»Bush is is pro-gay civil unions«
|
|||
  Quote: “I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so,” Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC. Bush acknowledged that his position put him at odds with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions. 
posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsBush, Kerry, IraqBush is is pro-gay civil unions |
|
|||
 Looks like Bush changed his mind.  Quote: President Bush will renew a quest in his second term for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as essential to a ``hopeful and decent'' society, his top political aide said on Sunday. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Tiefling: Looks like Bush changed his mind. Bush is a flip-flopper like the internet has never seen before... posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 If Knn's statement is spoken in English it goes as follows: Bush is an inconsistent opportunist who will change his views to whatever is necessary to give him the most popularity with the least amount of effort on his part. I don't think that's unfair  posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 he is simply saying that it shouldnt be termed as "marriage" because the legal definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman... where as stating that something similar for gay couples is feasible but should not be defined as a marriage so i fail to see a "flip flop" posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
the anomaly: where as stating that something similar for gay couples is feasible but should not be defined as a marriage
so i fail to see a "flip flop" There is practically no difference between marriage and civil union. It's the same. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 knn: There is practically no difference between marriage and civil union. It's the same. he's trying to keep the sanctity of marriage...whatever that means with the divorce rates as they are now...but still i believe it should be civil unions with the same benefits of marriage, just don't call it that posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
The ONEder Man: he's trying to keep the sanctity of marriage... No, he's trying to get right-wing voters. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: No, he's trying to get right-wing voters. IYO 
posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 knn: No, he's trying to get right-wing voters. Oh, by the way, this is not my opinion, I just wanted to state a possibility. I am just tired of typing all these "Maybe he", or "There is a possibility that he" or "Some say". posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: knn: No, he's trying to get right-wing voters. Oh, by the way, this is not my opinion, I just wanted to state a possibility. I am just tired of typing all these "Maybe he", or "There is a possibility that he" or "Some say". well, if you don't say "maybe" then it will be interperted as a statement of either opinion or fact. and that can lead to all kinds of trouble. if you are too tired to type "maybe" then "maybe" you should stop typing for a while. posted by 4thedefender |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: the anomaly: where as stating that something similar for gay couples is feasible but should not be defined as a marriage
so i fail to see a "flip flop" There is practically no difference between marriage and civil union. It's the same. actually, there are major differences. for one thing, calling it marriage would be a major offensive in the culture wars. but, from a legal stand point (which would probably mean a lot more to anti-religious, amoralist bigot) civil unions are different because while they take care of the legal arguments about equal rights (which are dead wrong, but why let that stop activist judges from legislating from the bench) without setting a dangerous precident. if you allow gay marriage on the grounds of wqual protection under the law, you would be legally obligated to allow polygamy, and even more extreme forms of marriage. by creating civil unions, you create a seperate legal arrangement, which would not lead to such a situation. posted by 4thedefender |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
4thedefenderr: if you allow gay marriage on the grounds of wqual protection under the law, you would be legally obligated to allow polygamy, and even more extreme forms of marriage. by creating civil unions, you create a seperate legal arrangement, which would not lead to such a situation. If you allow homosexual civil unions, you would fall into the same trap, according to your logic. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
because civil unions are different from marriage, they do not have to be applied to everyone. they are a new form of contract and do not set any major precident. they essentially patch this (faulty) legal loophole, but do not require the same possibility for other types of relationships. altering marriage on the other hand would set a precident that would require all those huge changes. posted by 4thedefender |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
So let's get this straight. If a heterosexual atheist has a civil union it is called a 'marriage', but if a homosexual, religious or not, has a civil union it is not allowed to be called a marriage? How does THAT work? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
1, 2 Next
Goto page
1, 2 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 23 May 2012, 07:43 php B.B. |