Skip to comments.Laura Bush Supports Gay Marriage, Abortion
Posted on 05/12/2010 6:47:05 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Former first lady Laura Bush has broken with her husband on the premier social issues of his administration and said she backs gay marriage and abortion.
After more than eight years of silence on the controversial issues, Mrs. Bush said in an interview with CNN's Larry KingTuesday, that gay marriage and abortion were points of contention with her husband, former President George W. Bush.
Mrs. Bush in recent weeks has been promoting her memoir "Spoken from the Heart," in which she writes about her life both before and after becoming first lady.
In response to a question about gay marriage, she said, "There are a lot of people who have trouble coming to terms with that because they see marriage as traditionally between a man and a woman. But I also know that, you know, when couples are committed to each other and love each other, that they ought to have, I think, the same sort of rights that everyone has."
Mrs. Bush said she and the ex-president "disagree" on legalizing same-sex marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
You ever watch that A+E show Intervention?? I call it the 'enabler' show because the parents buy their kids crack, crystal meth, alcohol, give them a place to stay and to get high(they say to keep them safe), give them a car and bail them out of jail...all while telling the camera they hate the child's destructive behavior but they do it out of 'love'.
As irritating as these master enablers are there is another group of enablers that are even worse. They tell themselves their kids don't have the problem, it's the world that has the problem. If only the world was more accepting of these behaviors. If only we could teach safe use of these drugs in schools their kids would be OK. If only we taught kids how to use contraceptives they could have safe sex. If only we marry homosexuals and treat them like our married parents they wouldnt have multiple partners. It is repression that is the problem not the personal behaviour. I don't buy it.
I cant agree on giving special rights for homosexual behaviour (treating it as a race or sex), kids or no kids . It is destructive behavior.
Is there no one, even here, who understands how agreeing to use the euphemism “gay” to describe sodomites is a significant defeat in the culture war?
It is an axiom on the left: If you want to change what people think, first change the words they use.
Resist, people, resist!
I don't think that mattered much. A bigger problem was when official associations like AMA and Mental Health association came out with positions that it was not a mental illness. That led to the theories that the high statistics of self destruction came from the society imposed guilt, not the core behavior. The solution being that we change, not them. Then add teaching public schools and you got liberals, libertarians and some establishment republicans (noted on this thread) all polling for new rights for homos, er gays.
Unfortunately many local discrimination laws make it risky/illegal to even discuss opposition openly.
I'd say that Original Sin puts a stain on even that.
But even if not, I know that Original Sin has cursed us all with at least a proclivity towards sinful temptations; some folks may have a weakness for the Demon Bottle (perhaps I may have tippled a little, in my own youth), while other folks may suffer from some degree of Same-Sex Attraction Disorder. It wouldn't surprise me if some of these predispositions do manifest genetically; what I object to is the phrase "hard-wired". Wha-huh? Whatever happened to individual choice, to Human Free Will? We're born with individual tendencies, individual weaknesses; but we each choose our own courses of action, throughout the day.
And I say that as a Calvinist myself, so I have no problem with strongly Predestinarian beliefs or thinking; but the extremity of determinism suggested by the advocates of genetic homosexuality is disturbing. For the sake of observing that some of our individual tendencies may have a genetic component, a bit of hereditary weakness or what have you, they'd throw out all the importance of environmental factors, and just plain individual choices, and reduce Human Free Will essentially to the level of the robotic. Now THAT'S the kind of thinking on this subject to which I do object.
I can,,my thinking is not yours. And frankly, hardly anyone on this thread elicits my admiration.
Dam, this thread has 5 or 6 HUNDRED posts? Sorry about that, I slipped up. BWAHAHAHAHA
“I don’t think that mattered much.”
It matters a great deal. The words we use shape our worldview more than we realize. That is why the left is so intent upon imposing their vocabulary.
For instance, to argue about “abortion rights” is to concede that there *could* be a right to kill an innocent, preborn human being, without ever examining that question on its merits. It simply assumes it, which is a significant victory for evil.
Sanity, of course, requires that we reject that notion out of hand. What would be the source of such a right? Would God say that it is okay to kill a baby?
When you start from that premise, it is a very different argument.
Yep, it's one of the more fun ones, It would be much shorter if not for a group of freepers who love Laura and love her book decided to try to make a stand here for her.
Hear hear, you're preaching to the coir brother!
I think the term ‘right to choose’ instead of ‘pro-abortion’ is a more effective term swap because we all want to be able to choose. What is also perverse is that the ‘right to choose’ crowd is against our right to choose almost anything in our lives, abortion is a specific right they give to only women. They are collectivists.
Why is it hard to see that a conservative must reject Ron Paul as a whack job, and reject Bush as a truly evil globalist?
Simple equation: Bush lover = RINO lover
Back in the 1950s to 1960s or so there was a national discussion on discrimination in the USA. What was decided was that government as well as private businesses were not allowed to discriminate based on race. The moral argument was made that race was something you were ‘born’ with.
But recently starting ~ 2001 after Clinton was safely gone they started using the same arguments for homosexual behavior, defining individuals as a protected class based on their specific sexual desire. But you cant prove desire, so effectively a specific behavior is what is protected not a human. Note that you cant tell your secretary that you like her behind shape in public and expect to be protected by ‘sexual orientation’ protections legally. It's a scam.
Don't know what color you are MK, but I think there must have been an Arminian in the woodpile somewhere ;)
[I]n her memoir, she admits asking her husband during the 2004 presidential campaign not to make gay "marriage" a significant issue.
Strange theology you have there, Theopilus.
James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
No anonymous poster on an internet forum will keep us from praying that more people, including Laura Bush, will become committed to saving the lives of the unborn.
Such an unScriptural thing to suggest. Bizarre.
I’m mostly a mutt but I do know there is a lot o’ Scotch and Irish in here, lol
Especially the mockers of prayer and faith. May God be glorified in all we say and do........we are never 'anonymous.'
But I also wouldn't take credit for the length of this thread. The topic did that......not you.
(Sorry to burst your bubble).
We had 8 years of lies about Iraq and President Bush
We had 8 years of hostile media against conservatism.
We had a media that slobbered over Obama and lied and covered up his true record.
We had a large group of teens and twenties, and some beyond, enamored by the American Idol candidate.
We had two candidates campaigning against Bush
We had an inept, RINO candidate who ran a horrible campaign
We had a leftist-caused financial collapse that our candidate was clueless about
We had Obama creating an image that was the polar opposite of who he really was
We had billions of illegal dollars flowing in from overseas
We had "white guilt" which influenced a lot of ill-educated voters to vote for the black guy.
IF you want to be simplistic and use President Bush for a scapegoat in the 2008 election, go for it.
It's just not backed up by historic fact and rational thought, and only backed up by emotions.