Hillary Rodham Clinton Speaks Out for Gay Marriage

[mal]

Then Advocate for Consenting Aged Siblings to Marry.



peace...

how about a three person marriage? marriage between a human and his/her dog? group marriage? where does it end?

If they are consenting adults.....is there any reason three people should be barred from marrying? You can have a wife and mistress on the side and you do not break any laws

Societal Anarchists... All of them.



peace...

 

[bodecea]

Some people just look at it as an issue of fairness

With me, it was a realization that it was an issue of love and not an issue of sex

Then Advocate for Consenting Aged Siblings to Marry.



peace...

how about a three person marriage? marriage between a human and his/her dog? group marriage? where does it end?

If that is what you want....advocate for it. And while you are at it....figure out how a dog can give legal consent. Let us know how it works.

 

[bodecea]

how about a three person marriage? marriage between a human and his/her dog? group marriage? where does it end?

If they are consenting adults.....is there any reason three people should be barred from marrying? You can have a wife and mistress on the side and you do not break any laws

All of these different types of marriage marginalizes real marriage (marriage brtween a man and a woman).

Translation: IF others are allowed to marry in a way I don't like, it makes my marriage less.

 

[bodecea]

how about a three person marriage? marriage between a human and his/her dog? group marriage? where does it end?

If they are consenting adults.....is there any reason three people should be barred from marrying? You can have a wife and mistress on the side and you do not break any laws

in the case of a human/dog marriage, how old does the dog have to be to be considered a consenting adult?

Research that and get back to us.

 

[bodecea]

If they are consenting adults.....is there any reason three people should be barred from marrying? You can have a wife and mistress on the side and you do not break any laws

talk about hypocrisy--------you advocate for state sanctioned gay marriage and then claim that marriage vows mean nothing when you say that having a mistress does not break any laws. what if the people in a gay marriage cheat on each other? How about the laws of God and religion? Do they apply to any of this?

BTW, having multiple wives is illegal in most states, so laws would be broken if 3 people entered into a marriage.

As far as I know, no one has been arrested in the US for having a mistress. Meaning it's legal to have one.
And I hate to break it to you, but muslims all over the US have multiple wives, so do mormons.

Not legal ones.....religiously married, yes.

 

[mal]

Then Advocate for Consenting Aged Siblings to Marry.



peace...

how about a three person marriage? marriage between a human and his/her dog? group marriage? where does it end?

If that is what you want....advocate for it. And while you are at it....figure out how a dog can give legal consent. Let us know how it works.

^Wants to Unconstitutionally Expand Special Rights for her Chosen Deviation only...

What a ****.



poeace...

 

[Jarhead]

If they are consenting adults.....is there any reason three people should be barred from marrying? You can have a wife and mistress on the side and you do not break any laws

All of these different types of marriage marginalizes real marriage (marriage brtween a man and a woman).

Translation: IF others are allowed to marry in a way I don't like, it makes my marriage less.

If one wants another to respect and UNDERSTAND ones sentimnents, then one must respect and understand anothers sentiments.

People believe marriage is between a man and a woman. It is what they were taught and how they lived. To criticize them for it only brings up anger.

Take the debate from that position. No need to spin their motives.

FYI....people truly beleive abortion is murder. It is not that they want to tell a woman what to do with her vagina. In their eyes, do anything you want with it...as long as it doesnt include murdering another human being.

When we throw in spin into debates, it gets us nowhere. What we see happening in Washington is a clear example of this.

 

[Jarhead]

Some people just look at it as an issue of fairness

With me, it was a realization that it was an issue of love and not an issue of sex

Then Advocate for Consenting Aged Siblings to Marry.



peace...

how about a three person marriage? marriage between a human and his/her dog? group marriage? where does it end?

Compare apples to apples.

The gay community is not asking for more than what the laws allow for heterosexual couples.

But if a heterosexual couple were leaglly allowed to bring a third in the marriage, then I assume gay couples should have the same right.

However, as for right now? The gay community simply wants the right to marry as a heterosexual couple does.

Dont spin their sentiments or motives. It gets us nowhere.

 

[Trajan]

Hillary Clinton for HRC's Americans for Marriage Equality | Clinton Pro Gay Marriage Video - YouTube

the link is dead, fix it or I am closing the thread.

 

[Katzndogz]

Then Advocate for Consenting Aged Siblings to Marry.



peace...

how about a three person marriage? marriage between a human and his/her dog? group marriage? where does it end?

If that is what you want....advocate for it. And while you are at it....figure out how a dog can give legal consent. Let us know how it works.

I suspect the motives behind the ban are entirely moralistic. Yet the government cannot come out and say so. Thus effort is made to distinguish the matter from Germany’s libertarian approach to sexual matters by suggesting the animals do not consent in the way consenting humans do. Yes, but they don’t consent to being bought or sold, or butchered, either, and they are not human, so consent is a red herring. This would not pass intermediate scrutiny in the U.S.
Kontorovich on Sex With (German) Animals | CENTER FOR LAW AND RELIGION FORUM


We are becoming a more degenerate culture. No doubt about it. Right along with the acceptance of marriage between same sex couples we will accept any other kind of depravity.

As the Australian philosopher Peter Singer pointed out in a notorious essay about a decade ago, interspecies sex is one of the last taboos still maintained by modern Western society which no longer criminalises adultery and looks upon same-sex attraction as a normal and healthy part of human variation. Why should sex with animals be any different?

What Germany outlawing bestiality tells us about changing attitudes to sex

Beastiality is just a normal and healthy part of human variation. Get that. It's as normal and healthy as homosexuality.


Yale hosts workshop teaching sensitivity to bestiality
"People do engage in some of these activities that we believe only for example perverts engage in,” she said. “What the goal is is to increase compassion for people who may engage in activities that are not what you would personally consider normal.”

McDevitt referred to the range of activities discussed in the workshop as “sexual diversity.”

“It tries to get people to be more sensitive … to sexual diversity,” McDevitt told Campus Reform in an interview on Monday. “We’re not all heterosexual, able-bodied folks who have standard missionary sex.”

 

[Katzndogz]

At least adults are trying to be in charge someplace.

University Could be Defunded Over Sex Week - Todd Starnes - Page 1

A group of Tennessee lawmakers is preparing to issue an ultimatum to the University of Tennessee-Knoxville – either defund the first-ever “Sex Week” or they will defund the university.

Lawmakers, alumni, and taxpayers are furious that the university allocated nearly $20,000 to fund a week-long salute to sex that included a poetry-reading lesbian bondage expert, a campus-wide condom scavenger hunt and seminars on—among other things – oral sex and lesbian erotica.

“We should be teaching these children what is important to learn so they can get jobs,” state Sen. Stacey Campfield told Fox News. “I don’t know what jobs they plan on getting if they’re having seminars on oral sex and bondage. I don’t see how that will help someone in their professional career – unless they plan on becoming a porn star.”

“They’ve been trying to say it’s about safety and birth control,” he said. “These kids are supposed to be some of the smartest kids out there – and they don’t know where to buy condoms?”

Campfield called Sex Week “completely ridiculous.”

“If they can’t figure out where to buy condoms, I question whether they need to be in college in the first place – if they’re that stupid.”

Campfield has summoned university officials to the state capitol to explain why they signed off on the event. And he’s also going to try and withhold the university’s budget until they get answers.
“The university always cries poor-mouth, that they don’t have any money and yet they seem to have plenty of money to do this kind of stuff,” he said. “We’re going to try and hold their budget until it gets squared away.”

“This is not what tax dollars should be supporting,” he said.

Sex week has nothing to do with teaching students where they can buy condoms. The whole purpose is to get students used to the entire idea of degenerate sex so they will be adults who will accept degeneracy as normal behavior.

 

[Redfish]

Then Advocate for Consenting Aged Siblings to Marry.



peace...

how about a three person marriage? marriage between a human and his/her dog? group marriage? where does it end?

Compare apples to apples.

The gay community is not asking for more than what the laws allow for heterosexual couples.

But if a heterosexual couple were leaglly allowed to bring a third in the marriage, then I assume gay couples should have the same right.

However, as for right now? The gay community simply wants the right to marry as a heterosexual couple does.

Dont spin their sentiments or motives. It gets us nowhere.

the gay community wants the straight community to sanction gay unions and call them marriages. that idea violates the teachings of most religions and is unacceptable to a majority of americans.

its the use of the word "marriage" that creates the issue. most do not object to a civil union or a mutual support and committment contract. those kinds of documents would give them the "rights" that they claim to seek.

but face it, thats not all they want, they want to mandate that the marjority change their beliefs by government dictate, and that violates freedom as guaranteed by the constitution,.

 

[bodecea]

how about a three person marriage? marriage between a human and his/her dog? group marriage? where does it end?

Compare apples to apples.

The gay community is not asking for more than what the laws allow for heterosexual couples.

But if a heterosexual couple were leaglly allowed to bring a third in the marriage, then I assume gay couples should have the same right.

However, as for right now? The gay community simply wants the right to marry as a heterosexual couple does.

Dont spin their sentiments or motives. It gets us nowhere.

the gay community wants the straight community to sanction gay unions and call them marriages. that idea violates the teachings of most religions and is unacceptable to a majority of americans.

its the use of the word "marriage" that creates the issue. most do not object to a civil union or a mutual support and committment contract. those kinds of documents would give them the "rights" that they claim to seek.

but face it, thats not all they want, they want to mandate that the marjority change their beliefs by government dictate, and that violates freedom as guaranteed by the constitution,.

Correction: Americans want the American government to provide equal access to marriage laws to all law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adult Americans.

How hard is that for fellow Americans to support?

 

[WorldWatcher]

how about a three person marriage? marriage between a human and his/her dog? group marriage? where does it end?

Compare apples to apples.

The gay community is not asking for more than what the laws allow for heterosexual couples.

But if a heterosexual couple were leaglly allowed to bring a third in the marriage, then I assume gay couples should have the same right.

However, as for right now? The gay community simply wants the right to marry as a heterosexual couple does.

Dont spin their sentiments or motives. It gets us nowhere.

the gay community wants the straight community to sanction gay unions and call them marriages. that idea violates the teachings of most religions and is unacceptable to a majority of americans.

its the use of the word "marriage" that creates the issue. most do not object to a civil union or a mutual support and committment contract. those kinds of documents would give them the "rights" that they claim to seek.

but face it, thats not all they want, they want to mandate that the marjority change their beliefs by government dictate, and that violates freedom as guaranteed by the constitution,.

You might want to be a little more hesitant to claim that the majority of American's are against Same-sex Civil Marriage (SSCM).

1. Poll after poll has documented the shifting position toward acceptance of SSCM.

2. The results at the ballot box during General Elections when Same-sex Civil Marriage has been on the ballot have documented the shifting attitudes. In the early 2000's anti-SSCM initiatives on General Election ballots passed with (IIRC) 23-76% margins of victory. In 2008 & 2009 (CA Prop 8, MA Question 1 respectively) it was chopped to the point where a change of only 2.5% would have been needed to change the outcome. Now in 2012 there were 4 SSCM questions on General Election ballots and all three passed on the SSCM side (3 approving SSCM and 1 electing not to enshrine discrimination in the State Constitution).​

Attitudes have changed greatly in the last decade.



>>>>

 

[Redfish]

Then Advocate for Consenting Aged Siblings to Marry.



peace...

how about a three person marriage? marriage between a human and his/her dog? group marriage? where does it end?

If that is what you want....advocate for it. And while you are at it....figure out how a dog can give legal consent. Let us know how it works.

its not what I want, but its the next logical step from gay marriage. "if someone loves their dog and their dog loves them, why should they be banned from making a marriage committment to each other?" notice the quotes, its not my idea but we can expect such a statement from the beastiality supporters.

 

[Redfish]

Compare apples to apples.

The gay community is not asking for more than what the laws allow for heterosexual couples.

But if a heterosexual couple were leaglly allowed to bring a third in the marriage, then I assume gay couples should have the same right.

However, as for right now? The gay community simply wants the right to marry as a heterosexual couple does.

Dont spin their sentiments or motives. It gets us nowhere.

the gay community wants the straight community to sanction gay unions and call them marriages. that idea violates the teachings of most religions and is unacceptable to a majority of americans.

its the use of the word "marriage" that creates the issue. most do not object to a civil union or a mutual support and committment contract. those kinds of documents would give them the "rights" that they claim to seek.

but face it, thats not all they want, they want to mandate that the marjority change their beliefs by government dictate, and that violates freedom as guaranteed by the constitution,.

You might want to be a little more hesitant to claim that the majority of American's are against Same-sex Civil Marriage (SSCM).

1. Poll after poll has documented the shifting position toward acceptance of SSCM.

2. The results at the ballot box during General Elections when Same-sex Civil Marriage has been on the ballot have documented the shifting attitudes. In the early 2000's anti-SSCM initiatives on General Election ballots passed with (IIRC) 23-76% margins of victory. In 2008 & 2009 (CA Prop 8, MA Question 1 respectively) it was chopped to the point where a change of only 2.5% would have been needed to change the outcome. Now in 2012 there were 4 SSCM questions on General Election ballots and all three passed on the SSCM side (3 approving SSCM and 1 electing not to enshrine discrimination in the State Constitution).​

Attitudes have changed greatly in the last decade.



>>>>

gay marriage has been voted down in twice in the liberal state of california. all of the red states are opposed to it. my statement is accurate.

 

[WorldWatcher]

the gay community wants the straight community to sanction gay unions and call them marriages. that idea violates the teachings of most religions and is unacceptable to a majority of americans.

its the use of the word "marriage" that creates the issue. most do not object to a civil union or a mutual support and committment contract. those kinds of documents would give them the "rights" that they claim to seek.

but face it, thats not all they want, they want to mandate that the marjority change their beliefs by government dictate, and that violates freedom as guaranteed by the constitution,.

You might want to be a little more hesitant to claim that the majority of American's are against Same-sex Civil Marriage (SSCM).

1. Poll after poll has documented the shifting position toward acceptance of SSCM.

2. The results at the ballot box during General Elections when Same-sex Civil Marriage has been on the ballot have documented the shifting attitudes. In the early 2000's anti-SSCM initiatives on General Election ballots passed with (IIRC) 23-76% margins of victory. In 2008 & 2009 (CA Prop 8, MA Question 1 respectively) it was chopped to the point where a change of only 2.5% would have been needed to change the outcome. Now in 2012 there were 4 SSCM questions on General Election ballots and all three passed on the SSCM side (3 approving SSCM and 1 electing not to enshrine discrimination in the State Constitution).​

Attitudes have changed greatly in the last decade.



>>>>

gay marriage has been voted down in twice in the liberal state of california. all of the red states are opposed to it. my statement is accurate.

The votes you claim occurred on overage over a decade ago, do you deny that the attitudes change over time?


Prop 22 passed in California in 2000 with a 23% margin of victory, only eight years later Prop 8 barely squeaked by with 2.5% over what was needed to pass. If California were to re-vote today, Prop 8 would be repealed at the ballot box easily.

Public opinion is not a static thing, it changes over time - sometimes in one direction, sometimes in another. There is no denying that attitudes have been changing over the last decade to be more accepting.

Don't take this personally, but if you think the population (in general) thinks and would vote the same way today as it did in 2000 - you are setting your self up for a rude awakening the the next morning.



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

the gay community wants the straight community to sanction gay unions and call them marriages. that idea violates the teachings of most religions and is unacceptable to a majority of americans.

its the use of the word "marriage" that creates the issue. most do not object to a civil union or a mutual support and committment contract. those kinds of documents would give them the "rights" that they claim to seek.

but face it, thats not all they want, they want to mandate that the marjority change their beliefs by government dictate, and that violates freedom as guaranteed by the constitution,.

You might want to be a little more hesitant to claim that the majority of American's are against Same-sex Civil Marriage (SSCM).

1. Poll after poll has documented the shifting position toward acceptance of SSCM.

2. The results at the ballot box during General Elections when Same-sex Civil Marriage has been on the ballot have documented the shifting attitudes. In the early 2000's anti-SSCM initiatives on General Election ballots passed with (IIRC) 23-76% margins of victory. In 2008 & 2009 (CA Prop 8, MA Question 1 respectively) it was chopped to the point where a change of only 2.5% would have been needed to change the outcome. Now in 2012 there were 4 SSCM questions on General Election ballots and all three passed on the SSCM side (3 approving SSCM and 1 electing not to enshrine discrimination in the State Constitution).​

Attitudes have changed greatly in the last decade.



>>>>

gay marriage has been voted down in twice in the liberal state of california. all of the red states are opposed to it. my statement is accurate.

Prop 22 in 2000...61% against, 39% for legal gay marriage

Prop H8 in 2008...52% for, 48% against eliminating legal gay marriage

In 8 years...the margin dropped from 22% to 4%. Do you notice the trend?

In 2000, NO states had legalized gay marriage.....0 out of 50.....now we have 9 states. Do you notice the trend?

 

[LittleNipper]

Things always get worse instead of better.

 

[Jarhead]

how about a three person marriage? marriage between a human and his/her dog? group marriage? where does it end?

Compare apples to apples.

The gay community is not asking for more than what the laws allow for heterosexual couples.

But if a heterosexual couple were leaglly allowed to bring a third in the marriage, then I assume gay couples should have the same right.

However, as for right now? The gay community simply wants the right to marry as a heterosexual couple does.

Dont spin their sentiments or motives. It gets us nowhere.

the gay community wants the straight community to sanction gay unions and call them marriages. that idea violates the teachings of most religions and is unacceptable to a majority of americans.

its the use of the word "marriage" that creates the issue. most do not object to a civil union or a mutual support and committment contract. those kinds of documents would give them the "rights" that they claim to seek.

but face it, thats not all they want, they want to mandate that the marjority change their beliefs by government dictate, and that violates freedom as guaranteed by the constitution,.

All they want is to not be deemed a separate group. Dont read into their intentions based on a few very vocal rogue individuals.

Every "group" has rogue individuals......never define a group by the sentiments of the few.