Mitt Romney Challenged by Gay Veteran

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Well, i'm all for gay marriage. So go him?

Vausch:
MANCHESTER, N.H. - Mitt Romney had an uncomfortable exchange over same-sex marriage with a gay veteran having breakfast in New Hampshire this morning.

At an event that was meant to highlight the endorsement of Romney by Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas, veteran Bob Garon of Ebson, N.H., asked the presidential candidate, who stopped by his breakfast table, whether he supports the repeal of the New Hampshire same-sex marriage law.

A Republican-controlled legislature has moved toward repealing the law, enacted in 2009 when Democrats controlled the legislature. A vote could come next month.

Romney told Garon, who was chowing down on his everyday staple of scrambled eggs and shaved ham at the restaurant Chez Vachon, that he supports a repeal of the same-sex marriage law, prompting an emotional exchange.

"I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman," Romney said, joining Garon in the diner booth after shaking hands with several other patrons.

Garon responded, clarifying that what that meant was that if Romney is elected he would not support any legislation that would change the law so that gay servicemen would get the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

"I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman," Romney said. "We apparently disagree on that."

"It's good to know how you feel, that you do not believe everyone is entitled to their constitutional rights," the 63-year-old New Hampshire resident responded.

"No, actually I think at the time the Constitution was written it was pretty clear marriage was between a man and a woman," Romney said, just as one of his campaign aides chimed in that they had "to get going" to another Fox interview.

Full story: http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/former-mass-governor-had-uncomfortable-moment-diner-hampshire-153559334.html

Really, Mitt? "At the time the constitution was written" means nothing. By that time, black people and women were property, and it was illegal for a black person to marry a white person. Is that another definition you want to go by? The constitution says absolutely nothing about marriage, anywhere. It's getting to the point where it seems you and the other GOP candidates are trying to fail.

There's a lot of people in the US who think the time the Constitution was written DOES matter.

Personally, I'm inclined to agree... only because then the "right to bear arms" would literally mean I have the right to purchase a fully armed tank!

MUAHAHAHHA! I SHALL BE THE DEFINITION OF ROAD RAGE!

EDIT: PS~ I have mixed feelings about gay marriage. On one hand I question the purpose of it and what good it does society besides increasing personal freedom (and I also don't mean that homosexuality is "bad", but simply that a government has the responsiblity to GROW their nation, and making homosexual marriages legal could hamper growth by creating an atmosphere where it's more culturally acceptable to not have children, to be in relationships that don't raise children, etc... and I know that homosexuals adopt, can have children through artificial methods, yadda yadda... this is from a cold, hardlined "political science" look where the htoughts and feelings of people don't matter, so calm yourself son (daughter)!) and why just because you have a sexual fetish we should honor that with "marriage" (I actually know quite a few homosexuals who have this idea, which is where it comes from). But I also hate government involvement and think that they should have no say on an individuals personal life/choices... libertarians unite! lol.

Mimsofthedawg:
EDIT: PS~ I have mixed feelings about gay marriage. On one hand I question the purpose of it and what good it does society besides increasing personal freedom (and I also don't mean that homosexuality is "bad", but simply that a government has the responsiblity to GROW their nation, and making homosexual marriages legal could hamper growth by creating an atmosphere where it's more culturally acceptable to not have children, to be in relationships that don't raise children, etc... and I know that homosexuals adopt, can have children through artificial methods, yadda yadda... this is from a cold, hardlined "political science" look where the htoughts and feelings of people don't matter, so calm yourself son (daughter)!)

uh, a government has the responsibility to grow responsibly. take a look at China sometime if you want to see where the 400 BABIES school of political thought gets you.

I know shit all about political science, Basically there's no real reason for a government to encourage have children, if you produce more children than your country can support, you will cripple yourself economically and destroy the quality of life. And America is such a popular destination for immigration that there's basically no way for its population to stop growing.

Considering that increased personal freedom is one of America's founding principles, i'd say that's a worthy goal in and of itself.

Mimsofthedawg:
and why just because you have a sexual fetish we should honor that with "marriage" (I actually know quite a few homosexuals who have this idea, which is where it comes from). But I also hate government involvement and think that they should have no say on an individuals personal life/choices... libertarians unite! lol.

I have this weird heterosexuality fetish, why should that be honored by "marriage"?

Seekster:
I am almost 24 which means it has been over two decades since the last time California voted for a Republican President and since then the closest it has been 53% to 42% when they went for Gore over Bush in 2000. I can safely say that California is a present a solid blue state.

Jabs at Liberals by implying that they're not good and level-headed people aside, I don't think I'd agree that 53% to 42% for instance can in any way be considered "solid blue". Considering you have a two-party system, the difference as well as the absolute percentage points aren't that amazing.

Skeleon:

Seekster:
I am almost 24 which means it has been over two decades since the last time California voted for a Republican President and since then the closest it has been 53% to 42% when they went for Gore over Bush in 2000. I can safely say that California is a present a solid blue state.

Jabs at Liberals by implying that they're not good and level-headed people aside, I don't think I'd agree that 53% to 42% for instance can in any way be considered "solid blue". Considering you have a two-party system, the difference as well as the absolute percentage points aren't that amazing.

Just say that since he's willing to accept 53% of something as being solidly for it then America wants same sex marriages. That the social definition of marriage is to include homosexual couples and that the legal one has to be changed to match.

If he isn't willing to accept that then logically he can't state that California is solid blue. If he does then the argument is moot as he agrees that the legal defininiton of marriage should change to include homosexual couples.

So what is it Seekster?

Seekster:
"Oh please I know my history from Uruk to Tyre to Athens to Babylon to Rome To Constantinople to Jerusalem to Telato to Paris to London then to the good ol USA. (then to China)"

Most of that is geography btw but I digress.

To summarize my thoughts, it is folly to be overly concerned with how people who have not been born yet will view your views and actions in the present. Do what you think is right and do not let how others view you decide how you believe and what you believe. A wise man will do what he thinks is right and let others judge him accordingly however they wish.

These people have been born but have yet to mature. More are to come but that is of no matter. History teaches us that future people will judge the actions of people today as people of today judge the people of yesterday... like they judge, Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler... they will also judge George Wallace... and Barack Obama... and Rick Perry.

What America was built on was freedom, and liberty... and yeah... sadly that also turned out to mean freedom to oppress the minority by the majority... or a minority pulling the strings of the majority to oppress a different minority when that minority poses no threat at all... I mean the gays fuck people who want to be fucked... they don't bomb people >.>

---------------------------

Exactly WHAT are the negative consequences of allowing gay marriage? Absolutely none. So what the hell is his argument based on? It's purely a case of discrimination up there with racism and sexism.

The Dutchess:
Exactly WHAT are the negative consequences of allowing gay marriage?

Less tax money coming in?

Hey, I don't think that's a good one, but You did ask ;)

~Sylv

Sylvine:

The Dutchess:
Exactly WHAT are the negative consequences of allowing gay marriage?

Less tax money coming in?

Hey, I don't think that's a good one, but You did ask ;)

~Sylv

You guys pay less tax if you're married?! In Britain we have a married couples allowance but it's for people who were born before 1935! And surely gays have the right to evade tax as much as anyone else, if THAT'S not a fundamental human right I don't know what is! :P

Skeleon:

Seekster:
I am almost 24 which means it has been over two decades since the last time California voted for a Republican President and since then the closest it has been 53% to 42% when they went for Gore over Bush in 2000. I can safely say that California is a present a solid blue state.

Jabs at Liberals by implying that they're not good and level-headed people aside, I don't think I'd agree that 53% to 42% for instance can in any way be considered "solid blue". Considering you have a two-party system, the difference as well as the absolute percentage points aren't that amazing.

In Massachusetts the Democratic candidate gets about 62% in recent Presidential elections, its a very solid blue state.

http://www.270towin.com/states/Massachusetts

In Illinois the Democratic candidate got 55% in 2000 and 2004 and 54% in 1996 (Obama was an Illinois senator so he won the state with 62% of the vote in 2008), its also a solid blue state like California is.

http://www.270towin.com/states/Illinois

There is no exact science to determining if a state is a blue state or red state but California today is thought of as very much a blue state (though the Republicans dream of winning it because it would hamstring the Democrats in the electoral college).

Katatori-kun:

Vausch:
It's getting to the point where it seems you and the other GOP candidates are trying to fail.

The sad thing is, Romney is supposed to be the one we're expected to take seriously. He's the straight man (pun intended) who is supposed to look better when compared to all the loonies competing with him for his party's nomination.

considering the only other guy the GOP was looking at got the voting age wrong along with the voting date.

Same guy who thinks the only way to make more jobs is by opening federally protected land to the oil and gas companies.

oh, then there was the guy who cheated on his wife with several women, he obviously was a great candidate Republican's views.

Oh well, at least we know now that the GOP thinks black people are inferior to white people and that women should be treated like property.

I wonder if they will try to repel the Thirteenth admendment since the original constitution was fairly clear enough.

This is Fox News level of stupidity.

The Dutchess:

You guys pay less tax if you're married?! In Britain we have a married couples allowance but it's for people who were born before 1935! And surely gays have the right to evade tax as much as anyone else, if THAT'S not a fundamental human right I don't know what is! :P

Okay, I admit, that was uninformed assumption on my part. We've got a system like that in germany, and I kinda thought as a citizen of germany for a while.

Soooo, correction: "Valid" "negative"" consequence in Germany. Consecutive quotation marks, oh my, that's heavy xD

~Sylv

Seekster:
I would rather marriage be defined traditionally in this country

Traditionally you say? So you want women to become, basically, property of men again, like in the early days of marriage? Cut the, pardon my French, fancy crap sir; you think marriage means a certain thing and you wouldn't mind if that definition would be forced upon everyone.

Just say it honestly; you're all for discrimination, because that's what your stance means. Good ol' fashioned American freedom and liberty in the works. I really don't get how many people over there, not just Republicans, can promote those things with a straight face, yet be fundamentally opposed to give a certain group of people the same rights of another. From an outsider's p.o.v it really is quite silly. Not that we're perfect over here, oh no, far from it.

Blablahb:

Bassik:
My own nation, the Netherlands, was the first to completeley legalize same-sex marriage, and the majority of the people, with the exception of the religious right (So not even the religious centrists are against).

That's incorrect. The main opponents are the left-wing Christenunie party, and the extremists SGP, of which any economic orientation is secondary to their silly clinging to biblical teachings. And the CDA party may have allowed legalisation, but is still a fierce proponent of discriminating homosexuals. The socialist PVDA party is against discrimination, in theory, but they wholeheartedly supported all the discriminatory measures of Balkenende IV and themselves made racist policies.

They are joined in this by the strongly socialist SP party. Basically it's 1917 all over again. Christians and socialist collaborators being pro-discrimination, and the liberals fighting it.

The only left wing party opposed to homophobia is Groenlinks.

Woah, now I'm no expert on politics in our cute lil' country, but the SP and PVDA supporting discriminatory legislation, saywhatnow? First time I heard that.

cobra_ky:
Basically there's no real reason for a government to encourage have children

Except that there is. China's facing an aging problem that makes the same problem in the States or the EU pale in comparison.

Seekster:
Oh grow up, I know your smart enough to know thats not what I want because you have the mental capacity to use a keyboard (unless you are dictating). Traditional marriage means one man, one woman. I don't women to be treated like property or anything like that, certainly not. I think marriage means a certain thing and it would appear most of the people in my state agree with what I think it means so a different definition of marriage should not be forced on us.

You fell for my trap card!

Joking aside, I was provoking you, of course. I knew exactly what you meant with a traditional marriage, what I wanted to point out, in a provocative manner, is that it isn't so traditional as you may or may not think. Far from it really, as marriage predates your religion by quite a few centuries, millennia even, when marriage basically was an ownership contract.

My point being that your "traditional" label is really meaningless, it's all 'fancy' language to flower up the fact that you're discriminating against a certain group of people, denying them the same legal rights, as marriage isn't just a cultural ceremony, as other citizens, American ideals of equality and freedom be damned, and let's throw the separation of church and state out of the window to boot.

Also, don't forget that not everyone thinks like you. Marriage doesn't have one definition, doesn't have one meaning. It differs from person to person, from culture to culture, from time to time. And frankly it shocks me that in a country that's founded upon ideals of freedom and equality to facilitate everyone, that's been a multi-cultural melting pot from the get-go, that there are still large groups of people that think that their definition of something is the "correct" one and that everyone should adhere to their standard, equal rights and choice be damned. It's just so...well, so damned socially backwards. I really expected better from the United States of America, if anyone has to grow up, it's that country.

Also, to stop all this senseless bickering I always wanted to abolish marriage as a legal construct anyway. Let people marry as they like in their own communities, do as they like, have freedom of choice, and not be limited by all this legal nonsense. Free love and all that stuff.

Cowabungaa:
Woah, now I'm no expert on politics in our cute lil' country, but the SP and PVDA supporting discriminatory legislation, saywhatnow? First time I heard that.

The PVDA:
-legalised discriminating marriage officials
-supported forcing more thinking time and 'education about alternatives' (meaning: whining about having the child anyway) for women needing an abortion
-their minister Plasterk gave out tons of subsidies to an organisation preaching hatred against homosexuals called RefoAnders
-supported keeping the law that forces the Christian sunday's rest onto shopkeepers
-made a staff policy for the police that forbids promiting whites or men to command positions. All higher functions HAVE to be filled with ethnic minorities (meaning allochtonen)
-Tried to make a quotum for women in management functions for each company, with a minimum of 40%. So if all your best employees happen to be men (including industry sectors where quite simply, few women are found, like construction work or other heavy physical jobs) you would be forbidden from promoting them and would have to hire or promote a less qualified woman or get a heavy fine.

The SP also supports forcing the Christian sunday's rest onto people. The SP also wants to deport Eastern Europeans and forbid them acces to the Netherlands. This is of course forbidden per EU treaty so it's impossible, but doesn't it say a lot that our radical socialists want to deport foreigners 'cuz they steal our jobs!!'.

Oh, and on a side note, they also apparently support a new Holocaust on Jews. Harry van Bommel endorsed this call at a demonstration, and they never distanced themselves from that point of view. On the contrary, they defended Van Bommel for attending the pro-Hamas rally. It may not be their literal point of view, but the SP is definately anti-semitic.

Frizzle:
Hey guys, remember when a marriage was just an exchange of property in order to get rid of a member of your family that wasn't going to do physical labor for you? What ever happened to that? I mean, what's with 50% of people getting married being in love and stuff? Just live together and be happy.

I the US marriage gets you 2 things: 1- tax break. 2- one piece of mail for the two of you

I say we get rid of #1 and no one will care :)

You missed one:
3- bragging rights

Gay people want bragging rights that they plan to stay together for life, and "married" is the traditional term for that. (I fully support their right to it, and "life partner" sounds incredibly mealymouthed to me.) Meanwhile, certain types of religious folks think that, somehow, letting people who have The Gay get "married" will somehow diminish their own "married" status.

Now, in danger of getting rambly, I would also like to point out that #2 implies a few things that gay couples don't get currently, like spouses on health insurance plans, and studies have found that, even where required to do so by law, many organizations don't successfully offer equivalent access to civilly partnered people (that really doesn't roll off the tongue) as they do to married people.

Cowabungaa:

cobra_ky:
Basically there's no real reason for a government to encourage have children

Except that there is. China's facing an aging problem that makes the same problem in the States or the EU pale in comparison.

yes, and the reason the problem is so much worse in China is that the Chinese government encouraged unsustainable population growth in the 1950's. How does having more children solve the aging problem, incidentally? what happens when all those children you're having start aging?

Seekster:
-snip-

Still waiting for a response on this.

Seekster, what do you base your movement against same sex marriage on?

Religious teachings? Because I was under the impression that we were not the judges of others, that the job of that went to God, and Jesus Christ. That we are to love our fellow man, no matter what.

Just a definition? If your argument is that 'Oh its just a definition they're arguing about', then why are you pitching such a fit over it? Its a definition for pete's sake, who cares?

And there is a reason people would want it to be a full blooded marriage.

Imagine, as a young child, you are told of the wonders of something spectacularly romantic. Something that is shared with people who truly love one another, and would do anything for the other.

You're told this in every single way. Stories, movies, fairy tales, stories of kingdoms in a faraway magical land. As a young child you fantasize often about what it is like to be in this relationship. To say that you and your beloved are in such love.

But one day, you realize that you're different somehow. You don't understand how. You don't know why. But you are. You find someone though, you find someone whom you *love*. Dearly. You would do anything for them, and they for you.

But everyone else doesn't want you two together! They state that it is wrong, that it is evil. Some even state they're fine with you being together, but that relationship? It is impossible. The excuses are many, the justifications are in the multitudes, but they generally all boil down to one point. "You are different, and we want nothing to do with you, even using the same term as you."

You fight for a while...but ultimately give in...You acquiesce to their silly 'alternate term' ..Which is just silly, and holds none of the romantic connotations that you have been exposed too all your life. ... After all, if a boy loves a girl, why can't you have a 'civil union', just like all the other people out there, instead of this silly 'marriage'?

(Oh snap, I just M. Night Shyamalan'd your asses.)

Seekster:

Comando96:

Seekster:
You see, I don't have to win hearts and minds, YOU do.

No... all that needs to happen is to wait 30-40 years for the old generation to die off, who looking back in history will be viewed in a similar light to those who fought against the abolition of Slavery and those against the Civil Rights Movement.

Lets be honest... these people will be viewed as monsters one day... (lest we nuke each other)

You are the monster if you truly believe that. How dare you compare the opposition to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage to those who were on board with slavery. The ignorance people have about history is very troubling to me and this post is a perfect example of the false equivalencies that ignorance of history can create.

We've come a long way. And in a relatively short ammount of time. I am sorry but I refuse to be shouted down by closed minded ____'s like you. Hitler started killing gays and Romani before he started on the Jews. Cops used to look the other way when it came to gay bashing, and some still do. Paramedics once left a beaten transexual to bleed to death on the street just because they didnt want to deal with a "freak".

A friend of mine recently lost his partner to pneumonia. They'd been together for 10 years or more. His "inlaws" are taking the body and his possessions. He may not even be given access to the autopsy results never mind be allowed to attend the funeral. NONE OF THAT SH*T would happen to a heterosexual married couple. THAT IS THE EQUALITY we are fighting for.

But just because we've come a long way doesnt mean we've made it all the way to equality, and doesnt mean we dont need to continue to work to secure the advances we've made.

Case in point prior to 1933 Berlin USED to be one of the most progressive and SAFEST places to be openly homosexual.

You think I should shut up? Well, I think YOU should shut up. We will continue fighting our battles until there are none left to fight. If you dont like the noise we make, put your fingers in your ears or crawl into a hole. Maybe someone will care enough about you to come get you when it's all over. Or you could actually help us to speed things along...

Seekster:

conflictofinterests:

Seekster:
SNIP
Same-sex marriage is largely unnecessary for those seeking gay rights.
SNIP

I respectfully disagree. While civil unions are an option for homosexuals trying to spend their lives together, it's certainly not equal in terms of rights and protections afforded to marriage. In fact, it's a rather paltry consolance, in the same way the public options provided under the Jim Crow laws were.

This PDF sums up the differences rather succinctly:
http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf

Civil Unions arent just for homosexuals you know. I would hope to see the trend in France repeated here with heterosexuals also entering into a civil union if they dont want to marry or don't want to marry right away.

Just remember, you are either fighting to get the rights associated with marriage or you fighting over an issue of grammar. Experience has led me to believe that rights are the important thing here.

On a side note is my internet connection acting up or are they changing the forum appearance because I refreshed and suddenly the text, color, and general format of the forum looks different now.

No one f*cking cared about the definition of marriage until homosexuals wanted to get married and have their marriages recognized by the government and insurance agencies. The ONLY reason the definition of marriage has been brought up and "defined" so rigidly is BECAUSE the conservative right is DESPERATE to keep us down a peg and probably would be happier if we were still being locked up for commiting sodomy and being forced to undergo shock-therapy to try to "cure" us.

Comando96:

SonicWaffle:
I don't understand why gay servicemen would have rights that ordinary citizens didn't.

You can't accuse them of being unpatriotic or anti-American... they have some form of magical immunity under societies current rules :P

There was a thread on here called "shut up I'm a soldier" paste that into the search bar.

-

That's what bothers me, Oswalt the guy who shot Kennedy was a top army sniper, there was a veteran who received a medal of honor for his tour in Somalia during the US intervention there who came back home who raped and killed a bunch of prostitutes. Soldiers are brave for their fights (well if they were brave, some aren't) but this does not improve their dark side or their intelligence. Especially considering that there have been trouble when gang members join the army and bring their gang rivalries into the army.

Warforger:

Comando96:
You can't accuse them of being unpatriotic or anti-American... they have some form of magical immunity under societies current rules :P

There was a thread on here called "shut up I'm a soldier" paste that into the search bar.

That's what bothers me, Oswalt the guy who shot Kennedy was a top army sniper, there was a veteran who received a medal of honor for his tour in Somalia during the US intervention there who came back home who raped and killed a bunch of prostitutes. Soldiers are brave for their fights (well if they were brave, some aren't) but this does not improve their dark side or their intelligence. Especially considering that there have been trouble when gang members join the army and bring their gang rivalries into the army.

Just to add I live in Herefordshire, Home of the SAS.
http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/9372745.Hereford_SAS_soldier_guilty_of_child_abuse_charges/

^18th of November this year^

My dad was in the SAS, he is now a 52 year old alcoholic factory worker who's mental and verbal abuse almost resulted in my suicide.

However the public perception of someone who was a soldier... more than often it raises their perceptions of the person.

Should it? No.

The Army produces no middle ground. Being in the Army will either have Positive effects on a persons characteristics and personality, with the exception of emotional hangovers. Or it will have had a bad impact on a persons personality and introduced negative characteristics to them.

Being in the army should be taken into strong consideration when talking to an individual as their either going to be good... or bad... for the UK at least I'd say is about 35% Bad, 65% good. Of course some are worse than others, however bad my dad his he isn't a rapist or a "murderer". He's killed people but All murders go punished except when committed in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets - Voltaire

I know this as I have insider knowledge but people nowadays don't need any information to form an opinion. Sad really that Free Speech has gone to our heads.

cobra_ky:

Cowabungaa:

cobra_ky:
Basically there's no real reason for a government to encourage have children

Except that there is. China's facing an aging problem that makes the same problem in the States or the EU pale in comparison.

yes, and the reason the problem is so much worse in China is that the Chinese government encouraged unsustainable population growth in the 1950's. How does having more children solve the aging problem, incidentally? what happens when all those children you're having start aging?

Waitwhat? I thought it'd be rather, y'know, obvious that curbing your population growth all of a sudden (which is what China did) leads to a huge aging problem a couple of decades down the line. I mean come on it speaks for itself; the next generation of Chinese is a lot smaller than the one before that. And as the big older generation grows old, there's only a small new generation left to take care of them, which is going to get very expensive for that younger generation. Googling a little would help too.

Cowabungaa:

Seekster:
I would rather marriage be defined traditionally in this country

Traditionally you say? So you want women to become, basically, property of men again, like in the early days of marriage? Cut the, pardon my French, fancy crap sir; you think marriage means a certain thing and you wouldn't mind if that definition would be forced upon everyone.

Just say it honestly; you're all for discrimination, because that's what your stance means. Good ol' fashioned American freedom and liberty in the works. I really don't get how many people over there, not just Republicans, can promote those things with a straight face, yet be fundamentally opposed to give a certain group of people the same rights of another. From an outsider's p.o.v it really is quite silly. Not that we're perfect over here, oh no, far from it.

Blablahb:

Bassik:
My own nation, the Netherlands, was the first to completeley legalize same-sex marriage, and the majority of the people, with the exception of the religious right (So not even the religious centrists are against).

That's incorrect. The main opponents are the left-wing Christenunie party, and the extremists SGP, of which any economic orientation is secondary to their silly clinging to biblical teachings. And the CDA party may have allowed legalisation, but is still a fierce proponent of discriminating homosexuals. The socialist PVDA party is against discrimination, in theory, but they wholeheartedly supported all the discriminatory measures of Balkenende IV and themselves made racist policies.

They are joined in this by the strongly socialist SP party. Basically it's 1917 all over again. Christians and socialist collaborators being pro-discrimination, and the liberals fighting it.

The only left wing party opposed to homophobia is Groenlinks.

Woah, now I'm no expert on politics in our cute lil' country, but the SP and PVDA supporting discriminatory legislation, saywhatnow? First time I heard that.

cobra_ky:
Basically there's no real reason for a government to encourage have children

Except that there is. China's facing an aging problem that makes the same problem in the States or the EU pale in comparison.

Blablahb:

Cowabungaa:
Woah, now I'm no expert on politics in our cute lil' country, but the SP and PVDA supporting discriminatory legislation, saywhatnow? First time I heard that.

The PVDA:
-legalised discriminating marriage officials
-supported forcing more thinking time and 'education about alternatives' (meaning: whining about having the child anyway) for women needing an abortion
-their minister Plasterk gave out tons of subsidies to an organisation preaching hatred against homosexuals called RefoAnders
-supported keeping the law that forces the Christian sunday's rest onto shopkeepers
-made a staff policy for the police that forbids promiting whites or men to command positions. All higher functions HAVE to be filled with ethnic minorities (meaning allochtonen)
-Tried to make a quotum for women in management functions for each company, with a minimum of 40%. So if all your best employees happen to be men (including industry sectors where quite simply, few women are found, like construction work or other heavy physical jobs) you would be forbidden from promoting them and would have to hire or promote a less qualified woman or get a heavy fine.

The SP also supports forcing the Christian sunday's rest onto people. The SP also wants to deport Eastern Europeans and forbid them acces to the Netherlands. This is of course forbidden per EU treaty so it's impossible, but doesn't it say a lot that our radical socialists want to deport foreigners 'cuz they steal our jobs!!'.

Oh, and on a side note, they also apparently support a new Holocaust on Jews. Harry van Bommel endorsed this call at a demonstration, and they never distanced themselves from that point of view. On the contrary, they defended Van Bommel for attending the pro-Hamas rally. It may not be their literal point of view, but the SP is definately anti-semitic.

Make no mistake people, everything this man sayd is a lie. I'm a bleeding member of the SP, and went to many a meeting, rally and fancy diner. None of the stuff he talks about has any basis in reality, with one exception:

He thinks the SP is anti-semitic because some members are sometimes critical of Israel.

Completeley off-topic, I know, but come on.

Cowabungaa:

Seekster:
Oh grow up, I know your smart enough to know thats not what I want because you have the mental capacity to use a keyboard (unless you are dictating). Traditional marriage means one man, one woman. I don't women to be treated like property or anything like that, certainly not. I think marriage means a certain thing and it would appear most of the people in my state agree with what I think it means so a different definition of marriage should not be forced on us.

You fell for my trap card!

Joking aside, I was provoking you, of course. I knew exactly what you meant with a traditional marriage, what I wanted to point out, in a provocative manner, is that it isn't so traditional as you may or may not think. Far from it really, as marriage predates your religion by quite a few centuries, millennia even, when marriage basically was an ownership contract.

My point being that your "traditional" label is really meaningless, it's all 'fancy' language to flower up the fact that you're discriminating against a certain group of people, denying them the same legal rights, as marriage isn't just a cultural ceremony, as other citizens, American ideals of equality and freedom be damned, and let's throw the separation of church and state out of the window to boot.

Also, don't forget that not everyone thinks like you. Marriage doesn't have one definition, doesn't have one meaning. It differs from person to person, from culture to culture, from time to time. And frankly it shocks me that in a country that's founded upon ideals of freedom and equality to facilitate everyone, that's been a multi-cultural melting pot from the get-go, that there are still large groups of people that think that their definition of something is the "correct" one and that everyone should adhere to their standard, equal rights and choice be damned. It's just so...well, so damned socially backwards. I really expected better from the United States of America, if anyone has to grow up, it's that country.

Also, to stop all this senseless bickering I always wanted to abolish marriage as a legal construct anyway. Let people marry as they like in their own communities, do as they like, have freedom of choice, and not be limited by all this legal nonsense. Free love and all that stuff.

I would play Seven Tools of the Bandit (wow I feel nerdy) but I am not sure if your trap card actually does anything other than activate.

Of course not everyone thinks like I do, would be a boring world if they did (for me at least). If we are talking about the legal definition of marriage though it should reflect whatever the social definition of marriage is and time and time again people in this country have voted for making the the definition of marriage, in both a legal and social sense, one man and one woman. I know not everyone thinks that way but then again not everyone thought Barrack Obama should be President either so what is your point?

America is a Toys R Us kid, it will never grow up, and I wouldnt have it any other way (^_^)

"Also, to stop all this senseless bickering I always wanted to abolish marriage as a legal construct anyway. Let people marry as they like in their own communities, do as they like, have freedom of choice, and not be limited by all this legal nonsense. Free love and all that stuff."

You know I largely agree with you, outside of deciding who to give benefits and tax breaks to the government really has no interest in defining marriage legally. I have in the past proposed simply eliminating marriage as a legally recognized union and just giving rights and benefits to anyone who is basically living in some kind of family unit (though obviously the criteria for that would need to be defined).

Cowabungaa:

cobra_ky:

Cowabungaa:

Except that there is. China's facing an aging problem that makes the same problem in the States or the EU pale in comparison.

yes, and the reason the problem is so much worse in China is that the Chinese government encouraged unsustainable population growth in the 1950's. How does having more children solve the aging problem, incidentally? what happens when all those children you're having start aging?

Waitwhat? I thought it'd be rather, y'know, obvious that curbing your population growth all of a sudden (which is what China did) leads to a huge aging problem a couple of decades down the line. I mean come on it speaks for itself; the next generation of Chinese is a lot smaller than the one before that. And as the big older generation grows old, there's only a small new generation left to take care of them, which is going to get very expensive for that younger generation. Googling a little would help too.

Maybe you should Google why China had to curb population growth in the first place (here's a good place to start actually.) Population growth had outstripped China's food supply, which led to a mass starvation problem. That's what led China to implement its one-child policy, which they have considered repealing but will be in place for at least another decade. And China still has a huge problem with malnutrition, especially among rural children.

You cannot simply grow your way out of a demographic crisis unless you have the resources to provide and care for the generation of children you are creating. China does not. China does have a big aging problem looming and because of that, they are reconsidering their policy of actively preventing parents from having children.

So yeah, aside from encouraging its citizens to plan their families responsibly, i think governments should be very, very careful about meddling with national population growth. it is very easy to screw up and create an intractable demographic crisis a couple decades down the line.

jedizero:

Seekster:
-snip-

Still waiting for a response on this.

Seekster, what do you base your movement against same sex marriage on?

Religious teachings? Because I was under the impression that we were not the judges of others, that the job of that went to God, and Jesus Christ. That we are to love our fellow man, no matter what.

Just a definition? If your argument is that 'Oh its just a definition they're arguing about', then why are you pitching such a fit over it? Its a definition for pete's sake, who cares?

And there is a reason people would want it to be a full blooded marriage.

Imagine, as a young child, you are told of the wonders of something spectacularly romantic. Something that is shared with people who truly love one another, and would do anything for the other.

You're told this in every single way. Stories, movies, fairy tales, stories of kingdoms in a faraway magical land. As a young child you fantasize often about what it is like to be in this relationship. To say that you and your beloved are in such love.

But one day, you realize that you're different somehow. You don't understand how. You don't know why. But you are. You find someone though, you find someone whom you *love*. Dearly. You would do anything for them, and they for you.

But everyone else doesn't want you two together! They state that it is wrong, that it is evil. Some even state they're fine with you being together, but that relationship? It is impossible. The excuses are many, the justifications are in the multitudes, but they generally all boil down to one point. "You are different, and we want nothing to do with you, even using the same term as you."

You fight for a while...but ultimately give in...You acquiesce to their silly 'alternate term' ..Which is just silly, and holds none of the romantic connotations that you have been exposed too all your life. ... After all, if a boy loves a girl, why can't you have a 'civil union', just like all the other people out there, instead of this silly 'marriage'?

(Oh snap, I just M. Night Shyamalan'd your asses.)

And you will remain waiting, I already have enough people with valid points to make to respond to every personal attack, small-minded scolding, or reference to a half-baked director who apparently never saw Avatar the Last Airbender but made a crappy live action movie of it anyway.

If you want a response out of someone its probably not a good idea to be mocking or disrespectful to them.

Jarimir:

Seekster:

conflictofinterests:

I respectfully disagree. While civil unions are an option for homosexuals trying to spend their lives together, it's certainly not equal in terms of rights and protections afforded to marriage. In fact, it's a rather paltry consolance, in the same way the public options provided under the Jim Crow laws were.

This PDF sums up the differences rather succinctly:
http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf

Civil Unions arent just for homosexuals you know. I would hope to see the trend in France repeated here with heterosexuals also entering into a civil union if they dont want to marry or don't want to marry right away.

Just remember, you are either fighting to get the rights associated with marriage or you fighting over an issue of grammar. Experience has led me to believe that rights are the important thing here.

On a side note is my internet connection acting up or are they changing the forum appearance because I refreshed and suddenly the text, color, and general format of the forum looks different now.

No one f*cking cared about the definition of marriage until homosexuals wanted to get married and have their marriages recognized by the government and insurance agencies. The ONLY reason the definition of marriage has been brought up and "defined" so rigidly is BECAUSE the conservative right is DESPERATE to keep us down a peg and probably would be happier if we were still being locked up for commiting sodomy and being forced to undergo shock-therapy to try to "cure" us.

Nobody cared because nobody was challenging the definition of marriage. Nobody cared about the definition of a planet until they heard Pluto was going to get demoted (largely different issue).

No only nutballs on the extreme far right like Bachmann want something like that, but by all means, apply the views of a few to an entire group.

Seekster:
I know not everyone thinks that way but then again not everyone thought Barrack Obama should be President either so what is your point?

My point is that the United States of America stands for certain values that many of those so-called red blooded Americans, like Mitt Romney, like to preach. Values of liberty and freedom regardless of things like religion or sex, to protect prosecuted minorities, things that go beyond democracy. Remember the lines from that famous poem?

"Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

However, those same Americans who want to run the damned country, who say to adore those good ol' values that made the country think it's a-okay to curb the freedoms of an entire group of people just because they don't bloody like it, because that's what it boils down to. That is not love, that is not free, that is not just.

And I don't hate the United States, far from it. I love what it stands for. But to see those beautiful values corrupted by people like Mitt Romney saddens me so very very much.

America is a Toys R Us kid, it will never grow up, and I wouldnt have it any other way (^_^)

Being a Toys R Us kid implies that the States is a fun-loving country with not a care in the world, if only that was the case. No, it's not fun, it's bad, very very bad. Hypocrisy is not fun, discrimination is not fun, going against the very things that the United States stand for is not fun, and the fact that you say that you wouldn't have it any other way, that you're cool with social injustice, inequality and discrimination with a friggin' smiley-face honestly disturbs me deeply.

I really can barely believe that someone can be so cool with discrimination. It sickens me that in the 21st century such ways of thinking are still around, especially in the supposed 'leader of the free world.' I thought the United States was better than that.

Cowabungaa:

Seekster:
I know not everyone thinks that way but then again not everyone thought Barrack Obama should be President either so what is your point?

My point is that the United States of America stands for certain values that many of those so-called red blooded Americans, like Mitt Romney, like to preach. Values of liberty and freedom regardless of things like religion or sex, to protect prosecuted minorities, things that go beyond democracy. Remember the lines from that famous poem?

"Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

However, those same Americans who want to run the damned country, who say to adore those good ol' values that made the country think it's a-okay to curb the freedoms of an entire group of people just because they don't bloody like it, because that's what it boils down to. That is not love, that is not free, that is not just.

And I don't hate the United States, far from it. I love what it stands for. But to see those beautiful values corrupted by people like Mitt Romney saddens me so very very much.

America is a Toys R Us kid, it will never grow up, and I wouldnt have it any other way (^_^)

Being a Toys R Us kid implies that the States is a fun-loving country with not a care in the world, if only that was the case. No, it's not fun, it's bad, very very bad. Hypocrisy is not fun, discrimination is not fun, going against the very things that the United States stand for is not fun, and the fact that you say that you wouldn't have it any other way, that you're cool with social injustice, inequality and discrimination with a friggin' smiley-face honestly disturbs me deeply.

I really can barely believe that someone can be so cool with discrimination. It sickens me that in the 21st century such ways of thinking are still around, especially in the supposed 'leader of the free world.' I thought the United States was better than that.

Most of what you said about what America stands for I agree with, however most of what you said also doesnt have a whole lot to do with the issue of same-sex marriage. This isnt curbing anyones rights. There is no right to have your union recognized as a marriage if its not a marriage (as defined by your countrymen).

I also don't see how Mitt Romney is going to have anything to do with the same-sex marriage debate as President. Its a state issue, not a federal one, there is no reason for Romney to get involved in it so his beliefs on the subject arent really going to come up much. I also think its funny that you attack Mitt Romney when Obama himself has said he believes personally that marriage is between a man and a woman (oh but its ok because his ideas are "evolving" and he is not a flip-flopper).

And another thing, there is no systematic persecution (you said prosecution but I assume you mean persecution) of homosexuals going on in the United States. Every now and then you have a case where some idiot kills someone basically because they were gay and you know what, that idiot is charged with murder and a hate crime on top of it just like they should be. Were homosexuals oppressed in the past in this country? Of course they were, that is beyond dispute. If the extent of your oppression now goes up to "sorry we can't grant you a marriage license" (which isnt even oppression unless you are willing to devalue the meaning of the word "oppression") thats not persecution, thats an inconvenience.

Really if I were part of the whole gay rights movement I would focus on much more concrete goals like getting adoption rights or getting federal tax benefits if you are married in Massachusetts or something.

When you say "cool with discrimination", what level of discrimination are we talking about? Are we talking "kill them because they are different!" discrimination or the opposite extreme which is "segregating bathrooms based on sex/gender is fine" discrimination or what?

cobra_ky:
Maybe you should Google why China had to curb population growth in the first place

I don't have to, I know. And I never denied they had a problem with overpopulation either. I'm just saying that their short-sighted solution is now coming back to bite them in the ass.

So yeah, aside from encouraging its citizens to plan their families responsibly, i think governments should be very, very careful about meddling with national population growth. it is very easy to screw up and create an intractable demographic crisis a couple decades down the line.

I agree wholeheartedly, as that's exactly what China has done. They should've been a lot more careful about it, but if people suck at anything, it's looking forward.

Seekster:
Most of what you said about what America stands for I agree with, however most of what you said also doesnt have a whole lot to do with the issue of same-sex marriage. This isnt curbing anyones rights. There is no right to have your union recognized as a marriage if its not a marriage (as defined by your countrymen).

Yes there is, as they're only recognizing one definition of marriage and denying the rest simply because they don't like it. And because of that they can't get things like tax breaks, of have issues adopting children, you name it, simply for being gay. That is curbing someone's freedom to live as they wish without hurting anyone, it's plain discrimination, and that goes against basic American values.

I also don't see how Mitt Romney is going to have anything to do with the same-sex marriage debate as President. Its a state issue, not a federal one, there is no reason for Romney to get involved in it so his beliefs on the subject arent really going to come up much. I also think its funny that you attack Mitt Romney when Obama himself has said he believes personally that marriage is between a man and a woman (oh but its ok because his ideas are "evolving" and he is not a flip-flopper).

Actually I don't think Obama's belief is okay either. Or, let me rephrase, I think that the belief is okay, acting upon it is not. I think it should be a national issue, not a state issue, as this is about basic American values of equality and freedom.

But that talk Romney had with that gay veteran just showed the disgusting hypocrisy within those people.

And another thing, there is no systematic persecution (you said prosecution but I assume you mean persecution) of homosexuals going on in the United States. Every now and then you have a case where some idiot kills someone basically because they were gay and you know what, that idiot is charged with murder and a hate crime on top of it just like they should be. Were homosexuals oppressed in the past in this country? Of course they were, that is beyond dispute. If the extent of your oppression now goes up to "sorry we can't grant you a marriage license" (which isnt even oppression unless you are willing to devalue the meaning of the word "oppression") thats not persecution, thats an inconvenience.

Your trivialization does not change the issue, neither does juggling with semantics. Gays are not allowed the same legal rights as heterosexual people in a lot of American states. That's discrimination, socially unjust. Simple as that, that's all I'm trying to say.

Really if I were part of the whole gay rights movement I would focus on much more concrete goals like getting adoption rights or getting federal tax benefits if you are married in Massachusetts or something.

Those things are all part of the same problem, that of gay people being discriminated against simply for being gay. And yes, they too deserve a lot of attention.

When you say "cool with discrimination", what level of discrimination are we talking about? Are we talking "kill them because they are different!" discrimination or the opposite extreme which is "segregating bathrooms based on sex/gender is fine" discrimination or what?

Why think in extremes? That's useless. It's neither extreme, of course.

Cowabungaa:

Yes there is, as they're only recognizing one definition of marriage and denying the rest simply because they don't like it. And because of that they can't get things like tax breaks, of have issues adopting children, you name it, simply for being gay. That is curbing someone's freedom to live as they wish without hurting anyone, it's plain discrimination, and that goes against basic American values.[quote]

You do realize the only thing I have a problem with here is calling something other than the union of a man and a woman a marriage right? I am totally supportive of giving all couples who live together the same tax benefits, privileges, and rights, that at this time are only given to married couples.

[quote="Cowabungaa" post="528.332934.13510561"]Actually I don't think Obama's belief is okay either. Or, let me rephrase, I think that the belief is okay, acting upon it is not. I think it should be a national issue, not a state issue, as this is about basic American values of equality and freedom.

But that talk Romney had with that gay veteran just showed the disgusting hypocrisy within those people.[quote]

Points for consistency but what about Romney's conversation was disgusting? The vet asked him what he thought about marriage, Romney answered the question (a politician answered a question), then the vet accused Romney of being a bigot in certain terms and Romney said he isnt and then an aid reminded Romney that they only came in here for a brief photo op of him talking to locals at a diner not to have a debate on the subject of gay marriage. I can understand you not liking Romney's answer but its basically the same or not all that different from the answer Obama would give if it were him being asked the question. Why then is it so disgusting when Romney gives that answer.

You have a problem with acting on belief, isnt that what most people on both sides do when vote?

The Federal Government has absolutely 0 Constitutional right to define marriage. Then again its doing a number of things right now it probably has no right to do but I will live that list to Ron Paul.


[quote="Cowabungaa" post="528.332934.13510561"]
Your trivialization does not change the issue, neither does juggling with semantics. Gays are not allowed the same legal rights as heterosexual people in a lot of American states. That's discrimination, socially unjust. Simple as that, that's all I'm trying to say.
[quote]

No they are not allowed rights that they should be allowed and I think thats wrong. The one area of disagreement we seem to have is whether or not people have a right to demand that their union be recognized as a marriage when it doesnt fit the legal definition of a marriage. If you can get the state the change the legal definition of a marriage then there is no problem. If you want to just scrap the concept of legally defining marriage and give the rights and benefits normally associated with marriage to any couple that lives together then that is fine too.

[quote="Cowabungaa" post="528.332934.13510561"]Those things are all part of the same problem, that of gay people being discriminated against simply for being gay. And yes, they too deserve a lot of attention.[quote]

There will always be some level of discrimination against certain people (see the next part with the two extremes). You have to be careful with the word discrimination because its meaning does not often match up with how people use or misuse the word. When I decide to drink a Dr. Pepper instead of Coca Cola, that is discrimination. When I use the honorific "Mr." for men but I use "Ms." or "Mrs." for women, that is discrimination. There is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination itself. Its wrong when you do things like not hire someone for a job simply because they are a certain race or giving preferential treatment to people of a certain race or gender or whatever. You get the idea.

I guess I am asking you to be clearer on what you mean when you talk about discrimination, give examples of what you are talking about to avoid confusion please.

[quote="Cowabungaa" post="528.332934.13510561"]
Why think in extremes? That's useless. It's neither extreme, of course.

I was sort of asking trying to ask (emphasis on trying) "Within the bounds of these two extremes, what level of discrimination are we talking about here?"

Seekster:

And you will remain waiting, I already have enough people with valid points to make to respond to every personal attack, small-minded scolding, or reference to a half-baked director who apparently never saw Avatar the Last Airbender but made a crappy live action movie of it anyway.

Uhhh....I'll give you the reference bit, but how was this a personal attack or small minded scolding? I'm asking a valid question. What is your reasoning behind 'No marriage for gays'?

Seekster:

If you want a response out of someone its probably not a good idea to be mocking or disrespectful to them.

....Considering I haven't been mocking or disrespectful.....yeaaaah.

jedizero:

Seekster:

And you will remain waiting, I already have enough people with valid points to make to respond to every personal attack, small-minded scolding, or reference to a half-baked director who apparently never saw Avatar the Last Airbender but made a crappy live action movie of it anyway.

Uhhh....I'll give you the reference bit, but how was this a personal attack or small minded scolding? I'm asking a valid question. What is your reasoning behind 'No marriage for gays'?

A fair question but a flawed one, I am not (at this time at least) arguing that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. My argument is that if we are going to have a legal definition of marriage it should be decided by the states which by extension means the people of each state. I agree with the argument that whether their union is recognized as marriage or not homosexual couples have a right to the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples but they do not have a right to demand that their union be recognized as a marriage if it doesnt fit the legal definition of a marriage.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked