• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

‘I Didn’t Know You Had Families’ Mitt Romney Told Group Of Gay Parents

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
Romney forces people to be gay so they cant get "???" . Whatever they want it is not marriage, because that is the union between a man and a woman. The same responsibility that a man and a woman have in marriage, does not exist between a same sex couple. By calling the relationship in a same sex relationship a marriage, you are demeaning the releationship that all married people have. This just can not be allowed.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
If I call an apple an orange, it does not make an apple an orange. I guess that is close minded also.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Romney forces people to be gay so they cant get "???" . Whatever they want it is not marriage, because that is the union between a man and a woman. The same responsibility that a man and a woman have in marriage, does not exist between a same sex couple. By calling the relationship in a same sex relationship a marriage, you are demeaning the releationship that all married people have. This just can not be allowed.
a union between a man and a woman can't compare in terms of responsibilities to a traditionally married couple of a man and his multiple slave wives.

By calling the relationship between one man and one woman a marriage, you are demeaning the traditional relationship that all married men have with their 13 year-old brides. This just can not be allowed.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
Marriage is a legal definition as well as a concept. Do you know how many laws you would have to change if you change the definition?
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,518
1
81
Marriage is a legal definition as well as a concept. Do you know how many laws you would have to change if you change the definition?
"Can you imagine all the laws we would have to change if we let white people marry black people?"
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,155
9
81
No, but believing that your specific definition of marriage is the exclusive "traditional" definition certainly makes you very close minded and possible a nutjob.
agreed.

i see no reason besides religion that gays can't merry. To be honest it is one of the reasons i am leaning more to Obama then romney. to deny rights to someone based on sexual preference just does not sit well with me.
 

rickon66

Golden Member
Oct 11, 1999
1,809
3
81
Ryan, you are an idiot-you make a post about someting you DO NOT EVEN KNOW IS TRUE, then throw gas on the flames. Shame on your sorry ass.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
I found this observation about Romney in the source piece which the OP article is about:

Speaking with those locally who had experience knowing, meeting with, or working with Romney, a few commonly held perceptions emerge. Perhaps the most common is that Romney seems generally disinterested in others, and has trouble connecting with anyone unlike him — whether in terms of lifestyle, economic class, or sexuality.
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/blogs/bostonspirit/2012/09/romney_a_wimp_not_so_much_acco.html

Separate and apart from his stance on LGBT issues in particular, this accords with my perception of him as a political candidate so far. I think it's a been a big problem for him and will continue to be as this election season progresses.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,919
3,443
126
Maybe he was shocked to learn they had guardianship of kids.

P.S, he IS a robot. Everyone knows this.
 

SheHateMe

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2012
7,251
20
81
"Can you imagine all the laws we would have to change if we let white people marry black people?"
POW.


Some people forget that there was once a time in this country when interracial marriages were illegal by law in many states. It took a while before people got their head on straight and allowed it.

And.. surprisingly, some of the very reasons people use to outlaw Gay marriage were used to keep mixed marriages illegal.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
No, but believing that your specific definition of marriage is the exclusive "traditional" definition certainly makes you very close minded and possible a nutjob.
Yeah. Because their is a "traditional" definition of marriage in which you could marry someone of the same gender o_O
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
POW.


Some people forget that there was once a time in this country when interracial marriages were illegal by law in many states. It took a while before people got their head on straight and allowed it.

And.. surprisingly, some of the very reasons people use to outlaw Gay marriage were used to keep mixed marriages illegal.
You mean except for the fact that a man and a woman of different races are completely capable of having children together?
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,518
1
81
You mean except for the fact that a man and a woman of different races are completely capable of having children together?
No doubt, it has been brought up to you thousands of times, that the ability to have children does not define the ability to wed. Nor does the presence of two opposite sex parents preclude people from properly raising children and having a family.

Also - Racists of yesteryear viewed mixed children as inferior and broken....the product of an unnatural union:

http://www.ferris.edu/htmls/News/jimcrow/mulatto/

To them he is the anguished victim of divided inheritance. Mathematically they work it out that his intellectual strivings and self-control come from his white blood, and his emotional urgings, indolence and potential savagery come from his Negro blood.
 
Last edited:

SheHateMe

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2012
7,251
20
81
You mean except for the fact that a man and a woman of different races are completely capable of having children together?

Nehalem, I implore you to reasearch anti-miscegenation laws. This is not about having kids. I am just drawing obvious parallels between the two issues.


Yes, we KNOW that two people from opposite races can have children. Thats a no brainer, but during the time of anti-miscegenation laws, the government was saying that children produced from these relationships would be non-functioning members of society who would most likely have deformities, etc. Pretty much anything negative that could be said about the relationship was used as a valid argument against making it legal.

It actually wasnt until until the Loves went against the state of Virginia to win their freedom as a mixed race couple. They were banned from the State of Virginia and if they ever came back, they were not allowed to be together. They actually went to jail over it before being banished. They were peaceful people and had a wonderful life together. It took them several years to have the right to be together by law.

Mr. Love was a white man and Mrs. Love was black.


I don't understand why you are concerned about pro-creation in the first place. Of course, gays cannot reproduce. However, they can adopt and there are THOUSANDS of children out there who would love a permanent home. They will probably be better for it. One of my family members in a foster parent and sometimes she gets these kids after they are out of infancy and have been in the system for years. These kids are often fucked up beyond repair and Its my belief that life would have turned out better for them if somebody actually cared about them.
 
Last edited:

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,911
1,063
126
If I call an apple an orange, it does not make an apple an orange. I guess that is close minded also.
That's a bad analogy. A more appropriate analogy would be that you held up a Granny Smith apple and said this is an apple. I held up a Golden Delicious and a Fuji apple and said that these too are apples. And then you started attacking that they're different and can't also be apples and that only Granny Smith apples can be apples. It seems you are too close minded to even realize how poor your analogy is.

Yeah. Because their is a "traditional" definition of marriage in which you could marry someone of the same gender o_O
Someone posted in another thread a response, which I believe was to you, that showed that native Americans had a partnership that was basically marriage that involved same sex couples. It was called spirit partner or something like that. But it is older than this nation and took place on this land. So, yes there is a "traditional" even to this land definition of marriage in which you could marry someone of the same gender.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,155
9
81
the ability to have children shouldn't matter. IF you are going to make that a qualification of getting married then anyone has had a vasectomy or such is banned from it
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Native Americans, who by no means were Western in culture, had a different name for referring to gay couples joined together than straight married couples? Ok, I'm OK with applying that to todays issue. Since the NA's had a different name for gays being joined together, and marriage is what straight couples have been using for....ever....then we'll have to come up with another name for when gays are joined, and it can't be marriage.

Thanks for that graphic, it sounds like both sides are now in agreement on the issue.

:D Haha pic backfire :D

Chuck
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
“I looked him in the eye as we were leaving,” recalls Goodridge. “And I said, ‘Governor Romney, tell me — what would you suggest I say to my 8 year-old daughter about why her mommy and her ma can’t get married because you, the governor of her state, are going to block our marriage?’”

His response, according to Goodridge: “I don’t really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don’t you just tell her the same thing you’ve been telling her the last eight years.”
Oh that is awesome.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Nehalem, I implore you to reasearch anti-miscegenation laws. This is not about having kids. I am just drawing obvious parallels between the two issues.


Yes, we KNOW that two people from opposite races can have children. Thats a no brainer, but during the time of anti-miscegenation laws, the government was saying that children produced from these relationships would be non-functioning members of society who would most likely have deformities, etc. Pretty much anything negative that could be said about the relationship was used as a valid argument against making it legal.

It actually wasnt until until the Loves went against the state of Virginia to win their freedom as a mixed race couple. They were banned from the State of Virginia and if they ever came back, they were not allowed to be together. They actually went to jail over it before being banished. They were peaceful people and had a wonderful life together. It took them several years to have the right to be together by law.

Mr. Love was a white man and Mrs. Love was black.


I don't understand why you are concerned about pro-creation in the first place. Of course, gays cannot reproduce. However, they can adopt and there are THOUSANDS of children out there who would love a permanent home. They will probably be better for it. One of my family members in a foster parent and sometimes she gets these kids after they are out of infancy and have been in the system for years. These kids are often fucked up beyond repair and Its my belief that life would have turned out better for them if somebody actually cared about them.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

This familiar restriction, the Court reasoned, did not offend the Due Process Clause because procreation and child rearing were central to the constitutional protection given to marriage.[8]
The Court was not persuaded that an equal-protection violation was present either. Childless heterosexual marriages presented no more than a theoretical imperfection, which doesn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The couple's reliance on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia (striking down an anti-miscegenation law) also failed: "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."
A gay couple cannot procreate.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS