Would you vote for Romney in 2016?

[Boss]

Brown: You said and I quote, "the courts were wrong, slaves were not property." Now you say: It certainly existed and the courts upheld it. Were they RIGHT or WRONG? I think most people who aren't retarded idiots believe they were WRONG! Which WAS my point.... Courts are not always RIGHT! The courts are there to uphold the law, the law at the time was slavery is legal and slaves are property. What you mean to say is laws are not always good laws.

The courts are NOT there to uphold the law. That is the responsibility of law enforcement. Courts are there to rule whether laws are constitutional, especially Federal courts. No, what I mean to say is what I said, the courts are not always right.

I'm using the definition of sexuality, I even posted it for you. What definition of sexuality are you using?

Marriage is the union of a man and woman, without regard for any sexuality. No you don't get to define the term marriage any more than I do, show me a link to a reference that defines marriage as a union without regard for any sexuality. If it was without regard for any sexuality then by definition it would not be man and woman only. Again you appear to not understand the meanings of words.

I didn't redefine it, that's what marriage is and has always been. No marriage law in ANY state even mentions sexuality. You are applying sexuality to "man and woman" as if that's stated, and it is not. You are ASSUMING a "man and woman" means "heterosexual" and that isn't what the law says. You're the one who has repeatedly demonstrated your illiteracy, don't bring my understanding of words up until you get some more education.

They can be heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, doesn't matter. Nothing to do with it. They have to be a man and woman, they have to be of legal age, they have to consent, they have to not be related, they have to be living, they can't already be married to someone, they have to pay for a license. It's not an inherent right, it never has been. The right to marry has always been an inherent right, and it still is. You're not even on the correct planet with that statement.

Well, no hard head, it's simply NOT. I am not endowed with the inalienable right to marry someone, there are a myriad of criteria that first have to be met. The other person must be of the opposite gender, they must consent, they must be of legal age, they must be living, they can't be related, they can't already be married, they have to be human, etc. I may not ever find a person who meets those qualifications. If I happen to, and I want to get a marriage license from my state, I have to pay a fee like everyone else, and I can do that whether I am gay or straight, black or white, it does not matter.

And INHERENT right (not INHERIT) is a right you have inherently by being a human being. Like, you have the right to live.... you have the right to privacy... you have the right to remain silent... to be secure in your property... those are inherent rights. You can't go get a driver's licence if you are not qualified to drive, you can't go get a plumber's licence if you don't meet the criteria, those are NOT inherent rights.

Huh? Where is the law that forces you to be married to have children?

Why do you keep reading my posts and then pretend I am saying some off-the-wall shit I never said? Are you THAT stupid? Really? I never said this, don't know where you got that from. Let's try and stick to what I am posting and not what your sociopathic mind is telling you.

Yes.
No.
Should be restricted.
Wrong, drunk drivers are not very good drivers.
They should be hung.
Wrong, they are causing harm to those children.
We restrict their liberties because society has deemed it morally repugnant.

So basically, we need to make you our KING and allow YOU to make the determinations on our liberty as YOU see fit? That's what you are saying here. I presented a plethora of examples where our laws establish very clear limits on our liberties. We simply DON'T get to do whatever feels good!

We restrict their liberties because society has deemed it morally repugnant.

...BINGO! We don't KNOW every drunk driver or how well they may drive, we pass a law that applies to everyone because there is a very good probability a drunk driver might endanger the lives of others. We pass laws against child porn and pedophilia because it is harmful to children. We establish arbitrary age restrictions on things for the same reason. BECAUSE SOCIETY HAS DEEMED... not because some idiot liberal moans and screams about his fake rights being violated and gets an emotive judge to rule in his favor!

Gay marriage is a direct assault on the moral fabric of society because it undermines the principles of family structure which is VITAL to raising future generations. That is morally repugnant to many and harms society in ways we can't even imagine in present tense. Furthermore, it seeks to set in stone an establishment of government sanction for specific human sexuality and protect it by law through marriage. The ramifications of this are not tolerable because of the equal protection clause. Once this is established as constitutional law, the wheels come off with regard to all sorts of deviant sexual behaviors you DON'T wish to protect. BUT... since you've done this for homosexuals, you MUST do it for others, the Constitution is clear on that.

Again... hate to keep harping on it, but MY solution avoids ALL of that. It removes any semblance of human sexuality from the process and protects the sanctity of marriage while allowing homosexual couples to gain the legal benefits they seek. Government is taken out of the role of determining what is proper sexual behavior or endorsing ANY domestic arrangement. And that's how it SHOULD be.

 

[RKMBrown]

Brown: You said and I quote, "the courts were wrong, slaves were not property." Now you say: It certainly existed and the courts upheld it. Were they RIGHT or WRONG? I think most people who aren't retarded idiots believe they were WRONG! Which WAS my point.... Courts are not always RIGHT! The courts are there to uphold the law, the law at the time was slavery is legal and slaves are property. What you mean to say is laws are not always good laws.

The courts are NOT there to uphold the law. That is the responsibility of law enforcement. Courts are there to rule whether laws are constitutional, especially Federal courts. No, what I mean to say is what I said, the courts are not always right.

I'm using the definition of sexuality, I even posted it for you. What definition of sexuality are you using?

Marriage is the union of a man and woman, without regard for any sexuality. No you don't get to define the term marriage any more than I do, show me a link to a reference that defines marriage as a union without regard for any sexuality. If it was without regard for any sexuality then by definition it would not be man and woman only. Again you appear to not understand the meanings of words.

I didn't redefine it, that's what marriage is and has always been. No marriage law in ANY state even mentions sexuality. You are applying sexuality to "man and woman" as if that's stated, and it is not. You are ASSUMING a "man and woman" means "heterosexual" and that isn't what the law says. You're the one who has repeatedly demonstrated your illiteracy, don't bring my understanding of words up until you get some more education.

They can be heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, doesn't matter. Nothing to do with it. They have to be a man and woman, they have to be of legal age, they have to consent, they have to not be related, they have to be living, they can't already be married to someone, they have to pay for a license. It's not an inherent right, it never has been. The right to marry has always been an inherent right, and it still is. You're not even on the correct planet with that statement.

Well, no hard head, it's simply NOT. I am not endowed with the inalienable right to marry someone, there are a myriad of criteria that first have to be met. The other person must be of the opposite gender, they must consent, they must be of legal age, they must be living, they can't be related, they can't already be married, they have to be human, etc. I may not ever find a person who meets those qualifications. If I happen to, and I want to get a marriage license from my state, I have to pay a fee like everyone else, and I can do that whether I am gay or straight, black or white, it does not matter.

And INHERENT right (not INHERIT) is a right you have inherently by being a human being. Like, you have the right to live.... you have the right to privacy... you have the right to remain silent... to be secure in your property... those are inherent rights. You can't go get a driver's licence if you are not qualified to drive, you can't go get a plumber's licence if you don't meet the criteria, those are NOT inherent rights.

Huh? Where is the law that forces you to be married to have children?

Why do you keep reading my posts and then pretend I am saying some off-the-wall shit I never said? Are you THAT stupid? Really? I never said this, don't know where you got that from. Let's try and stick to what I am posting and not what your sociopathic mind is telling you.

Yes.
No.
Should be restricted.
Wrong, drunk drivers are not very good drivers.
They should be hung.
Wrong, they are causing harm to those children.
We restrict their liberties because society has deemed it morally repugnant.

So basically, we need to make you our KING and allow YOU to make the determinations on our liberty as YOU see fit? That's what you are saying here. I presented a plethora of examples where our laws establish very clear limits on our liberties. We simply DON'T get to do whatever feels good!

We restrict their liberties because society has deemed it morally repugnant.

...BINGO! We don't KNOW every drunk driver or how well they may drive, we pass a law that applies to everyone because there is a very good probability a drunk driver might endanger the lives of others. We pass laws against child porn and pedophilia because it is harmful to children. We establish arbitrary age restrictions on things for the same reason. BECAUSE SOCIETY HAS DEEMED... not because some idiot liberal moans and screams about his fake rights being violated and gets an emotive judge to rule in his favor!

Gay marriage is a direct assault on the moral fabric of society because it undermines the principles of family structure which is VITAL to raising future generations. That is morally repugnant to many and harms society in ways we can't even imagine in present tense. Furthermore, it seeks to set in stone an establishment of government sanction for specific human sexuality and protect it by law through marriage. The ramifications of this are not tolerable because of the equal protection clause. Once this is established as constitutional law, the wheels come off with regard to all sorts of deviant sexual behaviors you DON'T wish to protect. BUT... since you've done this for homosexuals, you MUST do it for others, the Constitution is clear on that.

Again... hate to keep harping on it, but MY solution avoids ALL of that. It removes any semblance of human sexuality from the process and protects the sanctity of marriage while allowing homosexual couples to gain the legal benefits they seek. Government is taken out of the role of determining what is proper sexual behavior or endorsing ANY domestic arrangement. And that's how it SHOULD be.

I deem you morally repugnant. Deal with it ya homophobic bigot.

 

[Boss]

I deem you morally repugnant. Deal with it ya homophobic bigot.

Let me know when you are crowned the King of America, then I will worry about what you deem.

Also, point of order, once again you demonstrate this issue is totally NOT about obtaining benefits for gay couples at all for you, and is completely about having an emotive wedge issue whereby you can call me names and denigrate me because I don't support your lunacy. I've presented a perfectly reasonable and amicable solution to the problem which gives gay couples the remedy they seek as well as protecting religious sanctity of marriage and removes government from the awkward position of moral arbiter regarding human sexuality. Everyone wins, except YOU... a blowhard liberal who simply wants to hurl feces at the right.

 

[RKMBrown]

I deem you morally repugnant. Deal with it ya homophobic bigot.

Let me know when you are crowned the King of America, then I will worry about what you deem.

Also, point of order, once again you demonstrate this issue is totally NOT about obtaining benefits for gay couples at all for you, and is completely about having an emotive wedge issue whereby you can call me names and denigrate me because I don't support your lunacy. I've presented a perfectly reasonable and amicable solution to the problem which gives gay couples the remedy they seek as well as protecting religious sanctity of marriage and removes government from the awkward position of moral arbiter regarding human sexuality. Everyone wins, except YOU... a blowhard liberal who simply wants to hurl feces at the right.

As for your deeming comment, that goes both ways. You can deem homosexual marriage any which way you want till you're blue in the face ya homophobic bigot.

I'm calling you a homophobic bigot because that is what you are. If that wedges you into one party or the other because for some reason you demand your politicians match your litmus test for banning homosexual marriages. Well then that's your wedge, not mine.

My litmus test is does the candidate support liberty. Anyone, like you, that is an authoritarian wishing to take liberty away from groups you don't like... yeah that's my wedge issue that I'm willing to fight and die for just as my forefathers before me.

As I've stated numerous times. I'm the opposite of modern liberals. If you want to call me a classical liberal in the norm of constitutional conservatism as evidenced by the cumulative effort of the founders of this nation... well yeah that's my politics.

Usually I'm arguing against libtards, however on the issue of liberty for people with homosexual preferences the democratic party recently silenced the homophobic bigots on the left by changing the democrat party view on liberty for gays. Thus, leaving the homophobic bigots on the right to hold the line on christian morality laws that restrict homosexual liberty.

Being that I support liberty... this moved the democrats to the correct side of the fence for me on this one issue. However, since that is just 1 of a thousand issues regarding liberty, that won't be enough for me to ever vote for a democrat, ever. Now, if the democrats were to continue down the path of liberty, then maybe I would vote for em. You see I don't vote based on party, I vote based on actions showing support for party planks that match my politics, which as I already stated is real simple.. liberty.

 

[RKMBrown]

To add...

Some plan to strike the term marriage from all 20k federal and state laws to be replaced with civil union language to save the nation from having to correct the legal language specified in the statues for marriages would be better than nothing.

However, my recommendation would be to add one sentence or a paragraph to the federal code stating that the term marriage as used in the federal code and all state codes shall not be restrictive with respect to same sex couples, and where said codes restrict same sex couples, those restrictions shall be non-binding to the people when this bill is signed. Thus in one sentence/paragraph... we strike the ban on consenting adult gay couples from getting married, and all of the other bans defined by all of the federal and state statues. Religious marriage is not redefined. The legal marriage term becomes non-binding with regard to sexuality. The only change is that no one is allowed to legally restrict marriages to two consenting adults of the opposite sex in federal or state codes. This is the same result as replacing marriage with civil union in the federal and state codes.

You'll note that I did not try resolve the issue of marriage laws that discriminate against single people and other people who wish to enter into plural marriages. We need another thread for that I think.

 

[Boss]

I deem you morally repugnant. Deal with it ya homophobic bigot.

Let me know when you are crowned the King of America, then I will worry about what you deem.

Also, point of order, once again you demonstrate this issue is totally NOT about obtaining benefits for gay couples at all for you, and is completely about having an emotive wedge issue whereby you can call me names and denigrate me because I don't support your lunacy. I've presented a perfectly reasonable and amicable solution to the problem which gives gay couples the remedy they seek as well as protecting religious sanctity of marriage and removes government from the awkward position of moral arbiter regarding human sexuality. Everyone wins, except YOU... a blowhard liberal who simply wants to hurl feces at the right.

As for your deeming comment, that goes both ways. You can deem homosexual marriage any which way you want till you're blue in the face ya homophobic bigot.

I'm calling you a homophobic bigot because that is what you are. If that wedges you into one party or the other because for some reason you demand your politicians match your litmus test for banning homosexual marriages. Well then that's your wedge, not mine.

My litmus test is does the candidate support liberty. Anyone, like you, that is an authoritarian wishing to take liberty away from groups you don't like... yeah that's my wedge issue that I'm willing to fight and die for just as my forefathers before me.

As I've stated numerous times. I'm the opposite of modern liberals. If you want to call me a classical liberal in the norm of constitutional conservatism as evidenced by the cumulative effort of the founders of this nation... well yeah that's my politics.

Usually I'm arguing against libtards, however on the issue of liberty for people with homosexual preferences the democratic party recently silenced the homophobic bigots on the left by changing the democrat party view on liberty for gays. Thus, leaving the homophobic bigots on the right to hold the line on christian morality laws that restrict homosexual liberty.

Being that I support liberty... this moved the democrats to the correct side of the fence for me on this one issue. However, since that is just 1 of a thousand issues regarding liberty, that won't be enough for me to ever vote for a democrat, ever. Now, if the democrats were to continue down the path of liberty, then maybe I would vote for em. You see I don't vote based on party, I vote based on actions showing support for party planks that match my politics, which as I already stated is real simple.. liberty.

But the thing is, I am not a homophobic bigot. Nor do I want to restrict liberty. Nor do I want to disrespect the religious customs of others. Nor do I want the government sanctioning sexuality.

To be honest, I was torn on this issue at one time... wasn't sure how I felt about it. I've never been "FOR" gay marriage, however... in 1986, I attended a wedding of two close friends, a same sex couple from Alabama, who held a wedding ceremony together on a hillside in the rural country land. No one prohibited them from doing this, there wasn't some redneck sheriff there to arrest the homos or churches there protesting. It was a beautiful service conducted on private property by a Rastafarian minister and attended by their closest friends and family members. They've been together for 28 years.

Because we were close friends, I asked them about this whenever the whole "gay marriage" thing started. I figured they would be all for "gay marriage" and to my surprise they weren't. MY view, which you are calling "homophobic and bigoted" comes from them. It's what they conveyed to me that they supported. Their rationale was, why in the hell do we need to fight for 30 years over whether the damn government can tell us what "marriage" is?

You say you are "for liberty" but it seems that liberty is a one-way street for you. In your view, religious people don't have the liberty to raise children in a society that teaches homosexual behavior is inappropriate. Society doesn't have the liberty to deem things repugnant. None of us should have the liberty to define "marriage" by our own parameters, you'd rather have Big Brother do that for us, and force us all to live by YOUR view. I reject that and you call me names.

I call you a liberal because you ARE a liberal. You are totally in support of a left-wing liberal issue which is designed primarily to denigrate the right, call them names, polarize the people, drive a wedge between groups, and create an emotive reactionary protest for the sake of protest. You've demonstrated that you're not willing to work toward any compromise, you've rejected my solution which gives all sides what they want and resolves the issue, and continue to hurl insults at me.

 

[Boss]

To add...

Some plan to strike the term marriage from all 20k federal and state laws to be replaced with civil union language to save the nation from having to correct the legal language specified in the statues for marriages would be better than nothing.

However, my recommendation would be to add one sentence or a paragraph to the federal code stating that the term marriage as used in the federal code and all state codes shall not be restrictive with respect to same sex couples, and where said codes restrict same sex couples, those restrictions shall be non-binding to the people when this bill is signed. Thus in one sentence/paragraph... we strike the ban on consenting adult gay couples from getting married, and all of the other bans defined by all of the federal and state statues. Religious marriage is not redefined. The legal marriage term becomes non-binding with regard to sexuality. The only change is that no one is allowed to legally restrict marriages to two consenting adults of the opposite sex in federal or state codes. This is the same result as replacing marriage with civil union in the federal and state codes.

You'll note that I did not try resolve the issue of marriage laws that discriminate against single people and other people who wish to enter into plural marriages. We need another thread for that I think.

Well, no... you simply are saying you will only accept my solution if it specifically stipulates something about gay couples getting married being the same as traditional marriage, and that's simply passing a law to legalize gay marriage. I would not support that.

My solution simply replaces current "marriage" language in tax codes and various laws with the term "domestic partnership" and instead of governments issuing "marriage licenses" they would begin issuing "civil union contracts." Any current "marriage license" would effectively be treated as a CU contract. A "domestic partnership" would be any two people of legal age who aren't obligated to another CU contract. There would be no stipulations or caveats regarding the nature of the relationship, this could be used by couples wishing to traditionally marry, gay couples, or just two people who wanted to enter into joint partnership, like an elderly person and their caretaker or two roomies.

 

[RKMBrown]

You say you are "for liberty" I am for liberty.

but it seems that liberty is a one-way street for you. Wrong, i just don't define liberty as the liberty to fuck people over.

In your view, religious people don't have the liberty to raise children in a society that teaches homosexual behavior is inappropriate. Liar, I never said that. As far as I'm concerned you can teach anything you damn well please to your kids, they are your kids not mine.

Society doesn't have the liberty to deem things repugnant. Liar, I never said that. To the contrary I pointed out where it does deem things repugnant.

None of us should have the liberty to define "marriage" by our own parameters, you'd rather have Big Brother do that for us, and force us all to live by YOUR view. Liar, I never said that. More the point I said we should all be able to define marriage by our own parameters religious or otherwise just so long as no harm is being caused by said marriages. For example, one of the couple is not a consenting adult.

I reject that and you call me names. Liar, I never said that at all. Homophobic bigot isn't a name it's an accurate description of what you have portrayed in this thread.

I call you a liberal because you ARE a liberal. Liar.

You are totally in support of a left-wing liberal issue Liar, the left wing does not own the issue on civil rights. More to the point republicans used to be proponents of civil rights. It's homophobic bigots like you that have temporarily placed the republicans on the wrong side of this issue. My bet is there are more republicans for giving gays the liberty they seek than stand against against them. When that happens are you gonna claim it's now a conservative issue? ROFL

which is designed primarily to denigrate the right, call them names, polarize the people, drive a wedge between groups, and create an emotive reactionary protest for the sake of protest. Liar, the right wing did that on their own. You and those like you are the ones polarizing the gays, not the left wing dumb ass. The left wing switched to being inclusive of gay civil rights, which is the complete opposite of polarization.

You've demonstrated that you're not willing to work toward any compromise, you've rejected my solution which gives all sides what they want and resolves the issue, Liar, I never said that at all. As a matter of fact I said the opposite of that. Your just not a very good listener.

and continue to hurl insults at me. If you don't think the homophobic bigot shoe fits why are you wearing it?

Blue.

 

[Boss]

Again, Brown, you live in a pollyanna world where everyone gets to do what they please unless YOU see some kind of harm in it to the liberty of others, and that's not the society the rest of us live in. Every law on the books is a direct restriction to the "liberty" of someone to do something. You can't name a law that doesn't regulate or restrict a "liberty" of something. Now there may be perfectly good reasons for it.. we restrict the liberty of child molesters to fondle our kids... but virtually every law is a restriction on liberty in some way. It's kind of the whole purpose of having laws.

Here is where you and I differ on liberty... I realize that I'm not King of America and people aren't obligated to live by MY personal standards. They may want more liberty than I think people should have, they may think people should have less liberty where I disagree... I have to live in the society with them, so I am willing to accept the parameters the rest of my fellow neighbors want, as established through ballot initiatives. You want to be the King, sitting on the throne, deciding who gets to have liberty and who doesn't deserve it. You don't care about the democratic process, you want to be the decider.

 

[Boss]

Brown: Liar, the left wing does not own the issue on civil rights. More to the point republicans used to be proponents of civil rights. It's homophobic bigots like you that have temporarily placed the republicans on the wrong side of this issue.

My solution simply replaces current "marriage" language in tax codes and various laws with the term "domestic partnership" and instead of governments issuing "marriage licenses" they would begin issuing "civil union contracts." Any current "marriage license" would effectively be treated as a CU contract. A "domestic partnership" would be any two people of legal age who aren't obligated to another CU contract. There would be no stipulations or caveats regarding the nature of the relationship, this could be used by couples wishing to traditionally marry, gay couples, or just two people who wanted to enter into joint partnership, like an elderly person and their caretaker or two roomies.

What part of my solution is homophobic, bigoted, or restricts the civil rights of anyone?

 

[RKMBrown]

Again, Brown, you live in a pollyanna world where everyone gets to do what they please unless YOU see some kind of harm in it to the liberty of others, and that's not the society the rest of us live in. Liar. I live in the same world you do.

Every law on the books is a direct restriction to the "liberty" of someone to do something.
Liar. Liberty is not the liberty to screw people over. That is just a whacked out retarded view point of authoritarians such as yourself.

You can't name a law that doesn't regulate or restrict a "liberty" of something.

Regulating murder is not regulating liberty, because liberty does not include the permission to harm others.

Now there may be perfectly good reasons for it.. we restrict the liberty of child molesters to fondle our kids... but virtually every law is a restriction on liberty in some way. It's kind of the whole purpose of having laws. No. Your definition of liberty is right out of Satan's handbook. Hell is the only place where I know of that harming others is presumed to be a liberty.

Here is where you and I differ on liberty... I realize that I'm not King of America and people aren't obligated to live by MY personal standards. We differ on the very meaning of liberty. This is probably because you only understand the authoritarian viewpoint. You clearly don't understand the concept of liberty, and probably never will.

They may want more liberty than I think people should have, they may think people should have less liberty where I disagree... You either understand and believe in the concept of liberty, or you don't. Clearly you don't, thus the confusion and disagreements about how much pain and suffering you get to place on people.

I have to live in the society with them, so I am willing to accept the parameters the rest of my fellow neighbors want, as established through ballot initiatives. IOW being an authoritarian you begrudgingly succumb superior authority.

You want to be the King, sitting on the throne, deciding who gets to have liberty and who doesn't deserve it. Liar, espousing liberty is the EFFING OPPOSITE OF WANTING TO BE KING YOU STUPID POS.

You don't care about the democratic process, you want to be the decider. And here we go the tyranny of the majority rule, mantra of all Authoritarians.

blue

 

[RKMBrown]

What part of my solution is homophobic, bigoted, or restricts the civil rights of anyone?

Where did I say your solution is homophobic, bigoted, or restricts the civil rights of anyone? Are you hearing voices?

 

[Redfish]

this thread is about Romney and 2016, not queers. Get back on topic.

 

[RKMBrown]

this thread is about Romney and 2016, not queers. Get back on topic.

Is Romney 2016 ready to change his antiquated homophobic view on gay marriage?

 

[Redfish]

this thread is about Romney and 2016, not queers. Get back on topic.

Is Romney 2016 ready to change his antiquated homophobic view on gay marriage?

first of all, it doesn't matter, he is not running
second, that was obama's view until the gay coalitions threatened him with not voting
third, 90% of the people of planet earth view homosexuality as an abnormal human condition.
fourth, a union of two men or two women will never be a marriage.

 

[RKMBrown]

this thread is about Romney and 2016, not queers. Get back on topic.

Is Romney 2016 ready to change his antiquated homophobic view on gay marriage?

first of all, it doesn't matter, he is not running
second, that was obama's view until the gay coalitions threatened him with not voting
third, 90% of the people of planet earth view homosexuality as an abnormal human condition.
fourth, a union of two men or two women will never be a marriage.

Make up your mind. You want to get back to Romney 2016 or not?

Second. Obama's not running in 2016. Your Obama derangement is showing.

Unions of two men or two women are already homosexual marriage get over it.

 

[BillyP]

Only if he takes off his magic underwear and promises not to do any more goofy things.

 

[Redfish]

this thread is about Romney and 2016, not queers. Get back on topic.

Is Romney 2016 ready to change his antiquated homophobic view on gay marriage?

first of all, it doesn't matter, he is not running
second, that was obama's view until the gay coalitions threatened him with not voting
third, 90% of the people of planet earth view homosexuality as an abnormal human condition.
fourth, a union of two men or two women will never be a marriage.

Make up your mind. You want to get back to Romney 2016 or not?

Second. Obama's not running in 2016. Your Obama derangement is showing.

Unions of two men or two women are already homosexual marriage get over it.

No, I don't think Romney is the right guy for 2016. He was right in 2012 and would have been 1000% better than obama, but he had his chance, ran a bad campaign and lost.

I was merely pointing out that the position you hate, was obama's position before he "evolved"

When society as a whole votes that gay marriage should be sanctioned, then I will accept it as society's choice. The will of the people should decide, as they did twice in california only to be overturned by activist judges, that was, and is, wrong.

 

[Redfish]

Only if he takes off his magic underwear and promises not to do any more goofy things.

the mormon undergarmit is really dumb, but none of them claim it is magical.

please don't ask Hillary to take off her underwear----------------please, please do not subject the country to that.

 

[RKMBrown]

this thread is about Romney and 2016, not queers. Get back on topic.

Is Romney 2016 ready to change his antiquated homophobic view on gay marriage?

first of all, it doesn't matter, he is not running
second, that was obama's view until the gay coalitions threatened him with not voting
third, 90% of the people of planet earth view homosexuality as an abnormal human condition.
fourth, a union of two men or two women will never be a marriage.

Make up your mind. You want to get back to Romney 2016 or not?

Second. Obama's not running in 2016. Your Obama derangement is showing.

Unions of two men or two women are already homosexual marriage get over it.

No, I don't think Romney is the right guy for 2016. He was right in 2012 and would have been 1000% better than obama, but he had his chance, ran a bad campaign and lost.

I was merely pointing out that the position you hate, was obama's position before he "evolved"

When society as a whole votes that gay marriage should be sanctioned, then I will accept it as society's choice. The will of the people should decide, as they did twice in california only to be overturned by activist judges, that was, and is, wrong.

The conservative on the ticket, was Gary Johnson. He was a much better choice over Romney.

We live in a constitutional republic where the simple majority are not supposed to be taking liberties away from minorities.