I like the Chinese solution to those sort of political problems:
Then we bill the family $0.07.
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.
Would most top tier Republican candidates state that they would appoint SC justices who would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade? Even Rooty won't go that far!
People here should be glad that except for barking moonbat Dennis the Menace, all of the Rat candidates said they would not support full gay marriage, just civil unions. It means that even as out of touch they are, they still know that folks in the mushy middle are still uncomfortable about the subject. That's good news for Republicans who have come out against gay marriage. I don't expect that position to be the one we'll see ten years from now.
And when those 'many' partners (all the civil union, domestic partnership, and gay marriage situations I've seen call for only one partner at a time) wind up in the emergency room without coverage, who do you think pays for them then?
Yes, they are all for gay marriage. They just are not honest enough to admit it because they do not want to turn off the voters.
L
Homosexuals “leaders”, more than any other group IMO, fall in love with any politician who throws some scraps in their direction. Then their hearts are broken every time. They never learn and are incapable of compromise. Such is identity politics.
I'll agree that the demands fit the same "gimme gimme" patern that liberal whining usually entails when seeking something from government, but I have a hard time seeing how it takes something away from everybody else. Any marriage that you or I are in is made better or worse by what we do within it, and what our spouses do. Letting Britney Spears have drive-thru Vegas weekend marriages may have cheapened the institution as a whole, but couples who married within the tenets of their religion, and stayed faithful to them, and to each other, are no worse off for it.
As a non-religious conservative, I'm having trouble seeing the downside of it. Partnering encourages monogamy, discourages promiscuity, and provides a way for two individuals to support each other financially and emotionally. That means less people depleting government coffers for medical help and counseling. It means less crime, as being responsible within a committed relationship precludes doing things that cause a valued relationship to suffer.
Good post! Hillary and the other Dems are lying when they claim to oppose same sex “marriage”. They would appoint judges who would impose the sanctioning of such “marriages” nationwide. They know the vast majority of the public opposes such an agenda, so they’re being dishonest about their true agenda. The media, of course, are aiding and abetting this fraud by producing headlines which create the impression that Hillary & Co. put their foot down and drew a line in the sand and sent the homos home disappointed. The homos know the Dem’s alleged opposition to same sex “marriage” is all a charade, and so do all the reporters and editors.
I like the Chinese solution to those sort of political problems:
Then we bill the family $0.07.
Civil Unions are just another name for “marriage”. Other than in name, what’s the distinction?
Also, all the Dems favor same sex “marriage” but are lying about it.
By the time we do the Chinese solution, we’ll be doing to every old person who comes in there, too, because Medicare is out of money.
How we treat homosexuality affects children.
Any given deviancy or destructive behavior has degrees. Take abortion as an example. There are some women who would never kill their unborn child, no matter what. On the other hand, there are women who will find a way to kill their unborn child even if there are firm laws against it. But there’s a large group in the middle. If laws and culture treat abortion as a crime and an evil, they won’t abort, but if abortion is legal and even celebrated as a “liberating experience”, they will.
Homosexuality is the same. If we give state sanction to these filthy, ugly, destructive relationships, more people will be drawn into them. Kids are especially vulnerable because at puberty their hormones are raging and they’re a bit confused. If their sex ed class includes presentations from homosexuals claiming their “lifestyle” is normal and healthy, and if such behavior is state sanctioned, honored with the name “marriage”, and celebrated as something to be proud of, more confused teens will be lured into this behavior.
Because that's what they want. And that's all you need for something to be true. At least that's what I hear.
There's only one I can think of, marriage is portable, and civil union is not. If you are legally married under the laws of a state, then go to another one, the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution says that the new home state has to recognize the marriage. "Civil union" is a creation of the law in the places that have it, and doesn't transport across state lines to a state that doesn't recognize it.
I do expect there to be a test case someday soon of a Massachusetts same sex couple legitimately moving to a blue state, then suing to have the state recognize their MA marriage. It would be especially effective to do it in a blue state that recently passed a constitutional amendment on the subject, because that would give the SCOTUS a shot at ruling on the constitutionality of such an amendment. I say a blue state, because you would likely have state and federal judges that would rule fairly quickly that the couple's marriage is valid, and that would save them (and their supporters) money in the long run.
Either way the decision would go, the political fallout would be significant.
Yup. Well, of course, two homos can't be truly married. But in effect, "civil unions" is "homo marriage" in everything but name.
The only benefit of "civil unions" to the sane portion of the populace is that the homo agenda can't be legally forced into all aspects of the gov't school curriculum, as is now happening here in MA.
What is marriage? Is there such a thing? Or is just a name which can be attached to any kind of human relationship?
I know there are groups who similarly work to turn homosexuals straight, but is it a lack of support for heterosexuality that causes them to be homosexual? Our entire society regards heterosexuality as normal and desireable, the unwed pregnant teen does not find that kind of support in all cases.
Apples and oranges, to me. Laws might prevent abortions, but laws don't make anyone change what they find sexually attractive.
You know as well as I do that marriage has definitions on different levels. There is the religious definition that most Christians and Jews have been using, there is the Muslim definition that allows four wives, there are other slight variations in different faith traditions. Sometimes they change.
Certainly, there is a legal definition, which depends on where you live. Some states recognize a "common law" marriage, where if you hold yourself out as a married couple for a stated period of time, you are legally married, and other ones completely reject that notion. Legal definitions change every couple of generations, or so.
Of course, there is a societal definition, where people regard others as "married" according to their own notions, which are completely subject to rapid change. Many people know couples who are living together without legal marriage, yet treat them the same as a validly married couple. Right now, there is a discomfort in the mushy middle with homosexuals using the term marriage, but even without civil union, that's going to disappear someday. Check surveys of younger people today, not too many under the age of thirty-five have a problem with the concept of same-sex relationships and their legal recognition.
Younger people have been brainwashed by MTV and their public schools. They didn’t just come to an epiphany that God and Mother Nature were wrong, while Barney Frank and Elton John were right. More of an anti-epiphany, the idea that obviously unnatural and destructive behavior is okay if it’s fashionable. Most of these dumbed down kids think Al Gore’s a prophet and that Fahrenheit 9/ll is based on fact.
I got educated about the truth, oddly enough, at the University of Washington, in Seattle. I was assigned a Milton Friedman book to read in an economics class, and it totally changed my outlook. Young people can break free of their government school indoctrinations.
It's not that they believe that Barney Frank and Elton John are "right", its just that they believe that if they want to do whatever with each other, it's none of their business. My generation unlearned the racial prejudices of my parents' generation (although my folks were adamant in their belief in racial equality), and the Gen X'ers and Gen Y'ers see it similarly.
Oh, and I've seen NARTH, I guess if someone figures that they want to change their sexual attraction, fine with me, I just know that there's nothing out there that would make another guy look that good to me. I'd sure be wary about dating and marrying a self-professed former homosexual, who is using me as an attempt to see if she really is straight.
“As a non-religious conservative, I’m having trouble seeing the downside of it (gay marriage).”
The gay rights movement is not lead by moderate people. The writer Michelangelo Signorile, writing in “Out” magazine in Dec./Jan. 1993/94, advocated “fight(ing) for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefin(ing) the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk of myth and radically alter an archaic institution that as it now stands keeps us down. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake - and one that would perhaps benefit all of society - is to transform the notion of “family” entirely.”
Opposition to homosexuality isn’t prejudice. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a race or gender.
Anyone who truly believes that sexuality is a private matter and is no one’s business would adamantly oppose the homosexual agenda. Same sex “marriage” is all about flaunting a perversion and shoving it in people’s faces and peddling it to kids. Ditto for the whole pervert agenda.
Homosexuality is UNNATURAL. If you think otherwise, explain your position. Is it natural for a man to sexually desire another man?
Neither was the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 60's. Just because some ultrasocialist clown said the quote you mentioned does not denegrate an entire movement. Yes, that was HIS purpose for wanting same sex marriage, but I doubt that most advocates of it want to see society torn down.
Besides, how exactly would that work? Wouldn't heterosexual young men and women still overwhelmingly find each other attractive, and marry and have children? I think Hollyweird bimbettes and their sperm donors who have children outside of marriage are the ones undermining young people today, not people who generally don't have children.
Please explain why this matters.
So is adherence to a particular religion. While our Founding Fathers saw fit to get past the religious prejudices of the Europe they fled from, young people today see opposition to homosexuals in the same light. They understand that homosexuality makes some people, especially from older generations, queasy but they cannot countenance denying rights, privileges, and benefits based on that.
I make the comparison to race only because the uncomfortableness in both cases looks similar. The political forces in favor of gay marriage have been successful in drawing parallels between the revulsion over same-sex marriage, and the revulsion over interracial marriage that existed forty years ago.
Homosexuality is UNNATURAL. If you think otherwise, explain your position. Is it natural for a man to sexually desire another man?
It's unnatural for a male to be monogamous, too. I believe that during the hunter-gatherer days, we were hard-wired for spreading our genes as best as possible. Agriculture changed all that, and necessitated one to one marriage, but the king still got to have wives and concubines. I really cannot see what is sexually attractive about a man, but I'm glad my lady does not share my observation!
Is it natural to believe in supernatural phenomena that cannot be independently verified, yet rely completely on blind faith to be acted upon? All religion is based on that. We humans do a lot of things that are "unnatural", that do not contribute to the survival of the individual or the species, yet we allow others the freedom to engage in these activities as long as they're not harming anyone else.
“As a non-religious conservative, I’m having trouble seeing the downside of (gay marriage),”
Here’s another quote for you, this one from an article called “The Radical Case for Gay Marriage” by Richard Goldstein published in “The Village Voice,” in Sept. 3 - 9, 2003.
“It’s understandable that advocates for gay marriage would portray it as a tribute to normalcy, and in the short therm it probably will look like that. But as gay people grow accustomed to this option they will shape it to suit their particular needs. You’ll see leather weddings, boi-on-boi unions between queers of the opposite sex, trans matches that defy the boundaries of gender - all in cahoots with rice-throwing, trip-to-Niagara realness. Queers won’t stop being queer just because they can get hitched. The tradition of open relationships won’t cease to exist,” (my note - this means that both agree that more than one partner is all right) “nor will the boundless exploration of identity and desire.”
“It is debatable whether allowing gay people to wed will open the floodgates to recognition for other relationships. But certainly civil unions present a model that can be broadly applied. I’m not thinking of Rick Santorum’s specter of incest and polygamy, but of the elderly who live together and don’t want to sully the memory of their deceased spouses with another formal marriage. Civil unions might suit them, along with siblings who want to commemorate their bond (and join their assets). Down the road we may see groups of people sharing the custody of children, or geriatric communes seeking a legal tie. Each of these contingencies will involve its own process of agitation, and it will be up to society to accept or reject each claim. But the result could be a menu of possibilities, ranging from trial unions to so-called covenant marriages that are very difficult to leave. People may elect to pass from one category to another as their attitudes change. This begins to look like the kind of world radicals want to see - a world of choice.”
My father grew up around 100 years ago in a house with his mother, father, two aunts, an uncle and two grandparents. It was a terribly confusing environment for a child. He was getting orders from seven adults. “Groups of people sharing custody of children” is not in the interests of children. It can be hard enough to get two people on the same page in connection with how to raise children.
No, monogamy is not unnatural, and neither is believing in God.
Homos don’t want tolerance, they want to force their perversion in people’s faces. If they wanted tolerance, they’d go home and do whatever they do in private and shut the hell up about it.
If homos have been successful at drawing a parallel between opposition to interracial marriage and opposition to same sex “marriage”, it’s only because lying is a successful tactic in our Politically Correct world. It’s telling the truth that can get someone into serious trouble nowadays. Just ask Lawrence Summers or President Bush’s surgeon general nominee.
The moment homos demand state sanction for their “relationships”, and demand access to our children’s education, they’re harming someone else.
Yes, again, another radical who wanted to lob a bomb into American society. One could have easily found people who were against slavery for the same reasons 175 years ago. My point is, the idea has moved somewhat closer into the mainstream, and just because some idiot wanted to use it to destabilize society, doesn’t mean that the people who advocate it, or are at least neutral to it, have the same motivation.
If you believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, and that Adam and Eve were the first humans, then we have no common ground for understanding. What gets me is that the people who deny evolution are the ones who use the "how does homosexuality spread humankind" argument in their reasoning. Either you believe in genetics, and its role in evolution, or you don't.
Homos don’t want tolerance, they want to force their perversion in people’s faces.
Yes, the "look at me, look at me" types who march in gay pride parades are like that. Many people are much more familiar with homosexuals who took a long time to tell anybody. Maybe you've never met this type of person, and have concluded that all homosexuals are the "in your face" types depicted in the media.
The moment homos demand state sanction for their “relationships”, and demand access to our children’s education, they’re harming someone else.
I fully understand the revulsion at the excesses in what some homosexual people and organizations have tried to do to inject their agenda into government schools, I share it. But I also support the idea that students should not be allowed to use "gay" or "fag" as an epithet any more than they would be allowed to use racial slurs. If someone is going to school with a child whose parental figures are of the same gender, then its inappropriate for the child from a traditional family to bash the other. I would think that even conservatives who despise anything homosexual would agree that this child is not to blame for the situation he or she finds themselves living in.
Nothing new the dem won’t stand for anything, like Kerry they want it both ways - come to think of it so did the hosts of the debate!
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.