Mitt Romney Grilled By Gay Veteran On Same-Sex Marriage Rights

[JoeB131]

Well, you are right, there was time that polygamy was accepted...

but no one, even societies that were tolerant of homosexual relations like Greece, ever recognized marriages between the same gender.

Not to say that it matters that much. I really don't care. If you can change the law through the LEGISLATIVE process, so be it.

I have a big problem with judges making the law. That's not their job.

Sure there were...but they were religious or informal in nature....IN fact, civil marriage is a very very recent construct.

Only because SECULAR government is a very recent construct.

Most of history, government was ordained by God, and the King was the King by the Grace of God. The line between Church and State being drawn is a very recent construct.

So be it.

 

[Inthemiddle]

seems to me that people need to get over it. gay marriage is the right thing to do.

Actually, I think the right thing to do would be to get marriage out of the purview of government all together. Everyone gets a civil union. EVERYONE. If a church wants to sanctify your union as a marriage, and if you so desire such a blessing, then go for it.

 

[del]

seems to me that people need to get over it. gay marriage is the right thing to do.

Actually, I think the right thing to do would be to get marriage out of the purview of government all together. Everyone gets a civil union. EVERYONE. If a church wants to sanctify your union as a marriage, and if you so desire such a blessing, then go for it.

if you wan to play semantics, knock yourself out.

 

[JoeB131]

seems to me that people need to get over it. gay marriage is the right thing to do.

Actually, I think the right thing to do would be to get marriage out of the purview of government all together. Everyone gets a civil union. EVERYONE. If a church wants to sanctify your union as a marriage, and if you so desire such a blessing, then go for it.

if you wan to play semantics, knock yourself out.

But that's the problem, isn't it?

It's not about what you and your partner want, or even what the government recognizes. You want everyone ELSE to acknowledge you. (Not you, personally, but people pushing this.)

I don't think getting rid of civil marriage in favor of civil unions is the answer- that's closing down the country club because you have to admit people you don't like.

I think we should have an honest, political- not judicial- discourse on this, and let it fall where it may.

I do think by 2050, all 50 states will recognize gay marriage and wonder what all the fuss was about.

 

[del]

Actually, I think the right thing to do would be to get marriage out of the purview of government all together. Everyone gets a civil union. EVERYONE. If a church wants to sanctify your union as a marriage, and if you so desire such a blessing, then go for it.

if you wan to play semantics, knock yourself out.

But that's the problem, isn't it?

It's not about what you and your partner want, or even what the government recognizes. You want everyone ELSE to acknowledge you. (Not you, personally, but people pushing this.)

I don't think getting rid of civil marriage in favor of civil unions is the answer- that's closing down the country club because you have to admit people you don't like.

I think we should have an honest, political- not judicial- discourse on this, and let it fall where it may.

I do think by 2050, all 50 states will recognize gay marriage and wonder what all the fuss was about.

it's not about acknowledgement, imo, it's about equality.

i think you're right about 2050.

 

[ScienceRocks]

if you wan to play semantics, knock yourself out.

But that's the problem, isn't it?

It's not about what you and your partner want, or even what the government recognizes. You want everyone ELSE to acknowledge you. (Not you, personally, but people pushing this.)

I don't think getting rid of civil marriage in favor of civil unions is the answer- that's closing down the country club because you have to admit people you don't like.

I think we should have an honest, political- not judicial- discourse on this, and let it fall where it may.

I do think by 2050, all 50 states will recognize gay marriage and wonder what all the fuss was about.

it's not about acknowledgement, imo, it's about equality.

i think you're right about 2050.

One of the main reasons that marxism fails again and again is the fact that humanity is NOT all equal or uniform. We all have our strength's and weakness and you Marxist can't change that no matter how hard you try! You tried killing your way to it, but that didn't even work.

 

[del]

But that's the problem, isn't it?

It's not about what you and your partner want, or even what the government recognizes. You want everyone ELSE to acknowledge you. (Not you, personally, but people pushing this.)

I don't think getting rid of civil marriage in favor of civil unions is the answer- that's closing down the country club because you have to admit people you don't like.

I think we should have an honest, political- not judicial- discourse on this, and let it fall where it may.

I do think by 2050, all 50 states will recognize gay marriage and wonder what all the fuss was about.

it's not about acknowledgement, imo, it's about equality.

i think you're right about 2050.

One of the main reasons that marxism fails again and again is the fact that humanity is NOT all equal or uniform. We all have our strength's and weakness and you Marxist can't change that no matter hard you try! You tried killing your way to it, but that didn't even work.

you remain firmly affixed to the left side of the bell curve, sparky.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Well, that sure as hell doesn't change the fact that you people are still wrong Your marxism and equality killed more people then all the wars of the past 500 years.

 

[JoeB131]

if you wan to play semantics, knock yourself out.

But that's the problem, isn't it?

It's not about what you and your partner want, or even what the government recognizes. You want everyone ELSE to acknowledge you. (Not you, personally, but people pushing this.)

I don't think getting rid of civil marriage in favor of civil unions is the answer- that's closing down the country club because you have to admit people you don't like.

I think we should have an honest, political- not judicial- discourse on this, and let it fall where it may.

I do think by 2050, all 50 states will recognize gay marriage and wonder what all the fuss was about.

it's not about acknowledgement, imo, it's about equality.

i think you're right about 2050.

it's not about equality. Everyone right now has the same right to marry. Someone of the opposite sex, not a relative, not underage, not more than one person at a time.

If you want to argue that allowing gay marriage is acceptable, why not allow incest or polygamy!

It's about demanding a privilage that society has reserved to certain people.

And here's my thought. There are no rights. There are only the privilages the rest of us let you have. ANyone who thinks there are 'rights' should look up "Japanese Americans- 1942".

So the argument here is, should the rest of us let you have the privilage. My personal opinion is, sure, why not. Why should just the straights have to suffer?

 

[del]

Well, that sure as hell doesn't change the fact that you people are still wrong Your marxism and equality killed more people then all the wars of the past 500 years.

lead paint chips aren't a snack food.

it's obviously too late for you, but maybe someone else will be helped.

fuckroast

 

[del]

But that's the problem, isn't it?

It's not about what you and your partner want, or even what the government recognizes. You want everyone ELSE to acknowledge you. (Not you, personally, but people pushing this.)

I don't think getting rid of civil marriage in favor of civil unions is the answer- that's closing down the country club because you have to admit people you don't like.

I think we should have an honest, political- not judicial- discourse on this, and let it fall where it may.

I do think by 2050, all 50 states will recognize gay marriage and wonder what all the fuss was about.

it's not about acknowledgement, imo, it's about equality.

i think you're right about 2050.

it's not about equality. Everyone right now has the same right to marry. Someone of the opposite sex, not a relative, not underage, not more than one person at a time.

If you want to argue that allowing gay marriage is acceptable, why not allow incest or polygamy!

It's about demanding a privilage that society has reserved to certain people.

And here's my thought. There are no rights. There are only the privilages the rest of us let you have. ANyone who thinks there are 'rights' should look up "Japanese Americans- 1942".

So the argument here is, should the rest of us let you have the privilage. My personal opinion is, sure, why not. Why should just the straights have to suffer?

yeah, you've used that tired gag about three times now, and it's not getting any funnier.

ditto the incest meme. there are valid reasons not to allow it.

polygamy doesn't really bother me, but then, i'm not a busybody.

you forgot bestiality- why don't you roll that one out?

and here's my thought- there are certain unalienable rights with which we are endowed by our creator.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Well, that sure as hell doesn't change the fact that you people are still wrong Your marxism and equality killed more people then all the wars of the past 500 years.

lead paint chips aren't a snack food.

it's obviously too late for you, but maybe someone else will be helped.

fuckroast

One of the main tools of the Marxist on display. Obama is a master of it and learn it from his masters! Why the fuck should we destroy marriage that has been in place for thousands of years, so a man can get his jollies off? Of course you don't believe in god, so you can insult and piss on marriage without concern, but don't be suprised when someone verbally attacks you for it!

 

[del]

Well, that sure as hell doesn't change the fact that you people are still wrong Your marxism and equality killed more people then all the wars of the past 500 years.

lead paint chips aren't a snack food.

it's obviously too late for you, but maybe someone else will be helped.

fuckroast

One of the main tools of the Marxist on display. Obama is a master of it and learn it from his masters! Why the fuck should we destroy marriage that has been in place for thousands of years, so a man can get his jollies off? Of course you don't believe in god, so you can insult and piss on marriage without concern, but don't be suprised when someone verbally attacks you for it!

i'm not a marxist

i believe in god

i've been married to the same woman for 28 years.

i'm not surprised when a fuckwit like you spews what passes for your *thoughts* on the topic.

allowing two people who love each other and want to get married do so neither insults, pisses on nor destroys marriage.

you make an excellent argument for eugenics

you have the verbal skills of a slightly retarded howler monkey

my apologies to slightly retarded howler monkeys for the above statement

 

[whitehall]

Anybody can call themselves a Veteran. As a matter of fact a panel of liberal judges said you couldn't arrest someone for wearing a Military uniform or medals. So how do we know the "griller" was a Veteran? Did he show his DD214? I doubt it. Chances are he was really homosexual though. Nobody lies about that.

 

[del]

One of the main tools of the Marxist on display. Obama is a master of it and learn it from his masters! Why the fuck should we destroy marriage that has been in place for thousands of years, so a man can get his jollies off? Of course you don't believe in god, so you can insult and piss on marriage without concern, but don't be suprised when someone verbally attacks you for it!

i'm not a marxist

i believe in god

i've been married to the same woman for 28 years.

i'm not surprised when a fuckwit like you spews what passes for your *thoughts* on the topic.

allowing two people who love each other and want to get married do so neither insults, pisses on nor destroys marriage.

you make an excellent argument for eugenics

you have the verbal skills of a slightly retarded howler monkey

my apologies to slightly retarded howler monkeys for the above statement

send her my apologies

i will when i'm done with mine

 

[Zoom]

Might be a logical step for someone to define what they mean by 'marriage' when asking about 'gay marriage'. For example, I do not support 'gay marriage' because my personal view is that marriage is a religious commitment made before God. It has jack shit to do with the government. Having said that, if you ask me if gay couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as the rest of us.... my response is 'yes'.

Seems to me, gays need to recognize that not everyone shares their definition of 'marriage'.

Seems to me heterosexuals need to recognize that not everyone shares their definition of 'marriage'.

Religious Commitment made before God? Then you should be all over half the married country considering they will be committing a sin soon enough with a divorce.

Religious Commitment made before God made me think of the marriage of that Kardashian girl recently. Those who support this "Religious Commitment" have her as your spokesperson in my opinion.

 

[bodecea]

Anybody can call themselves a Veteran. As a matter of fact a panel of liberal judges said you couldn't arrest someone for wearing a Military uniform or medals. So how do we know the "griller" was a Veteran? Did he show his DD214? I doubt it. Chances are he was really homosexual though. Nobody lies about that.

Of course...feel free to spit on Gay Vets. You won't be the first.

 

[bodecea]

Actually, I think the right thing to do would be to get marriage out of the purview of government all together. Everyone gets a civil union. EVERYONE. If a church wants to sanctify your union as a marriage, and if you so desire such a blessing, then go for it.

if you wan to play semantics, knock yourself out.

But that's the problem, isn't it?

It's not about what you and your partner want, or even what the government recognizes. You want everyone ELSE to acknowledge you. (Not you, personally, but people pushing this.)

I don't think getting rid of civil marriage in favor of civil unions is the answer- that's closing down the country club because you have to admit people you don't like.

I think we should have an honest, political- not judicial- discourse on this, and let it fall where it may.

I do think by 2050, all 50 states will recognize gay marriage and wonder what all the fuss was about.

Way before 2050, IMO.

 

[bodecea]

But that's the problem, isn't it?

It's not about what you and your partner want, or even what the government recognizes. You want everyone ELSE to acknowledge you. (Not you, personally, but people pushing this.)

I don't think getting rid of civil marriage in favor of civil unions is the answer- that's closing down the country club because you have to admit people you don't like.

I think we should have an honest, political- not judicial- discourse on this, and let it fall where it may.

I do think by 2050, all 50 states will recognize gay marriage and wonder what all the fuss was about.

it's not about acknowledgement, imo, it's about equality.

i think you're right about 2050.

One of the main reasons that marxism fails again and again is the fact that humanity is NOT all equal or uniform. We all have our strength's and weakness and you Marxist can't change that no matter how hard you try! You tried killing your way to it, but that didn't even work.

You really, really hate that 14th amendment, don't you?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think we should have an honest, political- not judicial- discourse on this, and let it fall where it may.

It’s too late for that, the Court will decide the issue.

Of course, if there were an ‘honest, political- not judicial- discourse on this,’ it wouldn’t be an issue in the first place; indeed, there’d be no need for a ‘judicial solution’ as all 50 states would abide by the 14th Amendment and allow everyone access to their respective marriage laws.