Bill Clinton: Hillary Is 'A Little Put Off' by Gays 'Acting Out'

[Andy McQueen 4,484]

If you are a gay man, don't queen out in front Hillary... she doesn't like it.. OK?

It pisses me off when 'The Gays' you know who i mean, 'the Gays' try to make out that Hillary has a better record with the LGBT than Bernie, its not only utterly false, it disrespects everything he's done for us since the early 80s...

Hillary decided to tolerate us in 2012 wasn't it... where was she before that?

oh thats right putting her politcal weight and impassioned speeches to the public into antigay bills

http://www.advocate.com/election/2015/9/22/bill-clinton-hillary-little-put-gays-acting-out

 

[Raikou 1,169]

Buy Breathe in, Breathe out on iTu... wait.

Welp, keep propagating the villainization of femininity, Hilza!

[Whis 2,920]

i hate that Hillary

[Didymus 34,380]

I love how there's a parallel here.

Madonna = Bernie

Gaga = Hillary

Connect the dots

In the end though, it's still great that people like Gaga and Hillary show their support, even if they're (only?) doing it because they don't run a risk of ruining their career anymore. Pioneers are more admirable for sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean their road to empowerment is better.

I don't know.. it's a question of idealism versus pragmatism. It's perfectly legit to say Hillary's plans for the LGBT community are just better even if she changed her stance for political reasons. It's also legit to say someone who is that blatant a flip flopper shouldn't be in the White House. So eh.

[Guest]

I think by now everyone knows that Bernie has been there for us since day one, risking his political career because not many dared to speak up, and also that he is the most tolerant candidate out there, but Hillary being supportive of the LGBT+ community only recently is better than her being against it.

I mean, isn't changing people's hearts and minds the goal of spreading love and tolerance? I get that it's unfortunate how she only started openly supporting the community when she began planning her run for presidency, but I wouldn't hold it against anyone when they had a change of heart (for whatever reason). 

[DiscoHeaven23 35,007]

I came here thinking this was said this week, but its from the 90's?!?!!?

 

Know who didn't like gay people in the 90's? My whole family

Guess whole supports all gay people now? My whole family. 

 

I'm not gonna write her off for that, just like i'm not writing off my family.

[Seeka 12,372]

As a gay man, I'm more worried about the end of the world than other things as an LGBT community member I could be worried about.

[Sizzily 14,574]

28 minutes ago, Raikou said:

Buy Breathe in, Breathe out on iTu... wait.

Welp, keep propagating the villainization of femininity, Hilza!

 k then 

[AJH219 4,448]

I hate when gays act out too  

But seriously, 1999   Literally most people in the 90's hated gays. This comment is neither surprising or worthy of some kind of uproar. Don't we have more pressing present issues to worry about? Good grief  

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

 

35 minutes ago, Didymus said:

It's also legit to say someone who is that blatant a flip flopper shouldn't be in the White House. So eh.

I think people have the word "flip flop" all wrong.

Changing your opinion upon learning new information is not flip flopping.  Implying otherwise means you expect your leaders to fail to adapt as the situations change. That's not only dangerous, but also assumes that their current position will remain the correct one as times change.

Think what you want about what Hillary's policies. Changing your stance across 7 years (in the case of same-sexxx marriage) is not flip flopping, It is indeed adapting, especially when her BELIEFS have been consistent throughout.  She always believed in their rights for a union but hung up on the word marriage like MOST Americans. 

My mother is not a flipflopper because she became less homophobic when I came out. She evolved because she had new context. 

It also seems people have forgotten that politicians are REPRESENTATIVES. Taking the worst case scenario that she was indeed politically expedient, she still at least has followed the will of the people. In the end the result is the same, except less people are going to fight it when it happens.

I don't disagree with your statement by the way. A blatant flip flopper should not be in the White House.

However trying to call Hillary one is a gross failure in characterization. 

[Didymus 34,380]

8 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Think what you want about what Hillary's policies. Changing your stance across 7 years is not flip flopping, It is indeed adapting, especially when her BELIEFS have been consistent throughout. 

Not really in this issue.. I've seen her say she believes marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. That statement didn't have to be made if she just took a political stance. Agreed with the post in general tho.

Though personally I find it a bit misleading to say that Hillary changed her stance because the times were changing.. I mean, the times were already changing in the late 80's. Will politicians like her also be three decades too late about current hot topics that don't earn the attention and support they deserve now? That's the pivotal question.

I don't know how to answer that btw, just throwing it out there.

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

Not this again!!!  People trying to paint her as homophobic, or as a johnny-come-lately to gay rights is just pathetic!  The 90's & early 00's were very homophobic times, and there were lots of people who supported MOST gay rights, but not gay marriage tho...  Doesn't mean they didn't care about gay people because of that particular stance on one issue!  

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Not really in this issue, but.. I've seen her say she believes marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. That statement didn't have to be made if she just took a political stance. Agreed with the post in general tho. Though personally I find it a bit misleading to say that Hillary changed her stance because the times were changing.. I mean, the times were already changing in the late 80's. Will politicians like her also be three decades too late about the current hot topics that don't earn the attention and support they deserve? That's the pivotal question.

I don't know how to answer that btw, just throwing it out there.

Well that was her personal belief. It was true she did not support it, but unlike many Americans she did not oppose it. She outright stated that she would not block any measure if New York voted for same-sexxx marriage. She supported full civil unions with all rights afforded.

She simply hung up on the word marriage. This was a prevalent opinion at the time.

Times were changing by the late 80's but they were not remotely accepting or tolerant. Times only changed for the better in the 2000s. 

Hillary is still part of the American people. What makes it so that it is necessary for her to be on the fringe of liberalism at all times? Can't people have their own viewpoints?

Furthermore, you understate how much of a political suicide it was to support LGBT rights completely a mere two decades ago. You can do far more work for LGBT rights by supporting them where they count and picking your battles. Even LGBT groups fully understood that. The USA only got to where it was today through temperance, not recklessness.

Why should Hillary undercut her career to fully embrace LGBT rights when she could do far more for other people such as women and children? In the same vein, why should she undercut her career and lose the power to actually help LGBT people where it counted at the time? Look at her historic speech at the UN which essentially legitimatized many gay movements across the world, including Lebanon's very own Helem organization.

There are many questions, and none of them have simple answers.

[Eighteen 5,430]

it's just a growth of opinion, like i hated myself for years, now i love myself

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

5 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Not really in this issue.. I've seen her say she believes marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. That statement didn't have to be made if she just took a political stance. Agreed with the post in general tho.

Though personally I find it a bit misleading to say that Hillary changed her stance because the times were changing.. I mean, the times were already changing in the late 80's. Will politicians like her also be three decades too late about the current hot topics that don't earn the attention and support they deserve now? That's the pivotal question.

I don't know how to answer that btw, just throwing it out there.

Politicians have always been late when it comes to the culture changes of America.  Minus civil rights...