Posted on 08/10/2007 8:59:44 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards each defended their opposition to gay marriage last night at the first-ever candidate's forum dedicated to gay and lesbian issues.
...they support civil unions that give broad rights to same-sex couples, but stopped short of endorsing marriage - a top priority for gay-rights activists.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Why would someone choose to be gay?
Why would someone choose to engage in pre-marital sex in countries where honor-killing persecution will follow?
Not the same? The latter is a choice and the other isn't? Then liberals need to prove this. Please prove that being gay is not a choice.
How does same-sex marriage affect me or you?
Does something or everything need to affect me or you personally for us to oppose it? How does same-sex marriage affect liberals who aren't gay but yet support it? Oh, it's ok to not be personally affected by it (supposedly) but support it, but not oppose it. Yes, we must believe what liberals believe. Sarcasm.
Is it bigotted for Democrats like Kucinich to support same-sex marriage but not support plural marriage (bisexual or heterosexual)? How could they support traditional marrige being re-defined to allow same-sex marriage, but not be for polygamy? Hypocrites?
People aren't lining up for bisexual plural marriage?
Were homosexuals lining up for same-sex marriage 75 years ago?
If traditional marriage is re-defined to allow same-sex marriage, can it be re-defined again at a later time? Yes.
Can traditional marriage be re-defined later to allow polygamy? Polygamists are lining up now to have marriage re-defined...
I often wonder if Democrats openly support things that they believe society can stomach at the time, but keep their powder dry for things that they really support, but know would get them defeated at the polls. Is same-sex marriage one of those things?
I often wonder how "progressive" (liberal) "progressives" will be 75 years from now.
I bet JFK is rolling over in his grave.....
In the end, what I have given crushes the arguments given by liberals.
Irish-American debate forum?
Heterosexual forum debate? Not likely at all.
Religious Forum debate? Nope, not that one, either.
Dems are pandering to groups and dividing America once again to try and lock up constituencies
It’s ok. I’m waiting for the:
Heterosexual debate
Christian debate
Surely the numbers affected would dictate the need, no?
Didn’t Mike Gravel brag that the Spartans “made” their soldiers homosexuals to fight better? How did he fare at this debate?
>>How can same-sex marriage be a civil rights issue when there is no scientific proof that one is genetically born gay like one is born black?<<
That’s really two different issues. Government recognized marriage has never been for everybody - its a privilege for the kind of environment we judge best to raise kids.
If homosexuality is innate or partially innate it still doesn’t mean we have to encourage gay marriage.
Now, two adults should be able to enter a private contract or have a religious ceremony if their church chooses but we don’t have to provide legal incentives.
They used to be for “whatever two people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms should be nobody’s business.” That is until the courts caved and legislated exactly that. Now they want hate crime laws and adoption “rights” and civil unions which are the same thing as marriage, and employment non-discrimination and all sorts of public benefits. So yeah, they will progress more just as quickly as they think they can get away with it. Or they will have the judges do the legislating for them. That’s what they expect to happen on marriage. As soon as civil unions become the norm the federal courts will demand the word. After all, what is the difference?
The sex positive agenda of Reich, Kinsey, and feminists seeks to end all moral judgements over sexual pairings regardless of sex, age, relation, marital status, number, or species of partner(s). Don’t get hung up on whether or not it is “genetic”. They don’t really care, that is just to sell the agenda. Just like “consenting adults in private” wasn’t about that; the door was opened for teens to engage in the “act” as well and it is taught in schools as “normal” and employers are being strong armed into providing benefits for homosexual partners. Nothing private or “adult only” about it.
It's not about nor has it ever been about two homos loving each other. Homosexuals want to see the destruction of traditional marriage and family, that's why they're pushing this canard.
“It’s a personal position,” said Clinton, explaining her opposition to gay marriage.
I wish Hillary and the others would have the courage to say that they will appoint liberal judges who will impose same-sex marriage on the country. Then they wouldn’t have to go through this exercise of saying they support these rights but not the marriage rights. They wouldn’t have to go through the exercise of proposing and debating legislation on the subject. They can just use the courts to get their way.
Does anyone think Hillary would oppose a Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, a ruling made by the clones of Ruth Bader Ginsburg that she plans to appoint???
Would any of these Dems. do the same?
They should call a spade a spade. They do agree with the gay agenda, but are afraid to say they favor homosexual marriage. They are afraid of the attack ads that would result.
When I first heard the “gay marriage” issue, I’ll be honest, I thought it was an attempt to push the issue so far to the extreme that the expectation would be that people would settle on the “more mainstream” concept of civil unions.
I could not have been more wrong.
All of them are actually FOR gay marriage but lack the fortitude and candor to say so, fearing it will cost them votes. (Well, the TOP candidates lack that. I guess Kucinich and a few other no-chance-in-heck candidates are saying what they truly believe.)
It costs you and me money. We would need to finance the health care of their (often many) 'partners', and if you are a business owner, an employee, or an insurance customer -- you'd pay.
*************
Actually, there is a "Religion" forum right here on Free Republic.
The endorsement of civil unions IS homosexual based marriage.
These are just cover stories to allow the Hilary to point and say she reeeeeeeeaaly opposes homosexual marriage because the m word is not used.
The fact homosexual groups are silent and ok with this is just proof of the fix.
society rewards the institution NOT the individual.
homosexuality contributes nothing to the future of society.
there is no justification for rewarding the BEHAVIOR.
Perhaps that might have been a justification later on down the line, but my personal guess on why traditional marriage started was to provide for a satisfied workforce when we went from a hunter-gatherer society to an agricultural one. It means that the alpha male has to spend a lot less time watching his back, from a worker who has spare time to make a really good weapon.
Of course, childbearing is not the standard for marriage today, either legally, or socially. There is no demand that the heterosexual married couple produce children in order to keep the benefits of marriage. My lady and I are both 51, and between her being post-menopause, and my vasectomy, we're not going to have any kids. No one here would stand in the courthouse door to prevent us from applying for a marriage license.
...we don’t have to provide legal incentives.
I see this theme a lot, the idea that there would be more homosexual people if society "approved" of it. If a law cannot alter one's preference for the same sex by prohibiting the conduct, how can lack of such laws change straight people into homosexual ones?
I'd rather see people figure out their orientation before they start dating, and especially before they get coupled up with someone else. I think what happened to McGreevey's wife was tragic, if he had just figured out what he wanted way back when, she would not have been in the position of having to be his 'experiment' to see if he could function as a straight.
Is it possible that there was a pent-up demand, that after being fulfilled, simply declined to a more normal level? If a state that had banned concealed carry permits were to suddenly reverse course and allow them, wouldn't there be an initial surge of residents applying for them that would level off over time? Would that be a sign that "gun nuts" just wanted to make a point, and prove to society that they're thugs who just want to shoot liberals?
There is no such thing as “gay marriage”...
Honestly only a couple of mentally ill pillow biters could think that marriage is merely a sexual relationship.
For most of my life I’ve had to listen to these sodomites scream about getting the government out of their bedrooms, now they whine the government won’t sanction what goes on there.
This is merely another attempt to force “normalization” of their perversion, and to try to claim a fiscal benefit from health care and tax provisions. More greed and selfishness from a class of people defined by their naccissism.
Nope, its about a bunch of narcicists who “demanded” something they inately don’t have, and of course the outcome of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.