Posted on 05/16/2010 8:05:53 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
On Thursday’s The View on ABC, during a discussion of Laura Bush’s recent revelation that she disagrees with her husband on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage, normally right-leaning co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck voiced agreement with the former First Lady, but also used a surprising choice of words as she recommended that conservatives talk to gay couples about the issue rather than "hating" about it. Hasselbeck:
I think there are a lot of, maybe, conservatives out there who are talking about gay marriage and not necessarily with someone who wants to have gay marriage or has been in a gay marriage. You know, I had Melissa Etheridge over, we had dinner, we talked for hours about gay marriage, and I would really challenge people: Get out there. Instead of just talking about it and hating on it, actually talk to someone who’s loved someone else and have the conversation about what can be done...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
If your father and mother took a tax exemption for you, they were subsidized. There are great expense incurred by having and raising a child. IAC. not likely you and I can come to agreement because you seem to buy the statist argument that society is no more than a collective of individuals, that the institution of marriage did not exist prior to the state and therefore has natural rights that the state is bound to respect. Marriage as defined by law imposes duties and obligations, even those apart from rearing children not borne by single individuals therefore a married couple ought to be given special consideration
Her brand of Christianity has in intellectually undeveloped. Therefore she can give no reasoned defense of its moral teachings.
Exactly. Loss of appetite coupled with a conversation from hell with people with IQ's in the negative digits. I cannot imagine anything worse.
Who cares what this dumb RINO bitch has to say?
Child credits didn't exist back then nor did marriage credits. They did have dependent deductions. All three of those should be banished. It amazes me that some people feel they have a right for me to carry a heavier tax burden just because I am not married nor have a child. Get the damn federal government out of marriage all together and the gay marriage issue becomes moot and the married people and those with kids need to start paying their fair share of the taxes and quit being subsidized (welfare) by the government.
Homosexual activists have stated numerous times that the reason they want same sex marriage is to change society. It’s for dominance. So the tax credit thingie doesn’t matter.
Furthermore, govts have recognized marriage for legal and social cohesion matters, establishing legal paternity and so on, and has for millenia.
Third, income tax in itself should be abolished and the entire marriage credit crap would be finito. Gov needs to stop doing about 50% of what it does (for a start) so it’s insatiable lust for our money would be a thing of the past.
The whole situation is rotten and it will not be fixed but only made worse by the gov not legally recognizing legitimate marriage. Legal marriage protects the children of the marriage as well.
A dependent deduction is an exemption.
It is welfare to keep your own money?
It is not about “love” and/or sex but power. The kind of power that would force us all not to question the morality of their actions.
I used to have a bunch of quotes I’d saved about their real reasons for wanting same sex marriage. You are entirely correct.
I just searched and found it! Yay! Northern Yankee, I remember you wanted them when I found them. I saved them over time some years ago and unfotunately don’t have links, but I found them all in articles on FR.
From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine 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 a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”
“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”
He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”
Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:
“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:
“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
You as well as the married couple should pay NO income taxes.
If this society would simply stop looking to the government to regulate and define marriage AT ALL, this issue would die the death it so richly deserves.
LOL!!! You really don't get it do you! The governement takes more money from single people to subsidize married people. I pay $4000 in taxes more per year just for being single. You think you have a right to more of my labor than I do of your labor? You think I don't have a right to that $4000 dollars of my labor per year? Well, do ya!
Nice, so you think you are entitled to my labor. Perhaps DU is your place to hang out.
God Bless. +
How is it taking money from YOU if the government does NOT take money from a married couple, money that belongs to them as much as yours belongs to you? The subsidy from the government is basically negative. They let the couple keep more of their money because it recognizes that it is cheaper to let the family keep SOME of their money to raise the kid than for the public to take on the job. This is not like social security where the money taken from you is handed to someone else.
What?!?!? I think there should be NO ONE paying income taxes. I don’t want any gov’t services. How does that translate to thinking I’m entitled to your labor? Did you read my post correctly?
I had your name saved for when I found the quotes.
I’m trying to be more organized and it is a steep uphill battle.
:-)
May God bless you as well.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
I’m sure the hosts on The View could find nice people that have sex with animals or are members of NAMBLA. I don’t need to eat dinner with them to know they are sick and their behavior should not be encouraged.
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.