Do you think it's ironic that Fred Thompson came to San Francisco and blatantly stated that he against civil unions for same sex couples. He has a lot guts to say that in SF, eh?
http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_304190050.html
2007-11-01 04:56:21 · 23 answers · asked by Liberal City 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That's not what I asked. I asked, Do you think it's ironic that he stated he against civil unions in S.F. out of all places?
2007-11-01 05:01:03 · update #1
Yes vtjames, her approve rating is decreasing. She's a typical politician, makes promisesbut doesn't follow through.
2007-11-01 05:04:19 · update #2
I think his aim was to make a statement at one of the places that would be a huge supporter of it. And maybe he thought that by doing that, it proved his worth as a candidate since he had the guts to say it in front of that crowd in particular.
Anybody can go to a place in the Bible Belt, which is dead set against gay marriage or civil unions, and they know if they say they are against either option, they will get a huge swell of support.
Maybe Thompson's opinion is that if he can get the news headlines stating, "I went to San Francisco and voiced my true opinion on the matter", he will get support from the rest of the country who DOES believe in either option, simply for playing the honesty card.
2007-11-01 05:06:22 · answer #1 · answered by Lily Iris 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I don't think it's ironic. I think this is just proof that he will not just say something because that's what the people he is talking to wants to hear.
Back when Jesse Ventura was running for Governor in the great state of Minnesota (can you tell where I'm from?), he spoke at a college campus to a group of students. One of the things he talked about was that he believed the government should NOT be involved in paying for a students college education. He advocated the young adults should join the military to help pay for college. What's even more amazing is that this is the age group that rallied behind him and is the reason he was elected that year.
2007-11-01 05:23:32 · answer #2 · answered by Mutt 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Most conservatives support legal protections for homosexual couples however they disagree that the relationship should be defined as if it were the same as a heterosexual relationship because simply put one relationship can bring new life and the other is always sterile. Marriage between a man and a women was naturally created for the benefit of children and the next generation, this is also why rules and laws benefiting married couple came into being.
2016-05-26 21:48:00 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not only ironic, it's idiotic, how can he not support gay marriage/unions? I mean thier are lots of homosexual couples out there w/ children, if something happens to them and they dont' have the protection that married couples have what will happen to those children? They will become wards of the state (burden to tax payers, emotionally damaging the child). Yes they can write a will but how many ppl (regardless of sexual orientation) do? What happens to their estates? I am not even gay and I find gay marriage being outlawed a damn shame. I mean most of the ppl who oppose it, do it for some religious reason, however, they are ssoo willing to overlook infidelity. I mean if you are going to make gay marriage/unions illegal then you should make infidelity of hetero married couples illegal also w/ jail time & a fine. Oh! but that would mean most of those who oppose gay marriage/unions would be in jail wouldn't they! He is such a jerk!
2007-11-01 06:10:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nope, no irony there. It just shows he's not a politically savvy as a Clinton or Bush: he hasn't yet accepted that you need to tailor your talking points to your audience (ie: lie blatantly and continuously).
(And, no, I have no problem with same-sex or polyamorous or incestuous 'civil unions' - I think the sort of social contract marriage represents should be availabe to any adults who wish to enter into one. I think such things should be kept conceptually distinct from traditional, religious, marriages, out of simple respect, but they should get the same legal treatment.)
2007-11-01 06:00:28 · answer #5 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There's no irony involved.
Thompson knows he will not get much support within the entire state of California, much less in SF. This whole little anti-gay marraige, anti-civil union charade was merely to draw attention to yet another wedge issue to rile up Christian conservatives nationwide and to garner more media focus on his otherwise lackluster campaign.
2007-11-01 05:22:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well he is entitled to his own opinion anywhere in America. But he is smart to know as well that your personal opinions could affect the way people view you. He might get support or he might not from the public. I am a Humanist so personally I would like to see equality for all human races...equality that is blind to anything else but the fact that you're a human being who deserves to be treated with the highest level of respect humanly possible. Unfortunately Mr. Thompson doesn't see it that way.
2007-11-01 05:06:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Though I do not support Sen Thompson, I find it refreshing that a candidate holds true to their beliefs rather than pander for votes ala Hillary Clinton who say one thing to one crowd, then the opposite to another crowd a day later..all while doing nothing for either side.
2007-11-01 05:09:11 · answer #8 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Opposing sames sex marriage--wow how not bold at all. What would be bold would be actually talking about a real issue for a change instead of surfing hate and on the backs of gays into office.
2007-11-01 05:21:37 · answer #9 · answered by Holy Cow! 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He obviously has a little bit of spine unlike many politicians. Here in VT the leftist legislature appointed a commission to go out and listen to VTers about gay marriage, amazingly only one person on the ENTIRE commission isnt pro gay marriage and that person isnt opposed, just not openly for. Interesting and then they wonder why people get mad and scream about bias.
Oh did you see that Pelosi has a 30% rating in Cali
2007-11-01 05:02:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋