Bush, Gay Marriage & the Consititution

Certainly the couple needs to be motivated to practice and adhere to the NFP method. You do not need to rely on a cycle, but in changes to the woman's body (measured by temperature and other indicators).

Please realize that I am in no way trying to change your mind or judge you, just offering information on alternatives that you (or others reading this) may not be aware of.

The studies I have read indicate that the "failure" (for lack of a better word) rate is less than 2% for couples who have learned the process and strictly adhere to it.

 

Again, too many variables = too many risks.

This is not something I am willing to risk my wife or children's well being over.

I guess my point is that for someone to deem contraception as wrong in all cases is shortsighted to say the least. Not meant as an insult, just my opinion based on real life facts.

 

Outstanding news.

 

Why the heck should anyone care who gets married?

It is a personal matter, and should be none of anyone's business.

DD

 

duh, because if it has absolutely nothing to do with me and doesn't comply with my own belief system, therefore it must be changed. I wait the day until we can have a vegetarian dictator, uh president, who will rule meat eating to be unconstitutional.

 

if only O were as gay friendly as W.

--
Pro-Gay WH Ensures Anti-Gay Haven

In December, the Obama administration announced a global gay-rights push. Officials declared gay rights to be human rights and issued a memo saying the treatment of gays abroad would be considered when assessing U.S. foreign aid. Gay-rights activists (and progressives, generally) swooned. I didn’t.

In a Contentions post, I noted that the initiative allowed Obama to shirk America’s unique role in actually securing human rights around the world, while earning praise from identity-politics activists. The administration’s failure (and disinclination) to maintain an American presence in Iraq after 2012 meant that anti-gay barbarians such as al-Qaeda and Iranian proxies would stay behind and prey upon Iraq’s homosexuals without fear of American influence. If Obama really wanted to protect gay rights from history’s most vicious anti-gay forces, I wrote, he’d keep America in Iraq (and Afghanistan) instead of issuing memos and giving speeches. And if the progressives singing his praises really felt that gay rights were human rights they’d have been more inclined to support George W. Bush’s freedom agenda and less eager to cut and run in our wars abroad. How tragic to have been proven so right so soon.

Here’s the lede from a story in Sunday’s New York Times: “A recent spate of killings and intimidation aimed at gay Iraqis and teenagers who dress in brash Western fashions is sending waves of fear through Iraq’s secular circles while casting doubt on the government’s will to protect some of its most vulnerable citizens.” I share that doubt. Without the U.S. there to keep the eroding Iraq democracy on course, we’re likely to see a lot more such attacks. The following paragraph should inspire acute shame in those who praised our leaving Iraq at the end of last year:

Human rights advocates say the threats and violence are aimed at gay men and at teenagers who style themselves in a uniquely Iraqi collage of hipster, punk, emo and goth fashions. The look, shorthanded here as “emo,” has flourished on Baghdad’s streets as an emblem of greater social freedom as society has begun to bloom after years of warfare. But it has drawn scorn and outrage from some religious conservatives, and is often conflated with being gay.

Imagine. Americans fought and died in a hellish Iraq just long enough to inspire a hopeful flirtation with freedom. Then we left a thoroughly quelled Iraq in time to ensure such freedom couldn’t be realized. What self-respecting person of conscience dare call this an Obama success?

As the Times notes, “Advocates have blamed Shiite militias such as the Mahdi Army of the radical cleric Moktada al-Sadr for past anti-gay killings and assaults.” That would be one of the Iranian proxies I warned about in my other blog post.

The Times reports that “young men in tight T-shirts and skinny jeans are being beaten to death with cement blocks and dumped in the streets.” Pity. But we’ve got some lovely memos and fine speeches on hand should anyone need to feel better about it all.

 

It's ironic (and not in the way that Basso thinks) that the above post has been put into a thread about GW Bush pushing for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

 

What's ironic is basso pretending that he's pro gay rights at all.

He's claimed that there was no difference between a President who supported a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and one that doesn't.

He routinely supports candidates that are against gay marriage, has never voiced his support to the idea that it shouldn't be left up to the states because civil rights are a federal issue, etc.

It is picture perfect example of someone giving only lip service, who's actions go against their words.

There is no gay rights activist who holds the same positions as basso. It's ironic that he comments at all.

 

What are you? Gossip Girl?

 

you'd rather i started a new thread? besides, i thought this was a reasonably civilized discussion, unlike the character assassination and name calling that are the norm today (see the two posts subsequent to yours).

 

if gays are dead, whether they can marry is a moo point.

 

where do you come down on the process for legalizing GM in each of the 50 states?

 

many folx have availed themselves of the 2nd amendment rights- you'd need more trained seals.

 

The sad thing is that there would be people that would advocate the killing of our soldiers to avoid gay couples from having equal protection under the state divorce statutes.

 

I was like why the **** are we still talking about George Bush. I'm all for gay marriage. Let people do what they want to do. As long as it doesn't hurt nobody else who cares

 

who would advocate such a thing?