Hillary Rodham Clinton Speaks Out for Gay Marriage

[Seawytch]

This is nothing but a push to create yet another politically correct protected class.

So heterosexuals are a politically correct protected class? You like your "special rights" and want to keep them all to yourselves?

 

[bodecea]

If someone wanted to take away something you hold dear based on a premise that it is ok with the majority, what difference does it make to me? None.

What is being taken away?



Nobody is "destroying the sanctity" of anything. The "sanctity of marriage" went away with drive through weddings in Las Vegas...and it ain't "the gheys" doing it.




No, it is a battle for equal rights. Shame you don't realize that.



What nonsense is that? I believe that committed, consenting adult, loving couples will marry. Why do you fear that so much? If my marrying can affect yours to such a degree, the problem is with YOUR marriage, not mine.

BTW, I see nothing here defending the rights of heterosexuals who live together outside the bond of marriage receiving any standing whatsoever.
For example, the city of Charlotte NC has passed local regulations to allow homosexual couples to share the health benefits with their city employee partner. However, this does not apply to heterosexual couples. That is unequal treatment.

Seriously? You're crying "discrimination" because a city in a state that won't allow gays to marry, tosses them a meatless bone? The unequal treatment comes as a result of gays and lesbians not being able to legally marry, not because a city tried to even out the playing field just a little bit.

Yes, it is being threatened for destruction. People believe marriage between one man and one woman is sacrosanct. And that's all that matters.

Then that is the kind of marriage THEY should have....and keep their nose out of other law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adults' marriages.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What is being taken away?



Nobody is "destroying the sanctity" of anything. The "sanctity of marriage" went away with drive through weddings in Las Vegas...and it ain't "the gheys" doing it.




No, it is a battle for equal rights. Shame you don't realize that.



What nonsense is that? I believe that committed, consenting adult, loving couples will marry. Why do you fear that so much? If my marrying can affect yours to such a degree, the problem is with YOUR marriage, not mine.



Seriously? You're crying "discrimination" because a city in a state that won't allow gays to marry, tosses them a meatless bone? The unequal treatment comes as a result of gays and lesbians not being able to legally marry, not because a city tried to even out the playing field just a little bit.

Yes, it is being threatened for destruction. People believe marriage between one man and one woman is sacrosanct. And that's all that matters.

No it isn't being threatened with destruction, Captain Hyperbole. The people that believe that, should probably not marry a person of the same sex then.

Allowing more people access to legal, civil marriage can only serve to strengthen, not destroy the institution.

Are you aware that the same kinds of people that want to "protect the sanctity of marriage" tried to stop blacks from marrying whites for the same reason? They even used the bible to justify their bigoted position. They lost. You will too.

You have your opinion. The majority of the country has their. That may change. This one is a tough nut.
"Are you aware that the same kinds of people that want to "protect the sanctity of marriage" tried to stop blacks from marrying whites for the same reason? They even used the bible to justify their bigoted position."..
Stop it. Just stop. That is an offset.
"You will too."
This is not a game. It is not a contest.
Your side( liberal) have turned everything into picking winners and losers.
You push the government to do your bidding based on the fact that your ideas are unpopular. You use the threat of government sanctions to create your own set of winners and losers. That is part of the shame of liberalism.
Because your ideas are unpopular you must use outside agencies to FORCE people to accept your ideas. That, instead of educating people on your beliefs, you ram them down the throats of others.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What is being taken away?



Nobody is "destroying the sanctity" of anything. The "sanctity of marriage" went away with drive through weddings in Las Vegas...and it ain't "the gheys" doing it.




No, it is a battle for equal rights. Shame you don't realize that.



What nonsense is that? I believe that committed, consenting adult, loving couples will marry. Why do you fear that so much? If my marrying can affect yours to such a degree, the problem is with YOUR marriage, not mine.



Seriously? You're crying "discrimination" because a city in a state that won't allow gays to marry, tosses them a meatless bone? The unequal treatment comes as a result of gays and lesbians not being able to legally marry, not because a city tried to even out the playing field just a little bit.

Yes, it is being threatened for destruction. People believe marriage between one man and one woman is sacrosanct. And that's all that matters.

Then that is the kind of marriage THEY should have....and keep their nose out of other law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adults' marriages.

Nope. No one is stopping anything. This is about a certain faction of people attempting to redefine marriage.

 

[bodecea]

Yes, it is being threatened for destruction. People believe marriage between one man and one woman is sacrosanct. And that's all that matters.

Then that is the kind of marriage THEY should have....and keep their nose out of other law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adults' marriages.

Nope. No one is stopping anything. This is about a certain faction of people attempting to redefine marriage.

Nope....this is not about redefining a word at all...this is about a group NOT WANTING another group to have the same legal rights under the law that they have....for no valid legal reason.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This is nothing but a push to create yet another politically correct protected class.

So heterosexuals are a politically correct protected class? You like your "special rights" and want to keep them all to yourselves?

Did we at some time revert to childhood here.
That is an insipid response.
It is your side which seeks to create a new protected class.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Then that is the kind of marriage THEY should have....and keep their nose out of other law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adults' marriages.

Nope. No one is stopping anything. This is about a certain faction of people attempting to redefine marriage.

Nope....this is not about redefining a word at all...this is about a group NOT WANTING another group to have the same legal rights under the law that they have....for no valid legal reason.

Well, you're whining now.
Changing the narrative does not change the facts.
Marriage IS defined as a union between one man and one woman.
That is MY argument.
I have stated many times I have no dog in this fight.
I say let them have the benefits. The right to property and all the other legal minutiae. Just call it something other than marriage.
If these people are so hell bent on entering into an agreement that over 50% of the time ends up in failure, let them. But just don't call it marriage. Because it isn't.

 

[Katzndogz]

Neither men nor women have a right to the biological attributes of the other. Men do not legally have the right to birth control pills. Women do not have a legal right to testosterone medication. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Change that and the word is redefined. Once it is redefined it loses its meaning. Of course that's what liberals wanted all along.

Nevertheless, we will certainly have same sex marriage, in time no marriage at all, IF we last that long and we likely won't. The trend in western civililzation is toward degeneracy and depravity. Once started on this road, not one civilization has ever gotten off and avoided its own destruction by righting itself before it fell.

 

[mal]

What's happening is called social progression. It eventually gave you, as a woman, the right to vote and also not be treated like a second-class citizen.

Social progression is now giving gay couples access to the same state and federal benefits granted to straight couples.

If you're straight, what difference does it make to you?

If someone wanted to take away something you hold dear based on a premise that it is ok with the majority, what difference does it make to me? None.

What is being taken away?



Nobody is "destroying the sanctity" of anything. The "sanctity of marriage" went away with drive through weddings in Las Vegas...and it ain't "the gheys" doing it.




No, it is a battle for equal rights. Shame you don't realize that.

I believe that most homosexuals will eschew marriage because of the nonsense that goes with it.

What nonsense is that? I believe that committed, consenting adult, loving couples will marry. Why do you fear that so much? If my marrying can affect yours to such a degree, the problem is with YOUR marriage, not mine.

BTW, I see nothing here defending the rights of heterosexuals who live together outside the bond of marriage receiving any standing whatsoever.
For example, the city of Charlotte NC has passed local regulations to allow homosexual couples to share the health benefits with their city employee partner. However, this does not apply to heterosexual couples. That is unequal treatment.

Seriously? You're crying "discrimination" because a city in a state that won't allow gays to marry, tosses them a meatless bone? The unequal treatment comes as a result of gays and lesbians not being able to legally marry, not because a city tried to even out the playing field just a little bit.

Because the Coupling of Man and Woman is Inherently NOT Equal Naturally to any other Coupling...

Marriage is Defined by the Marriage of the Flesh... No other Coupling is Capable of Reflecting our Natural Design and Equipment and it is why ALL of us are even having this Discussion.



peace...

 

[bodecea]

This is nothing but a push to create yet another politically correct protected class.

So heterosexuals are a politically correct protected class? You like your "special rights" and want to keep them all to yourselves?

Did we at some time revert to childhood here.
That is an insipid response.
It is your side which seeks to create a new protected class.

So...a class of law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adult citizens are a "protected class"? She was right then....heterosexual adults ARE a protected class.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes, it is being threatened for destruction. People believe marriage between one man and one woman is sacrosanct. And that's all that matters.

No it isn't being threatened with destruction, Captain Hyperbole. The people that believe that, should probably not marry a person of the same sex then.

Allowing more people access to legal, civil marriage can only serve to strengthen, not destroy the institution.

Are you aware that the same kinds of people that want to "protect the sanctity of marriage" tried to stop blacks from marrying whites for the same reason? They even used the bible to justify their bigoted position. They lost. You will too.

You have your opinion. The majority of the country has their. That may change. This one is a tough nut.

The majority of the country believes that same sex couples should have all the legal rights of civil marriage. Where have you been? It doesn't matter. Civil rights are not a popularity contest, thank goodness. If they had been, interracial marriage would not have been legalized until the 1990s instead of the 1960s.

"Are you aware that the same kinds of people that want to "protect the sanctity of marriage" tried to stop blacks from marrying whites for the same reason? They even used the bible to justify their bigoted position."..
Stop it. Just stop. That is an offset.

Stop what? Comparing discrimination with discrimination? No, I won't.

"You will too."
This is not a game. It is not a contest.
Your side( liberal) have turned everything into picking winners and losers.

Sorry, but the only winner will be Civil Rights.

You push the government to do your bidding based on the fact that your ideas are unpopular. You use the threat of government sanctions to create your own set of winners and losers. That is part of the shame of liberalism.
Because your ideas are unpopular you must use outside agencies to FORCE people to accept your ideas. That, instead of educating people on your beliefs, you ram them down the throats of others.

Did you miss the results of the last election? You are obviously missing all the polls.

 

[bodecea]

Neither men nor women have a right to the biological attributes of the other. Men do not legally have the right to birth control pills. Women do not have a legal right to testosterone medication. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Change that and the word is redefined. Once it is redefined it loses its meaning. Of course that's what liberals wanted all along.

Nevertheless, we will certainly have same sex marriage, in time no marriage at all, IF we last that long and we likely won't. The trend in western civililzation is toward degeneracy and depravity. Once started on this road, not one civilization has ever gotten off and avoided its own destruction by righting itself before it fell.

Wait...there are laws keeping men from having birth control pills???? Cite such a law for us, please.

 

[Seawytch]

This is nothing but a push to create yet another politically correct protected class.

So heterosexuals are a politically correct protected class? You like your "special rights" and want to keep them all to yourselves?

Did we at some time revert to childhood here.
That is an insipid response.
It is your side which seeks to create a new protected class.

How does allowing us to legally marry the non familial consenting adult partner of choice create a "special class"?

 

[mal]

So heterosexuals are a politically correct protected class? You like your "special rights" and want to keep them all to yourselves?

Did we at some time revert to childhood here.
That is an insipid response.
It is your side which seeks to create a new protected class.

So...a class of law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adult citizens are a "protected class"? She was right then....heterosexual adults ARE a protected class.

Heterosexual Adults are why you Exist.



peace...

 

[LittleNipper]

So heterosexuals are a politically correct protected class? You like your "special rights" and want to keep them all to yourselves?

Did we at some time revert to childhood here.
That is an insipid response.
It is your side which seeks to create a new protected class.

How does allowing us to legally marry the non familial consenting adult partner of choice create a "special class"?

I think the reality is that homsexuality is juvenile behavior at best. It exists so some adults may frolick sexually without the fear of rejection by the opposite sex or procreation. There is no maturity revealed in homosexuality.

 

[Seawytch]

Did we at some time revert to childhood here.
That is an insipid response.
It is your side which seeks to create a new protected class.

How does allowing us to legally marry the non familial consenting adult partner of choice create a "special class"?

I think the reality is that homsexuality is juvenile behavior at best. It exists so some adults may frolick sexually without the fear of rejection by the opposite sex or procreation. There is no maturity revealed in homosexuality.

You must be very young...or VERY old.

 

[rightwinger]

Did we at some time revert to childhood here.
That is an insipid response.
It is your side which seeks to create a new protected class.

How does allowing us to legally marry the non familial consenting adult partner of choice create a "special class"?

I think the reality is that homsexuality is juvenile behavior at best. It exists so some adults may frolick sexually without the fear of rejection by the opposite sex or procreation. There is no maturity revealed in homosexuality.

I hear it comes about from not having enough "manly things" when you were a child or by watching too many Broadway shows

 

[Redfish]

each state should have a vote of the people on whether that state should sanction same sex marriage. Alabama does not have to do the same thing that California does. This should never be a federal issue.

 

[sfcalifornia]

each state should have a vote of the people on whether that state should sanction same sex marriage. Alabama does not have to do the same thing that California does. This should never be a federal issue.

That's not realistic.

There are tons of federal issues involving marriage such as Social Security, Veteran and Military Benefits, Tax issues, Federal Employment Benefits, Immigration issues just to name a few.

Anyone who thinks government should get out of marriage has no idea what protections the government provides for the individuals of that marriage.

 

[rightwinger]

each state should have a vote of the people on whether that state should sanction same sex marriage. Alabama does not have to do the same thing that California does. This should never be a federal issue.

You should not get to vote on the rights that other people are entitled to

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper