasound, the vast majority of people can see for themselves that an unborn child is a human being. That's what's been attributed to the movement of societies outlook on abortion. Over the past 3 decades, the polls have changed dramatically.

You, and others like you, are on the wrong side of history.

Take a good listen to the heart beat in the video (0:25sec).

Edited February 6, 2011 by Shady

[Bonam]

Take a good listen to the heart beat in the video (0:25sec).

And? Animals that we slaughter by the billions for food also have a heartbeat. A heartbeat is not proof of personhood.

[Shady]

And? Animals that we slaughter by the billions for food also have a heartbeat. A heartbeat is not proof of personhood.

An animal isn't a human.

[kimmy]

And? Animals that we slaughter by the billions for food also have a heartbeat. A heartbeat is not proof of personhood.

yeahyeahyeah, but it's also got little fingers and little eyes. It can suck on its thumb and make funny faces.

As inane as that sort of argument is, it's compelling to a lot of people because it affects people on an emotional level rather than an intellectual level.

-k

[Shady]

yeahyeahyeah, but it's also got little fingers and little eyes. It can suck on its thumb and make funny faces.

As inane as that sort of argument is, it's compelling to a lot of people because it affects people on an emotional level rather than an intellectual level.

-k

Actually, it's a scientific level. Why do people still deny the science?

[Smallc]

Actually, it's a scientific level. Why do people still deny the science?

Actually, it isn't. Why do you keep claiming that it is?

[Shady]

Actually, it isn't. Why do you keep claiming that it is?

What isn't science?

So you're a denier huh? Fair enough.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Shady

[kimmy]

Actually, it's a scientific level. Why do people still deny the science?

"The science" that a fetus has a heartbeat? That's been long known, and doesn't mean a thing.

-k

[Shady]

"The science" that a fetus has a heartbeat? That's been long known, and doesn't mean a thing.

-k

Not just a heartbeat, but why not?

[Smallc]

What isn't science?

So you're a denier huh? Fair enough.

Unplug that heartbeat from the mother, and don't intervene medically. The fetus can't survive on its own without intervention until very late in the pregnancy, a stage at which abortions almost never happen.

[kimmy]

Not just a heartbeat, but why not?

Why would the heartbeat be meaningful?

Do you wish to argue that the heartbeat is the beginning of life or something?

-k

[Shady]

Unplug that heartbeat from the mother, and don't intervene medically. The fetus can't survive on its own without intervention until very late in the pregnancy, a stage at which abortions almost never happen.

So what? A new born baby can't survive on it's own without intervention either. And the fact that abortions almost never occur at that stage, doesn't mean they should.