Petie Estie 5,736 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 ....... This is sexist. But other than that, I know me and many of my friends voted for Obama in 2008 and he did not support same-sex marriage. But he changed his mind just like everyone else in the last 8 years. It's respectable. How will we ever make progress if we don't let people change their minds?????? Call your therapist...it's Petie Estie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eighteen 5,430 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 2 hours ago, ryanripley said: LebaneseDude is coming for you LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGD 12,101 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 1 hour ago, LebaneseDude said: Is this your response to Hillary's LGBT stance? Well... First and foremost I find it quite funny that you think people don't know history at this point in the election process. If they didn't, then they clearly did not properly research their candidate for their primaries. So who are you addressing here? Informed people already know the tea. Are you just making this post in an attempt to convince yourself? ------ It's fascinating that you are conflating Bill Clinton's decisions with Hillary's. Do you ever link any of the male candidates with the decisions their wives have made? I sense a hint of misogyny here. Apparently the wife must share the husband's values like a good housewife she is. She should have criticized her husband publicly and embarrassed him! That's what she should have done! Don't employ revisionist history in an attempt to make your points. Those laws were enacted decades ago when you were still a fetus. You think the world was as gay-friendly as it was back then? PRC has B+ on polling according to fivethirtyeight Look at that graph. Look at how volatile the approval for homosexuality was during the 1990s. DOMA and DADT were defensive measures to protect LGBT people appeasing the bigots, thus allowing LGBT to raise support in peace without fear from further persecution. Many gay people who actually lived during that time have stood up for their implementation and pardon me for believing them over you. Gay soldiers could serve their country without being worried about being asked about their sexual orientation. Gay couples could have domestic partnerships without fear of their relationships being dissolved as anti-gay sentiments fluctuated. Of course many also disagree. Some say there wasn't much risk. Also the implementations were abused, as they always are, but that speaks more about the people who were enforcing them as opposed to the intentions of the ones who enact them don't you think? That's irrelevant though. That's how perceptions are. Implying that their implementation was outright hostile and anti-gay is just ridiculous considering the circumstances. These laws do not hold ground nowadays due to increase of support but 20 years ago was a far different time. Furthermore that quote about Bill Clinton is unsubstantiated. I could not find it, so don't make up quotes in your failed attempt to paint him as a homophobe. Either way, he regrets his part in implementing them and wish there could have been another solution. At this point, how is it relevant? Do we judge people by what they did or said 20 years ago or what they stand for today? Implying otherwise is implying I should chastise my own mother for being homophobic before I came out. What kind of backwards logic? We embrace our allies no matter their past. ---- Let's get back to Hillary. I'm glad you didn't try to bullshit this one. Yes she did not support same-sex marriage but she did not oppose it. Read this politifact article. Politfact is a Pulitzer-prize winning fact checker so I suggest you trust it. I'll quote the important parts in spoilers. Reveal hidden contents December 1999: Clinton told a group of gay contributors at a fundraiser that she was against the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy signed by her husband. Well **** that goes against your claims of her necessarily sharing her husband's values.... Reveal hidden contents January 2000: At a news conference in White Plains, Clinton said, "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship." This justifies her position about same-sex marriage not being about against homosexuality but being a hang-up around the institution of marriage. Hillary was from a different generation. Most people shared the same sentiments at the time. Reveal hidden contents July 2004: Clinton spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage. (The amendment ultimately failed.) Though she opposed it, she said that she believed that marriage was "a sacred bond between a man and a woman." However, she said she took "umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman." So basically she voted against anti-LGBT laws and denounced people who were more concerned with the Constitution than the marriage rights themselves, once again fortifying her stance being based on a hang-up as opposed to anti-gay sentiments Reveal hidden contents October 2006: Clinton told a group of gay elected officials that she would support same-sex marriage in New York if a future governor and Legislature chose to enact such a law. Poll by fivethirtyeight, the most trusted website on the Internet. So she stated indirect support far before it became "the popular thing" to do. Approval at the time was still 58/35. Reveal hidden contents August 2007: In a Democratic primary debate sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and LOGO Network (a gay-oriented TV station) Clinton was asked "What is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage?" Clinton replied: "Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it’s a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges." What a horrible position to have.... full rights and liberties in civil unions while leaving marriage for opposite sex... how anti-LGBT of her. Reveal hidden contents March 2013: After leaving her position as secretary of state, she announced her support for same-sex marriage in a video with the Human Rights Campaign on March 18, 2013. Omg....7 WHOLE years later she changed her mind. What a flip flopper! From full rights and liberties in civil unions to same-sex marriage. What a huge jump over 7 years! Throughout that whole time she was an unchanging stagnant robot who could not allow her experiences to change her mind. Nobody does that! I mean look at that graph. Americans were also stagnant and Hillary is not an American to be influenced by the culture. I'm sure you have the same exact mindsets you had 6 years ago! ----- So... so far you're using her husband's implementations and implying that not being supportive of same-sex unions (while not outright opposing and fighting them) somehow someone makes someone anti-LGBT. How reductive of you to reduce someone's entire position to one issue. Of course you bring up donations from countries, because that somehow makes her accomplice to their actions. Who needs that money right? Let me remind you that the money goes INTO the foundation not the other way around. The money is used for her liberal agenda. Why would she refuse it when she can use the money to help people. I mean...almost 10 million people with HIV or AIDS around the world have benefited from more affordable medicine because of the Clinton Foundation. And since 2002, the Clinton Health Access Initiative has reduced the cost of HIV and AIDS medications in many countries from over $10,000 per person per year to just $100 to $200 per person per year. But of course not taking money from people who live in those countries is more important than those lives.You do realize that it's actually country as in singular, since Saudi Arabia is the only country that Hillary has active diplomacy with which has executions for gay people. Also how dare she have cordial relationships with PEOPLE from countries that aren't Canada on LGBT rights! We should push away those with policies we oppose, not interact with them to bring them over to the proper side over time. Who needs leverage? The fact that women in Saudi can no longer drive is in no part due to liberal ideologies and beliefs being transferred through cultural interactions! She must be friends with them too! It's not like she has denounced Saudi Arabian leadership for supporting terrorist organizations in the past..... and just a few days ago too. How about you treat it as the gray area it is rather than demonize her for it? Those donating to her KNOW what she fights for. This is the same woman that stood in front of the UN and made a historic speech on LGBT rights. Gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights. She essentially put LGBT rights on the international stage. You can read many articles about their impact. Here's one ----- Hillary has dedicated her entire career to fighting for human rights. Of course there's only so much she can do, and Hillary focused more on women's and children's rights than other demographics. How evil of her for not being a PFLAG member. ---- Either way, look at her current positions. Those are what matter right now, and they are far better than any other candidate backed by experience and tempered by reason. Hillary is by no means the perfect ally, but she is one regardless and has the history to prove that she has always been genuinely sympathetic to the causes. ----- So once again, I ask you. What are you trying to prove here when all you've done is exhibit your own gross misinformation and shortsighted perceptions? Go to Trump supporters' Reddit page. You'll find similar people there. I always learn more about Clinton from you Spoiler Bookmarking this comment :legend: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferrer Zorola 3,966 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 everyones like here comes LebaneseDude tell him LebaneseDude meanwhile LebaneseDude remains unbothered LIFE IS GOOD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poot 719 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 She may be a fraud, but I don't rhink she will change her stances on these lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adakam 2 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 2 hours ago, LebaneseDude said: Is this your response to Hillary's LGBT stance? Well... First and foremost I find it quite funny that you think people don't know history at this point in the election process. If they didn't, then they clearly did not properly research their candidate for their primaries. So who are you addressing here? Informed people already know the tea. Are you just making this post in an attempt to convince yourself? ------ It's fascinating that you are conflating Bill Clinton's decisions with Hillary's. Do you ever link any of the male candidates with the decisions their wives have made? I sense a hint of misogyny here. Apparently the wife must share the husband's values like a good housewife she is. She should have criticized her husband publicly and embarrassed him! That's what she should have done! Don't employ revisionist history in an attempt to make your points. Those laws were enacted decades ago when you were still a fetus. You think the world was as gay-friendly as it was back then? PRC has B+ on polling according to fivethirtyeight Look at that graph. Look at how volatile the approval for homosexuality was during the 1990s. DOMA and DADT were defensive measures to protect LGBT people appeasing the bigots, thus allowing LGBT to raise support in peace without fear from further persecution. Many gay people who actually lived during that time have stood up for their implementation and pardon me for believing them over you. Gay soldiers could serve their country without being worried about being asked about their sexual orientation. Gay couples could have domestic partnerships without fear of their relationships being dissolved as anti-gay sentiments fluctuated. Of course many also disagree. Some say there wasn't much risk. Also the implementations were abused, as they always are, but that speaks more about the people who were enforcing them as opposed to the intentions of the ones who enact them don't you think? That's irrelevant though. That's how perceptions are. Implying that their implementation was outright hostile and anti-gay is just ridiculous considering the circumstances. These laws do not hold ground nowadays due to increase of support but 20 years ago was a far different time. Furthermore that quote about Bill Clinton is unsubstantiated. I could not find it, so don't make up quotes in your failed attempt to paint him as a homophobe. Either way, he regrets his part in implementing them and wish there could have been another solution. At this point, how is it relevant? Do we judge people by what they did or said 20 years ago or what they stand for today? Implying otherwise is implying I should chastise my own mother for being homophobic before I came out. What kind of backwards logic? We embrace our allies no matter their past. ---- Let's get back to Hillary. I'm glad you didn't try to bullshit this one. Yes she did not support same-sex marriage but she did not oppose it. Read this politifact article. Politfact is a Pulitzer-prize winning fact checker so I suggest you trust it. I'll quote the important parts in spoilers. Reveal hidden contents December 1999: Clinton told a group of gay contributors at a fundraiser that she was against the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy signed by her husband. Well **** that goes against your claims of her necessarily sharing her husband's values.... Reveal hidden contents January 2000: At a news conference in White Plains, Clinton said, "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship." This justifies her position about same-sex marriage not being about against homosexuality but being a hang-up around the institution of marriage. Hillary was from a different generation. Most people shared the same sentiments at the time. Reveal hidden contents July 2004: Clinton spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage. (The amendment ultimately failed.) Though she opposed it, she said that she believed that marriage was "a sacred bond between a man and a woman." However, she said she took "umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman." So basically she voted against anti-LGBT laws and denounced people who were more concerned with the Constitution than the marriage rights themselves, once again fortifying her stance being based on a hang-up as opposed to anti-gay sentiments Reveal hidden contents October 2006: Clinton told a group of gay elected officials that she would support same-sex marriage in New York if a future governor and Legislature chose to enact such a law. Poll by fivethirtyeight, the most trusted website on the Internet. So she stated indirect support far before it became "the popular thing" to do. Approval at the time was still 58/35. Reveal hidden contents August 2007: In a Democratic primary debate sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and LOGO Network (a gay-oriented TV station) Clinton was asked "What is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage?" Clinton replied: "Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it’s a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges." What a horrible position to have.... full rights and liberties in civil unions while leaving marriage for opposite sex... how anti-LGBT of her. Reveal hidden contents March 2013: After leaving her position as secretary of state, she announced her support for same-sex marriage in a video with the Human Rights Campaign on March 18, 2013. Omg....7 WHOLE years later she changed her mind. What a flip flopper! From full rights and liberties in civil unions to same-sex marriage. What a huge jump over 7 years! Throughout that whole time she was an unchanging stagnant robot who could not allow her experiences to change her mind. Nobody does that! I mean look at that graph. Americans were also stagnant and Hillary is not an American to be influenced by the culture. I'm sure you have the same exact mindsets you had 6 years ago! ----- So... so far you're using her husband's implementations and implying that not being supportive of same-sex unions (while not outright opposing and fighting them) somehow someone makes someone anti-LGBT. How reductive of you to reduce someone's entire position to one issue. Of course you bring up donations from countries, because that somehow makes her accomplice to their actions. Who needs that money right? Let me remind you that the money goes INTO the foundation not the other way around. The money is used for her liberal agenda. Why would she refuse it when she can use the money to help people. I mean...almost 10 million people with HIV or AIDS around the world have benefited from more affordable medicine because of the Clinton Foundation. And since 2002, the Clinton Health Access Initiative has reduced the cost of HIV and AIDS medications in many countries from over $10,000 per person per year to just $100 to $200 per person per year. But of course not taking money from people who live in those countries is more important than those lives.You do realize that it's actually country as in singular, since Saudi Arabia is the only country that Hillary has active diplomacy with which has executions for gay people. Also how dare she have cordial relationships with PEOPLE from countries that aren't Canada on LGBT rights! We should push away those with policies we oppose, not interact with them to bring them over to the proper side over time. Who needs leverage? The fact that women in Saudi can no longer drive is in no part due to liberal ideologies and beliefs being transferred through cultural interactions! She must be friends with them too! It's not like she has denounced Saudi Arabian leadership for supporting terrorist organizations in the past..... and just a few days ago too. How about you treat it as the gray area it is rather than demonize her for it? Those donating to her KNOW what she fights for. This is the same woman that stood in front of the UN and made a historic speech on LGBT rights. Gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights. She essentially put LGBT rights on the international stage. You can read many articles about their impact. Here's one ----- Hillary has dedicated her entire career to fighting for human rights. Of course there's only so much she can do, and Hillary focused more on women's and children's rights than other demographics. How evil of her for not being a PFLAG member. ---- Either way, look at her current positions. Those are what matter right now, and they are far better than any other candidate backed by experience and tempered by reason. Hillary is by no means the perfect ally, but she is one regardless and has the history to prove that she has always been genuinely sympathetic to the causes. ----- So once again, I ask you. What are you trying to prove here when all you've done is exhibit your own gross misinformation and shortsighted perceptions? Go to Trump supporters' Reddit page. You'll find similar people there. Love how you not only counter attack, but you destroy in one swing! You should make this post into a thread tho, title it "Before you think clinton is anti LGBT, read this" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronyoji 2,064 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 3 hours ago, neptugne said: I think that's kind of a terrible way to think lol we should have a president who wants to change the country for the better and look forward to the future exactly. if the country all of a sudden wanted to imprison gays because they where a minority, would that be acceptable for a president to support?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poot 719 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 1 hour ago, Love Drought said: still better than Drumb Queen Trump will conquer, stay mad hoe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helxig 45,628 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Just the fact that she has ALWAYS been against the LGBT community right up until she ran for president should tell you everything you need to know. Her smile is faker than cheese in a can. I'll be myself until they fūcking close the coffin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanripley 86,575 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 8 hours ago, LebaneseDude said: Is this your response to Hillary's LGBT stance? Well... First and foremost I find it quite funny that you think people don't know history at this point in the election process. If they didn't, then they clearly did not properly research their candidate for their primaries. So who are you addressing here? Informed people already know the tea. Are you just making this post in an attempt to convince yourself? ------ It's fascinating that you are conflating Bill Clinton's decisions with Hillary's. Do you ever link any of the male candidates with the decisions their wives have made? I sense a hint of misogyny here. Apparently the wife must share the husband's values like a good housewife she is. She should have criticized her husband publicly and embarrassed him! That's what she should have done! Don't employ revisionist history in an attempt to make your points. Those laws were enacted decades ago when you were still a fetus. Do you think the world was as gay-friendly as it is today back then? PRC has B+ on polling according to fivethirtyeight Look at that graph. Look at how volatile the approval for homosexuality was during the 1990s. DOMA and DADT were defensive measures to protect LGBT people appeasing the bigots, thus allowing LGBT to raise support in peace without fear from further persecution. Many gay people who actually lived during that time have stood up for their implementation and pardon me for believing them over you. Gay soldiers could serve their country without being worried about being asked about their sexual orientation. Gay couples could have domestic partnerships without fear of their relationships being dissolved as anti-gay sentiments fluctuated. Of course many also disagree. Some say there wasn't much risk. Also the implementations were abused, as they always are, but that speaks more about the people who were enforcing them as opposed to the intentions of the ones who enact them don't you think? That's irrelevant though. That's how perceptions are. Implying that their implementation was outright hostile and anti-gay is just ridiculous considering the circumstances. These laws do not hold ground nowadays due to increase of support but 20 years ago was a far different time. Furthermore that quote about Bill Clinton is unsubstantiated. I could not find it, so don't make up quotes in your failed attempt to paint him as a homophobe. Either way, he regrets his part in implementing them and wish there could have been another solution. At this point, how is it relevant? Do we judge people by what they did or said 20 years ago or what they stand for today? Implying otherwise is implying I should chastise my own mother for being homophobic before I came out. What kind of backwards logic? We embrace our allies no matter their past. ---- Let's get back to Hillary. I'm glad you didn't try to bullshit this one. Yes she did not support same-sex marriage but she did not oppose it. Read this politifact article. Politfact is a Pulitzer-prize winning fact checker so I suggest you trust it. I'll quote the important parts in spoilers. Reveal hidden contents December 1999: Clinton told a group of gay contributors at a fundraiser that she was against the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy signed by her husband. Well **** that goes against your claims of her necessarily sharing her husband's values.... Reveal hidden contents January 2000: At a news conference in White Plains, Clinton said, "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship." This justifies her position about same-sex marriage not being about against homosexuality but being a hang-up around the institution of marriage. Hillary was from a different generation. Most people shared the same sentiments at the time. Reveal hidden contents July 2004: Clinton spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage. (The amendment ultimately failed.) Though she opposed it, she said that she believed that marriage was "a sacred bond between a man and a woman." However, she said she took "umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman." So basically she voted against anti-LGBT laws and denounced people who were more concerned with the Constitution than the marriage rights themselves, once again fortifying her stance being based on a hang-up as opposed to anti-gay sentiments Reveal hidden contents October 2006: Clinton told a group of gay elected officials that she would support same-sex marriage in New York if a future governor and Legislature chose to enact such a law. Poll by fivethirtyeight, the most trusted website on the Internet. So she stated indirect support far before it became "the popular thing" to do. Approval at the time was still 35/58. Reveal hidden contents August 2007: In a Democratic primary debate sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and LOGO Network (a gay-oriented TV station) Clinton was asked "What is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage?" Clinton replied: "Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it’s a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges." What a horrible position to have.... full rights and liberties in civil unions while leaving marriage for opposite sex... how anti-LGBT of her. Reveal hidden contents March 2013: After leaving her position as secretary of state, she announced her support for same-sex marriage in a video with the Human Rights Campaign on March 18, 2013. Omg....7 WHOLE years later she changed her mind. What a flip flopper! From full rights and liberties in civil unions to same-sex marriage. What a huge jump over 7 years! Throughout that whole time she was an unchanging stagnant robot who could not allow her experiences to change her mind. Nobody does that! I mean look at that graph. Americans were also stagnant and Hillary is not an American to be influenced by the culture. I'm sure you have the same exact mindsets you had 6 years ago! ----- So... so far you're using her husband's implementations and implying that not being supportive of same-sex unions (while not outright opposing and fighting them) somehow someone makes someone anti-LGBT. How reductive of you to reduce someone's entire position to one issue. Of course you bring up donations from countries, because that somehow makes her accomplice to their actions. Who needs that money right? Let me remind you that the money goes INTO the foundation not the other way around. The money is used for her liberal agenda. Why would she refuse it when she can use the money to help people. I mean...almost 10 million people with HIV or AIDS around the world have benefited from more affordable medicine because of the Clinton Foundation. And since 2002, the Clinton Health Access Initiative has reduced the cost of HIV and AIDS medications in many countries from over $10,000 per person per year to just $100 to $200 per person per year. But of course not taking money from people who live in those countries is more important than those lives.You do realize that it's actually country as in singular, since Saudi Arabia is the only country that Hillary has active diplomacy with which has executions for gay people... Also how dare she have cordial relationships with PEOPLE from countries that aren't Canada on LGBT rights! We should push away those with policies we oppose, not interact with them to bring them over to the proper side over time. Who needs leverage? The fact that women in Saudi can now drive is in no part due to liberal ideologies and beliefs being transferred through cultural interactions! She must be friends with them too! It's not like she has denounced Saudi Arabian leadership for supporting terrorist organizations in the past..... and just a few days ago too. How about you treat it as the gray area it is rather than demonize her for it? Those donating to her KNOW what she fights for. This is the same woman that stood in front of the UN and made a historic speech on LGBT rights. Gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights. She essentially put LGBT rights on the international stage. You can read many articles about their impact. Here's one ----- Hillary has dedicated her entire career to fighting for human rights. Of course there's only so much she can do, and Hillary focused more on women's and children's rights than other demographics. How evil of her for not being a PFLAG member. ---- Either way, look at her current positions. Those are what matter right now, and they are far better than any other candidate backed by experience and tempered by reason. Hillary is by no means the perfect ally, but she is one regardless and has the history to prove that she has always been genuinely sympathetic to the causes. ----- So once again, I ask you. What are you trying to prove here when all you've done is exhibit your own gross misinformation and shortsighted perceptions? Go to Trump supporters' Reddit page. You'll find similar people there. M M M M M M MONSTER KILL https://goo.gl/xMgMvJ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemo 4,414 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 9 hours ago, Squidward T said: Bill Clinton signed into law the Dont Ask Dont Tell policy which prevents LGB soldiers from revealing their sexuality openly while in combat, this act caused thousands of discharges for soldiers who bravely fought for our country. DADT was actually progress, at the time. Before that, the military would ask anyone who wanted to join if they were gay, and refuse them entry if they said yes. They'd also initiate investigations into the sexuality of those already enlisted, based on anonymous tips etc., and discharge them if they were found to be gay. The new policy put a stop to those things. Now, gays could serve... as long as they stayed in the closet. The problem came when Obama wanted to move further, to a policy of open service. Like the witch hunts of the days before DADT, this policy would be set purely through the executive branch. But DADT was an actual law, passed by Congress. So they had to go through the process of repealing DADT before they could put open service into effect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanripley 86,575 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 8 hours ago, Kayla said: we r lovrs on topic though, even with Hillary's questionable track record I have more faith in her to do what's right than Trump hi lovr https://goo.gl/xMgMvJ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopBitch 1,218 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 16 hours ago, Squidward T said: Lets look at her and her husbands history shall we Bill Clinton signed into law the Dont Ask Dont Tell policy which prevents LGB soldiers from revealing their sexuality openly while in combat, this act caused thousands of discharges for soldiers who bravely fought for our country. Bill Clinton signed into law DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which strictly forbid same sex marriages in 49 states and allowed religion organizations to discriminate against Same Sex couples. Bill Clinton said in an 1995 interview with Time Magazine that "homosexual marriage threatens the country and religious freedoms." Hillary Clinton has said that she does not support same sex marriage. It wasnt until she ran for president that she "evolved" on the issue. Hillary Clinton has accepted substantial money donations from countries that support that death penalty and criminal punishment for homosexuals. Do not buy into this fraud That's how they all felt back then. No one could get elected otherwise. No one could. ,have gotten elected pushing gay marriage. But strides were made over the years for civil unions, benefits, etc. She was for that when others weren't.. Americans, the majority weren't even for gay marriage, until more recent years . It was an evolution for everybody. She was for civil unions since the late '90s. Hillary is not Bill. News flash. She was against Don't Ask Don't Tell, but Bill Clinton was trying to do something good with that for gays in the military.. Brush up on history. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HausOfNicole 177 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 You know, I was expecting the comments to support this theory overwhelmingly. Good to know people are more rational than I thought. At this point rather you love her or not, the other option of Trump is surely not favorable so I'd say endure her politics for four years and see if another candidate strikes your better next election. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prettiestboy 9 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 18 hours ago, holyscheisse said: thank Gaga for dying for our sins at the 2009 vmas, now the US has turned gay. ⚰💀 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.