Romney Bullied Gay Student in HS and REPEALS Marriage Equality page 2

55 posts

Flag Post

See, you are doing the same thing Romney does. He justifies his decision on a legal bond using irrelevant explanations. Religion has nothing to do with legal marriage. Saying: It has always been that way," is not a valid argument to justify a legal decision. there need to be valid arguments for something like that. Something like: “Gay marriages pose a threat to society as a whole because allowing them would cause Nazi Zombies to attack the US.” … Assuming there was evidence for that happening.

Also, for the 10000th time, civil unions do not offer the same privileges legal marriages offer.

But hey, since you are so smart and call everyone stupid you sure as hell have a valid argument that offers objective reasons for keeping gay marriages illegal. I just wonder why you don’t tell us al about them, so that we can see why we are so wrong.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

See, you are doing the same thing Romney does. He justifies his decision on a legal bond using irrelevant explanations. Religion has nothing to do with legal marriage. Saying: It has always been that way," is not a valid argument to justify a legal decision. there need to be valid arguments for something like that. Something like: “Gay marriages pose a threat to society as a whole because allowing them would cause Nazi Zombies to attack the US.” … Assuming there was evidence for that happening.

Also, for the 10000th time, civil unions do not offer the same privileges legal marriages offer.

But hey, since you are so smart and call everyone stupid you sure as hell have a valid argument that offers objective reasons for keeping gay marriages illegal. I just wonder why you don’t tell us al about them, so that we can see why we are so wrong.

Than explain to me why marriages are sometimes referred to as “religious ceremonies.” Explain how in the past thousands of years, marriage has normally been rooted in religion? Explain than why most couples choose a religious ceremony over simple litigation. It’s clearly a more fleshed out religious tradition than a matter of government documents.

I could also make an argument how gay marriage undermines societal values and affects the adopted child of a gay couple which possibly could happen. Not that I’m against that, it’s just one argument but I do think the argument I gave before had merit.

In some states, civil unions do confer the same benefits and privileges that legal marriages offer.

I never called everyone stupid, I’m myself not that familiar with the issue of gay marriage. It’s uninteresting to me. Making me out like a gay bashing homophobe isn’t going to work especially since I haven’t put out anything “anti gay” here is wrong.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:

Than explain to me why marriages are sometimes referred to as “religious ceremonies.” Explain how in the past thousands of years, marriage has normally been rooted in religion? Explain than why most couples choose a religious ceremony over simple litigation. It’s clearly a more fleshed out religious tradition than a matter of government documents.

You don’t get it, do you? Religious marriage and legal marriages are two separate things.

I could also make an argument how gay marriage undermines societal values and affects the adopted child of a gay couple which possibly could happen. Not that I’m against that, it’s just one argument but I do think the argument I gave before had merit.

Sure you could. The thing is, children are not needed to marry. there is no conclusive evidence that children in gay couples grow up worse than in “traditional” couples.

In some states, civil unions do confer the same benefits and privileges that legal marriages offer.

Sources!
I never heard of that. Not even here in Germany, where the situation is much more accepting towards gay couples, legal marriage and gay marriage are equal.

I never called everyone stupid, I’m myself not that familiar with the issue of gay marriage. It’s uninteresting to me. Making me out like a gay bashing homophobe isn’t going to work especially since I haven’t put out anything “anti gay” here is wrong.

The fact that you bring up stuff like religion in a discussion on a legal bond and you repeatedly claiming that this is a valid argument in this context is definitely not helping you.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by issendorf:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Isn’t it a curiosity how Romney was very for gay rights in 1994 but not today? Because there is no way MASSACHUSETTS would get a homophobe into federal office nowadays (or at least not often). So of course, Romney was on that bandwagon in the 1990s.

But today? Today this man is against gay rights on the most part, mostly because he is appealing to conservative audiences. This man uses whatever political position he can to garner votes. He does not have official positions; he does whatever will get him elected.

So Romney can change his views from 18 years ago and you criticize him, but the President can “evolve” on gay marriage in four years and it’s no big deal? Got it.

Might have something to do with the one guy’s views being justifiable, while the other ones aren’t in a political context.

Good guess, but incorrect. It’s because Romney’s viewpoints are different from that of Jaume. It’s the exact same with abortion. Romney has become more pro-life than he was as Governor, yet he is consistently ripped for it. The difference is, being pro-life is a completely defensible position, whereas opposing gay marriage is less so.

 
Flag Post

The abortion issue is a lot further away from being resolved than the gay marriage issue, because some of the core issues are not defined yet, especially personhood. There is no way that we will see a clear decision between pro-life and pro-choice until that happens, because until then both are not fully defensible. Pro-choice only offers one thing pro-life doesn’t in the meantime: a choice in an unresolved matter, so that everyone can (with limits) make his/her own decision.

As long as gay marriage stays a legal issue and does not interfere with religious marriage I personally don’t see how being against it is a defensible point.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Romney Repaling Marriage Equality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRN9Y5Nvdqk
Romney Bullied HS Student on Because he was gay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nvalk89Uxs

This is just stupid. Why? Because I’m homosexual, and a lot of other people are too. And trust me, no matter who you are, he’ll find a reason to mess up your future. He really ticks me off.

Updated topic.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MidnightWerewolf:

Romney Repaling Marriage Equality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRN9Y5Nvdqk
Romney Bullied HS Student on Because he was gay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nvalk89Uxs

This is just stupid. Why? Because I’m homosexual, and a lot of other people are too. And trust me, no matter who you are, he’ll find a reason to mess up your future. He really ticks me off.

Updated topic.

First of all, we don’t even know if this is accurate. Second of all, this was done a half century ago, 50 years ago Romney might’ve done this. Are you really judging the man who helped a terminally ill teenager diagnosed with leukemia, of his actions from 50 years ago? That’s seems really unfair. This is about running the country, not shenanigans. And by the way, Obama bullied a girl in his past.

You immediately say the opposing side is stupid for not blindly agreeing with you. That’s not good political civility. Obama really ticks me off. He is obviously pandering to his base and homosexuals to get their votes. It’s foolish to believe Obama cares about you. He simply cares about his reelection prospects.

Gay marriage is not a fundamental right, it’s a privilege. The constitution doesn’t mention gay marriage. The best option is just to let the states decide.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:

Gay marriage is not a fundamental right, it’s a privilege. The constitution doesn’t mention gay marriage. The best option is just to let the states decide.

As long as legal marriage comes with privileges and as long as gay marriage does not offer the same privileges as traditional legal marriage without any valid argument to justify that (you still haven’t given a single one) this is obviously discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is against the constitution.

And what is it with you and that pandering argument. It is absolutely irrelevant if Obama changed his views to pander to potential voters or out of an honest change of mind. His position is reasonable, while Romney’s is not – unless there are good arguments to keep gay marriage illegal. Something taht you still haven’t been able to show.
And why do you criticise Obama’s position, when the same criticism could just as well be used on Romney? It is actually very likely that even if he personally was for gay marriage he does pursue other policies because he is a Republican. Remember those boos at the convention when the gay soldier asked the candidates a question. Sure, those were extreme cases, but stuff like pro-life and anti-gay marriage seem to be core tenets of the Republican party. I doubt that he would have had a chance in becoming the candidate if he had supported different views.


At OP: get rid of the bullying stuff. I has nothing to do with the thread.

 
Flag Post

Guys i think this thing derailed quickly, It looks like the conversation was about ROMNEYS stance on gays, not yours. I thought we had the gay marriage thread for this.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:

First of all, we don’t even know if this is accurate. Second of all, this was done a half century ago, 50 years ago Romney might’ve done this.

First of all, being “accurate” isn’t a requirement to have a discussion on it. Second of all, might’ve sounds a whole like: “don’t know if this is accurate”.

Are you really judging the man who helped a terminally ill teenager diagnosed with leukemia, of his actions from 50 years ago? That’s seems really unfair. This is about running the country, not shenanigans. And by the way, Obama bullied a girl in his past.

On this, I mostly agree w/ ya. BUT, someone who is running for the Presidential office had better be able to have most everything in their life scrutinized and be able to give cause. A simpe “I was young and did a very dumb thing and now greatly regret doing it” can be seen as a positive attribut.
Obama really ticks me off. He is obviously pandering to his base and homosexuals to get their votes.

And "Mr. etch-a-sketch doen’t do this….to the max?

It’s foolish to believe Obama cares about you. He simply cares about his reelection prospects.

Maybe he wasn’t to get reelected SO HE CAN CONTINUE TO CARE ABOUT us “little people”?

Gay marriage is not a fundamental right, it’s a privilege. The constitution doesn’t mention gay marriage. The best option is just to let the states decide.

I think Civil Rights are much more than a privilege…ergo, it is a Federal issue, not a states one.

AND, for gawd’s sake, when will the “rabid conservative” drop this crap of: show me where it says in the Constitution.? THAT has to be one of the huge “fails” they have.

 
Flag Post

Thanks Karmakoolkid, Everything I pretty much wanted to say was in our post.

Gay Marriage is a right.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Ethanol overrides natural inhibitions in brain circuitry – as you well know. Get a straight guy drunk enough and the same thing will occur.

It’s when they are sober and in full control of their faculties that matters.

no, lol. girls are prone to try that out, but men are wired to think of men-sex as gross. when you see two women kissing you don’t think “ew”. when a guy sees to guys kissing, they think “ew”. that’s just hard-wiring.

i know some straight guys that’ve made out with another guy just to see what it’s like, but it’s really uncommon, whereas girls…

 
Flag Post

Hence the use of ethanol to lower inhibitions, Omega. Once you get a male drunk enough, his inhibitions go right out the window.

It’s also worth noting that some women find the concept of being with another woman as utterly distasteful as some men find the concept of being with another man. It all depends on the individual and how they are wired.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

And what is it with you and that pandering argument. It is absolutely irrelevant if Obama Romney changed his views to pander to potential voters or out of an honest change of mind. His position is reasonable, while Romney’s Obama’s is not – unless there are good arguments to keep gay marriage illegal Make gay marriage legal. Something taht you still haven’t been able to show.
And why do you criticise Obama’s Romney’s position, when the same criticism could just as well be used on Romney Obama? It is actually very likely that even if he personally was for against gay marriage he does pursue other policies because he is a Republican Democrat. Remember those boos at the convention when the gay soldier asked the candidates a question. Sure, those were extreme cases, but stuff like pro-life pro choice and anti-gay marriage gay marriage seem to be core tenets of the Republican Democratic party. I doubt that he would have had a chance in becoming the candidate if he had supported different views.

 
Flag Post

I think politicians in general need to be able to switch positions. If they have to stay with the points they believed in a long time ago there would be no progress. Additionally it might be a good thing if they switch positions on ideas if they think it will earn them the majority vote as long as it’s not going to screw everyone over in the long term (such as by reducing taxes just before an election) as this causes things to happen the way people want them to happen. However I do think gays should have the rights to marry so I hope that enough people will see this to vote for Obama and not for Rommey.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by wercooler:

Your point being?

 
Flag Post

Obama was a drug user, and said that he didn’t want his daughters to be punished with a baby, when talking about abortion. He’s pretty heinous. Honestly, that bothers me more than what Romney did a half century ago when he was a kid. As for his anti-gay marriage stance, I’m more apt to agree with him than I am Obama’s pro-gay marriage stance, though I’d rather government stayed out of marriage all-together. To me, this is a non issue. Anyone who says they acted perfectly toward all other kids when they were kids, is a friggin liar.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Obama was a drug user, and said that he didn’t want his daughters to be punished with a baby, when talking about abortion. He’s pretty heinous. Honestly, that bothers me more than what Romney did a half century ago when he was a kid. As for his anti-gay marriage stance, I’m more apt to agree with him than I am Obama’s pro-gay marriage stance, though I’d rather government stayed out of marriage all-together. To me, this is a non issue. Anyone who says they acted perfectly toward all other kids when they were kids, is a friggin liar.

You mean like all of Mitt Romney’s Friends that reported the incident?

 
Flag Post

I don’t see why a potential president’s personal views seep into this, isn’t there job to choose what is best for the country? I don’t see how allowing gay marriage would be catastrophic and destroy the country or how it would affect someone’s life that horribly, most gays stay together even though they can’t get married, they just want a special day to celebrate this.

And yes I know why they stand certain ways, votes and other things, but really, how is 2-4% of the American population getting married really going to negatively affect the country?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by basicbasic:

I don’t see why a potential president’s personal views seep into this, isn’t their job to choose what is best for the country?

bb, ppl very likely WILL NOT VOTE for a candidate whose personal views don’t align w/ theirs….esp, if that candidate is going to seek legislation that is contrary to what their voters have. A candidate is elected to REPRESENT their views.

I don’t see how allowing gay marriage would be catastrophic and destroy the country or how it would affect someone’s life that horribly,…

I “getzchya” on this rational, generous, “live-&-let-live”, “what-it-is-all-about” social mindset ya have. Unfortunately, those opposing Gay marriage do so very vehemently….yet, as has been show very clearly on this forum, they are unable to support this bile w/ a cohesive & logical basis for their position. I believe that it is, theirfore, nothing less than simple “homophobia”.

… most gays stay together even though they can’t get married, they just want a special day to celebrate this.

Excellant point. Of course, involved in this anti-marriage are a lot of civil, LEGAL rights being denied them…pretty much the crux of the issue. This leaves the RELIGIOUS part of “marriage” to be a hollow point of denial since it doesn’t fall under the jurisdiction of the govt. After all, most of the “anti’s” are religious. Unfortunately, they don’t much like the “separation wall”….BUT, they would scream bloody murder were the govt to step on their toes.

Religious doctrines are NOT being usurped by govt. Each religion would still retain it’s right to marry Gays or not. Interestingly enough, a marriage performed by one religion IN THE EYES OF GOD, squarely pits religion against each other. BUT, this is nothing at all new.

And yes I know why they stand certain ways, votes and other things, but really, how is 2-4% of the American population getting married really going to negatively affect the country?

Good question….even though I think your numbers are quite low.

FlabbyWW sums it up nicely when he sez:

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

Bugger it all.
There is not any good argument to say that one part of society should be excluded because of their sexuality….especially when their sexuality HARMS no one.
I’m sick and tired of the bullshit excuses.
Homosexuals are humans.
They commit no crime.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by basicbasic:

And yes I know why they stand certain ways, votes and other things, but really, how is 2-4% of the American population getting married really going to negatively affect the country?

Good question….even though I think your numbers are quite low.

Wikipedia Says 2-3% identified themselves.
About.Com Said 3.8%
Thecivilrightsunion Says 4%

Those are estimates though.