Newt Gingrich Changes Views on Gay-Marriage, Says 'Deal with Reality'

[Truthmatters]

I am very educated on the eschatology and exegesis of the Bible.

Try again...........

knowing mythology is grand but not really very helpful in a world that is much better explained by sceince

 

[Sunni Man]

^^^^^ Coming from you TM, that basically means zip............

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gingrich did not change his opinion. He never said he once thought gay marriage was wrong, but he now thinks it's right. He still has the same opinion he always had. He is just recognizing a fact, the United States is sliding into degeneracy and nothing can stop it.

IIRC, Gingrich signed the NOM pledge in the primaries to support a Constitutional Amendment to nationally ban same-sex Civil Marriage.

Then during the debates: "GINGRICH: I helped author the Defense of Marriage Act which the Obama administration should be protecting in court. I think if that fails, you have no choice except a constitutional amendment."


Gingrich supported the oust of Iowa Supreme Court Justices who ruled that equal protection under the Iowa Constitution applied to same sex couples. "Last year, Gingrich helped secure seed money for a successful campaign to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices who approved same-sex marriage in the state." (Newt Gingrich, presidential campaign: Gingrich launches presidential run with a newfound focus - Los Angeles Times)




So claim that Gingrich didn't support bans on same-sex Civil Marriage when it was a function of his political career is incorrect.


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

No matter what you think of homosexuality, it is a fact that gays and lesbians are members of our families, clubs, and workplaces. They are our doctors, our teachers, our soldiers (whether we admit it or not), and our friends. They yearn for acceptance, stable relationships, and success in their lives, just like the rest of us.

So do child molesters, rapists, thieves, and murders.

Should we accept and embrace them also??

In a truly democratic society, you have to right to do whatever you please as long as what you do is not harmful enough to justify the government preventing you from doing it.

Unless you can't discern the difference between child molesters and gay couples, the answer to your question should be obvious.

Of course homosexuals should have the right to conduct their lives as they see fit. They aren't hurting anyone else and when they do, there are criminal penalties for that. The way they choose to live their lives isn't an issue. It's whether the way they conduct their lives should be embraced as an alternative form of normal by the entirety of the people.

Gay couples and child molesters are both alternative forms of normalcy. The comparison is correctly made.

 

[Immanuel]

^^^^^ Coming from you TM, that basically means zip............

Coming from her, everything means zip.

Immie

 

[Truthmatters]

Does ANY religion on the face of the earth explian the world better than sceince?

 

[WorldWatcher]

So do child molesters, rapists, thieves, and murders.

Should we accept and embrace them also??

In a truly democratic society, you have to right to do whatever you please as long as what you do is not harmful enough to justify the government preventing you from doing it.

Unless you can't discern the difference between child molesters and gay couples, the answer to your question should be obvious.

Of course homosexuals should have the right to conduct their lives as they see fit. They aren't hurting anyone else and when they do, there are criminal penalties for that. The way they choose to live their lives isn't an issue. It's whether the way they conduct their lives should be embraced as an alternative form of normal by the entirety of the people.

No, the issue is should the government be allowed to discriminate against a select group for no compelling government reason violating the who concept of equal protection of the law embodied in the 14th Amendment, the principals of liberty and justice embodied in the Constitutions preamble and what we teach to our children when the conclude the pledge "with liberty and justice for all".

No one is suggesting that the entirety of the people should enter into same-sex relationships.

Gay couples and child molesters are both alternative forms of normalcy. The comparison is correctly made.

No it's not.

One is a relationship between consenting adults that harms no one.

The other is raping a child.

Big difference.



>>>>

 

[Truthmatters]

Is there ANY religion in this world that does a better job of explaining the world?



come on all you mythers surely you can provide to us how your religion has been more right than sceince?

 

[wavingrl]

This clarifies another thread I saw last night.

I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said.

'by the authority of the state'

2013 should be exciting in GA. jmo.

Cityhood for unicorporated areas, finding ways to keep the state running and this.

 

[Katzndogz]

In a truly democratic society, you have to right to do whatever you please as long as what you do is not harmful enough to justify the government preventing you from doing it.

Unless you can't discern the difference between child molesters and gay couples, the answer to your question should be obvious.

Of course homosexuals should have the right to conduct their lives as they see fit. They aren't hurting anyone else and when they do, there are criminal penalties for that. The way they choose to live their lives isn't an issue. It's whether the way they conduct their lives should be embraced as an alternative form of normal by the entirety of the people.

No, the issue is should the government be allowed to discriminate against a select group for no compelling government reason violating the who concept of equal protection of the law embodied in the 14th Amendment, the principals of liberty and justice embodied in the Constitutions preamble and what we teach to our children when the conclude the pledge "with liberty and justice for all".

No one is suggesting that the entirety of the people should enter into same-sex relationships.

Gay couples and child molesters are both alternative forms of normalcy. The comparison is correctly made.

No it's not.

One is a relationship between consenting adults that harms no one.

The other is raping a child.

Big difference.



>>>>

The age of majority at which time an individual has the capacity to consent to sex is arbitrary. Lower it to ten, lower it to six, there's no crime. So this rape of children is merely a matter of the calendar.

The issue isn't whether the government will discriminate, it's whether the government will support the individual's right to discriminate against that which the individual considers wrong.

While no one has suggested that everyone be required to enter into same sex relationships, what homosexuals intend is that everyone accept same sex relationships as a form of normalcy and not consider it the perversion that it is.

What the government should do is extend same sex relationship rights to everyone only as far as the government goes and preserve individual rights to say no.

 

[Seawytch]

Of course homosexuals should have the right to conduct their lives as they see fit. They aren't hurting anyone else and when they do, there are criminal penalties for that. The way they choose to live their lives isn't an issue. It's whether the way they conduct their lives should be embraced as an alternative form of normal by the entirety of the people.

No, the issue is should the government be allowed to discriminate against a select group for no compelling government reason violating the who concept of equal protection of the law embodied in the 14th Amendment, the principals of liberty and justice embodied in the Constitutions preamble and what we teach to our children when the conclude the pledge "with liberty and justice for all".

No one is suggesting that the entirety of the people should enter into same-sex relationships.

Gay couples and child molesters are both alternative forms of normalcy. The comparison is correctly made.

No it's not.

One is a relationship between consenting adults that harms no one.

The other is raping a child.

Big difference.



>>>>

The age of majority at which time an individual has the capacity to consent to sex is arbitrary. Lower it to ten, lower it to six, there's no crime. So this rape of children is merely a matter of the calendar.

The issue isn't whether the government will discriminate, it's whether the government will support the individual's right to discriminate against that which the individual considers wrong.

While no one has suggested that everyone be required to enter into same sex relationships, what homosexuals intend is that everyone accept same sex relationships as a form of normalcy and not consider it the perversion that it is.

What the government should do is extend same sex relationship rights to everyone only as far as the government goes and preserve individual rights to say no.

Tell me something...in the United States, has the age of consent gone up or down in recent years? When laws are passed regarding the age of consent, please show me where they have been changed to LOWER the age of consent.

I really don't give a shit if you "accept" me or not. What I care about is equal treatment under the LAW.

 

[Sunni Man]

Does ANY religion on the face of the earth explian the world better than sceince?

Science only explains the physical mechanics of the universe.

But it cannot explain how life started or what it's purpose is about.

Only religion can do that...........

 

[WorldWatcher]

What the government should do is extend same sex relationship rights to everyone only as far as the government goes and preserve individual rights to say no.

I've long recognized the difference between extending Civil Marriage to same-sex couples under the same rules that are currently applied to different-sex couples contrasting with the issues Public Accommodation laws being applied to private businesses entities. They are in fact two separate issues. Private entities should be free to discriminate based on a criteria of their own choosing whether it be race, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, or against one legged pirates that go "Arrg". I may be messy, but that what freedom entails.


>>>>

 

[blackhawk]

More than that, he blames the Republican party for fostering a corrosive culture that produced Romney as its candidate. The former House Speaker argued that the GOP has grown stale and introverted, putting itself on the wrong side of history on issues like immigration and painting itself into a corner on others, like gay marriage.

Romney's failed candidacy was just the latest illustration of this, the 69-year-old Gingrich said in hour-long interview that dealt, in large part, with the GOP’s problems and what he hopes to contribute to their solution.

"The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to ... accommodate and deal with reality. And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states -- and it will be more after 2014 -- gay relationships will be legal, period,"

"The reality is going to be that in a number of American states - and it will be more after 2014 - gay relationships will be legal, period," as reported in the Examiner.

SOURCE 1: Newt Gingrich Changes Views on Gay-Marriage, Says 'Deal with Reality' : Law & Society : Lawyer Herald

SOURCE 2: Newt Gingrich Supports "Reality" Of State-Sanctioned Marriage Equality

SOURCE 3: Newt Gingrich On Mitt Romney: 'I Would Have Probably Done Better' Against Obama

Don't really have anything to add here... just want to know what you all think.

I think hindsight is 20/20 always has been always will be and I think if Gingrich had been better at getting his message out he might have been the nominee instead of Romney.

 

[mjollnir]

No matter what you think of homosexuality, it is a fact that gays and lesbians are members of our families, clubs, and workplaces. They are our doctors, our teachers, our soldiers (whether we admit it or not), and our friends. They yearn for acceptance, stable relationships, and success in their lives, just like the rest of us.

So do child molesters, rapists, thieves, and murders.

Should we accept and embrace them also??

Nice false equivalency.

It is indeed comforting, however, to see that you remain unbeset by the ravages of intelligence.

I hate seeing an animal suffer.

 

[Glensather]

Oh boy, I know this topic is the highest thing on my list right now

Hey, I just find this stuff and post it after cross-referencing it a few times. Don't shoot the messenger :x .

Your recollections are correct he didn't. He had more to say about divorce than about same sex consenting adults. He did, however, talk about people who are "Eunuchs from birth" which many historians believe is how gay men were referred to. Jesus considered them a "gift from god".

“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)​

Isn't that particular passage still hotly debated in some circles? Just like Sunni Man's line about "dogs" also meaning homosexuals.

The truth is, unless we get ahold of somebody who personally knew Christ, we'll never know .

Assuming he’s sincere, this will place more pressure on social conservatives as they see more republicans accept the Constitutional requirement to allow same-sex couples access to marriage.

Or, it could turn those same social conservatives completely against him. I know when I mentioned this at the store last night whilst shopping, a lot of people were actually offended and the consent became that Newt was a RINO this whole time.

People

I agree with source #3. He would have done much better against Obammy and I knew it all along. However he still would have lost. I mean how many real flesh and blood people can run against Santa Claus and win??

I don't know if he would have lost actually. He certainly couldn't have done worse than Mittens.

I am very educated on the eschatology and exegesis of the Bible.

Why did Jesus not mention homosexuality?

He did according to Revelations 22:14-15

Like I said above, that's one of those lines that are debated. Both sides of the argument use Revelations and Matthew to support their cause.

So do child molesters, rapists, thieves, and murders.

Should we accept and embrace them also?? [/QUOTE]

The difference between them and gay people is that gay people aren't hurting anyone.

Gingrich did not change his opinion. He never said he once thought gay marriage was wrong, but he now thinks it's right. He still has the same opinion he always had. He is just recognizing a fact, the United States is sliding into degeneracy and nothing can stop it.

Disagree with the degeneracy comment, but you and I have had words against each other about that before, so I won't bring it up again .

This clarifies another thread I saw last night.

I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said.

'by the authority of the state'

2013 should be exciting in GA. jmo.

Cityhood for unicorporated areas, finding ways to keep the state running and this.

Since my part of GA is smack in the middle of the Bible Belt (THREE Baptist churches within walking distance, two more a drive away, etc etc), I doubt that gay marriage will get a pass here. I do know if it does become legal in this state, there'll be (supposedly) an exodus to Alabama, which'll probably never pass it ever.

But it cannot explain how life started or what it's purpose is about.

Only religion can do that...........

Sure it can!
As explained by Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, Bill Nye, Charles Darwin... I could go on.

Nice false equivalency.

It is indeed comforting, however, to see that you remain unbeset by the ravages of intelligence.

I hate seeing an animal suffer.

Logic is hard for some people :shrug:

 

[NYcarbineer]

So do child molesters, rapists, thieves, and murders.

Should we accept and embrace them also??

In a truly democratic society, you have to right to do whatever you please as long as what you do is not harmful enough to justify the government preventing you from doing it.

Unless you can't discern the difference between child molesters and gay couples, the answer to your question should be obvious.

Of course homosexuals should have the right to conduct their lives as they see fit. They aren't hurting anyone else and when they do, there are criminal penalties for that. The way they choose to live their lives isn't an issue. It's whether the way they conduct their lives should be embraced as an alternative form of normal by the entirety of the people.

Gay couples and child molesters are both alternative forms of normalcy. The comparison is correctly made.

So is being a celibate priest. So according to your logic, comparing priests to child molesters is a valid comparison.

fyi, I'm referring to the priests who aren't actually child molesters...

 

[NYcarbineer]

So do child molesters, rapists, thieves, and murders.

Should we accept and embrace them also??

In a truly democratic society, you have to right to do whatever you please as long as what you do is not harmful enough to justify the government preventing you from doing it.

Unless you can't discern the difference between child molesters and gay couples, the answer to your question should be obvious.

Of course homosexuals should have the right to conduct their lives as they see fit. They aren't hurting anyone else and when they do, there are criminal penalties for that. The way they choose to live their lives isn't an issue. It's whether the way they conduct their lives should be embraced as an alternative form of normal by the entirety of the people.

Gay couples and child molesters are both alternative forms of normalcy. The comparison is correctly made.

Based on your form of reasoning, Marriage is a form of normalcy. Same sex couples who marry are thus 'normalizing' their relationship.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course homosexuals should have the right to conduct their lives as they see fit. They aren't hurting anyone else and when they do, there are criminal penalties for that. The way they choose to live their lives isn't an issue. It's whether the way they conduct their lives should be embraced as an alternative form of normal by the entirety of the people.

No, the issue is should the government be allowed to discriminate against a select group for no compelling government reason violating the who concept of equal protection of the law embodied in the 14th Amendment, the principals of liberty and justice embodied in the Constitutions preamble and what we teach to our children when the conclude the pledge "with liberty and justice for all".

No one is suggesting that the entirety of the people should enter into same-sex relationships.

Gay couples and child molesters are both alternative forms of normalcy. The comparison is correctly made.

No it's not.

One is a relationship between consenting adults that harms no one.

The other is raping a child.

Big difference.



>>>>

The age of majority at which time an individual has the capacity to consent to sex is arbitrary. Lower it to ten, lower it to six, there's no crime. So this rape of children is merely a matter of the calendar.

The issue isn't whether the government will discriminate, it's whether the government will support the individual's right to discriminate against that which the individual considers wrong.

While no one has suggested that everyone be required to enter into same sex relationships, what homosexuals intend is that everyone accept same sex relationships as a form of normalcy and not consider it the perversion that it is.

What the government should do is extend same sex relationship rights to everyone only as far as the government goes and preserve individual rights to say no.

It's not a perversion; it's a very normal variant of human sexuality. It is quite normal, as we know from history, for a minority of any human population to be homosexual. It is a naturally occurring variant.

The perversion, in that context, would be if society exerted pressure on homosexuals to repress or try to abandon their natural sexuality.

 

[Sunni Man]

Sure it can!
As explained by Neil deGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, Bill Nye, Charles Darwin... I could go on.

None of your heros can explain scientifically how life began.

Nor can they explain what the purpose of life is about.