Would the Dens elect someone who believes.......

That marriage is only between a man and a woman? Who would say something like

"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.""

You know say something they claim is "homophobic"?

 

No. A Republican will endorse gay marriage before that happens.

 

What folks believe about gay marriage is oftentimes different than what they once believed. People's views and attitudes evolve. Society's views evolve. I would not vote for a democrat who was so rigid in his or her personal beliefs that they would be incapable of modifying those beliefs if and when confronted with convincing arguments to do so.

 

Good answer. May I enquirer as to what you believe are convincing arguments?

 

arguments that cause people to rethink their previously held positions.

 

I understand that the OP was a cute little trick question.... Hillary is allowed to change her opinion just like anyone else.

40 years ago, NYC threw gays in jail for public displays of affection. Today, they marry them. People change. Societies change. Thank GOD.

 

Sorry for my lack of specificity. I meant specifically towards this topic.

 

The obvious, practical and simple solution to the whole "marriage" mess is to disband marriage in its entirety. Let everyone mate and sleep with whomever, or whatever they want to.

Do away with all the expensive, silly laws and rampant bureacratic idiocy governing and regulating this ignorant and burdensome thing known as "marriage."

 

Again... I personally have never needed anyone to argue that point for me. I have been a supporter of equal marital rights for gays my entire life. What someone else might find convincing is certainly not for me to say.

 

DINO's most likely would.

 

No party - let alone "the Dens" -elects individuals to elective office, of course. They nominate individuals and the electorate decides whether to elect them, but elected representative normally disagree with their constituencies on a number of issues, and are assessed on their overall political philosophy and performance - except by narrow, single-issue voters.

But, of course, anyone can, and should, evolve and progress. Over the years, the American electorate has, so it's only to be expected that those they elect to represent them would have done so as well.

 

Pretty unequivocal statement especially for someone whose been around long enough to be running for President. And "evolving" for what reason and into what. A person could say they they would not oppose changing the law but still believe marriage is between a man and a woman especially after making the above statement.

 

until someone came along and gave a convincing argument that altered their opinion, I guess.

 

Against that unequivocal statement? She said it was based on her historical and religious perspective? What changed in that? Or is it just politically expedience?

So was she a homophobe in the past then?

- - - Updated - - -

Mods can you fix the Subject to "Dems"?

 

Well I don't know of any Democrat Presidents who were not put there by Democrats.

So will they nominate a homophobe?

Especially when if you don't you want be nominated by your party? Sacrifice your own estabished historical, religious and moral beliefs for political expediency?

 

Hilarious

[video=youtube;SXnA-fOefgI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXnA-fOefgI[/video]

"“See, that doesn’t surprise me, because I know her and Obama like to flip their sides on how they feel about gay marriage,” one co-ed told Joseph. “If it’s going to get them a vote, then they’re all for it. If it’s not going to get them a vote, then marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.”"

 

things change... people change.... I certainly know that, for example, my once firmly held beliefs about capital punishment changed after a long evening discussion with my oldest son.... I applaud people who can change their beliefs when better beliefs are presented to them.

The Catholic church excommunicated Copernicus for saying that the earth revolved around the sun.... they changed.

 

History "since the beginning of time" doesn't change.

So was she a homophobe?

 

fine, until that happens though, we will just support marriage equality.. the right can start on their quest to ban everyone's legal marriage anytime they wish

.

 

Obviously not if they said it now, if they said it 20 years ago and have changed their mind since , well, then OK...live and learn...

 

As likely as republicans voting for someone that supports labor.

 

You mean voters. Party affiliation is irrelevant when an American casts a vote in a general election.

I don't think so. Do you think they will?

I know of no one who does not want to be nominated by his party who is likely to be nominated by his party.

If the electorate demands a candidate that is incapable of evolving and progressing and sharing their evolved, progressive values, that is who they will elect.

You may suspect that any who change their religious and moral beliefs when they claim to be "born again" do so for political expediency, but I generally assume that most are sincere in doing so.

 

I have no idea what she might have once been afraid of - i personally was once afraid of the monster under my bed, but I'm not afraid of him anymore - but it would appear that Hillary is no longer afraid of gay marriage. For those frightened cowards like you who apparently still are, grow up, but I personally could care less.

 

I would not vote for any candidate who would not advocate equal treatment under the law.

 

Wasnt' 20 years ago, so was she a homophobe, certainly had it been a Republican/Conservative they would have been labeled as such.

- - - Updated - - -

So was she a homophobe who now has to be concerned with political expediency since her previous statement was totally unequivocal and based on the history of marriage and her religious beliefs?

- - - Updated - - -

Well if a conservative makes the same statement they are branded a homophobe, what is the distinction you are attempting to make? So was she a homophobe?