Romney Signs on to Anti-Gay Group's Campaign Pledge

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>Incredibly wrong answer. http://www.kenilworth-presbyterian.org.za/upc...
This is one of my favorites, it's from a joint statement by the American Psychological and Psychiatric Associations:
The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.
Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.
So, either you just lied to us, or you didn't know better. Now you do.

He lying. It's all he has.

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
Only two of those get national recognition, can you guess which one doesn't? I'm allowed to marry an opposite sex partner in any state. Can you marry a same sex partner in any state?

Only because people like you say that we can't.

It's YOUR fault.

critic wrote:

I'm not anti gay but I am anti marriage. I think it's become sort of like a nice car. The neighbors have 1 so I want 1 too! I just don't think the big picture has been thought out well enough.

That's a good point. I happen to think there's a good reason marriage is between man and woman. I happen to like all the standards around marriage, anti-bigamist, anti-incest, anti-pedophile, anti-forced marriage and male/female gender ratio; I like marriage as is; I'm a moderate. I don't want same sex marriage because I don't want to change ANY marriage standard, not just the male/female part.

That makes me a conservative; to keep the definition of marriage. That's why I like Romney and think Obama is making a mistake, on the wrong side of history with this issue.

Mona Lott wrote:

Give it a rest, Brian.

You know M.L. will never shut me up? I like her posts, because of the clarity. We respect the dignity of our LGBT neighbors, want to join against common enemy; those opposing democratic intercourse, and consider this a minor political dispute.

I hope to see more of Mona's posts because it shows we're wearing them down, we're winning!

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>No need to. I can go to YOUR State.

Come on over, your marriage still won't be recognized by most of the country at the state level and all of the country at the federal level.

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
You're just full of bullshit today. That's a very easily refuted LIE.
From the APA's website:
"Is homosexuality a mental disorder?
No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders."
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientat...
Any more lies you want to try to get away with?

The GayPA, hahahaha!
http://www.mindofmodernity.com/not-sick-the-1...

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Only because people like you say that we can't.
It's YOUR fault.

When gay marriage is legal they use it to corrupt elementary school kids and alienate the kids from their family values.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Brian_G wrote:

That's a good point. I happen to think there's a good reason marriage is between man and woman.

That’s lovely, but your opinion does not rise to the level of a compelling state interest to deny fellow citizens equal protection of the laws.

Brian_G wrote:

I happen to like all the standards around marriage, anti-bigamist, anti-incest, anti-pedophile, anti-forced marriage and male/female gender ratio; I like marriage as is;

Brian, for each of the partices you cite where that are disallowed there is a legitimate state interest served by disallowing them. Bigamy seeks inherently greater protection of the law, incest results in a medically known higher rate of birth defects and mental illness, in pedophilia the minor cannot legally consent, and similarly forced marriage implies a lack of consent.

Do you possess the grey matter to indicate a legitimate state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry? Because I don’t think you do.

Brian_G wrote:

I'm a moderate.

Arguing for fellow citizens to be held as second class citizens wwith less than equal protection of the law isn’t moderate, it is infantile.

Brian_G wrote:

I don't want same sex marriage because I don't want to change ANY marriage standard, not just the male/female part.

Of course, you seem to lack the capacity to indicate even so much as a rational basis to deny constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the laws.

Brian_G wrote:

That makes me a conservative; to keep the definition of marriage.

No, it makes you an idiot to argue against the rights of fellow countrymen.

Brian_G wrote:

That's why I like Romney and think Obama is making a mistake, on the wrong side of history with this issue.

Funny, a growing majority support marriage equality, while support dwindles. Heck, even Mittens once supported gay marriage, having been the governor of the first state to legally allow the practice.

Of course, you would like a candidate with no backbone who has been on both sides of just about every issue out there.

Brian_G wrote:

You know M.L. will never shut me up?

Pity.

Brian_G wrote:

I like her posts, because of the clarity. We respect the dignity of our LGBT neighbors,

This is nothing more than BS. You cannot say you respect someone’s dignity while arguing against their constitutional rights.

Brian_G wrote:

want to join against common enemy; those opposing democratic intercourse, and consider this a minor political dispute.

Fundamental rights are not subject to Democracy.“One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

Brian_G wrote:

I hope to see more of Mona's posts because it shows we're wearing them down, we're winning!

No, you’re not. You haven’t even been able to offer a rational basis for your position, which is risible.

lides wrote:

Bigamy seeks inherently greater protection of the law,

Any marriage would, especially marriages with children. What I like about you is your consistency. You wake up stupid and stay that way all day long.

lides wrote:

to deny fellow citizens equal protection of the laws.

Anyone who attempts to control what elementary school children think about homosexuals and homosexualty in a way that is inconsistent with family values is not my fellow citizen. I'm sure they're yours though.

Wondering wrote:

Any marriage would, especially marriages with children. What I like about you is your consistency. You wake up stupid and stay that way all day long.

Is marriage a choice, yes or no?

lides wrote:

Of course, you would like a candidate with no backbone who has been on both sides of just about every issue out there.

They all bow to the dollar. Obama flip-flopped on marriage, is beholding to the municipal unions and lied about "shovel ready jobs."

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Is marriage a choice, yes or no?

Is buying a new Ferrari a choice? Yes or no.

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Is marriage a choice, yes or no?

Does any marriage get greater protection? Yes or no.
Does each new child in a family increase that protection? Yes or no.

lides wrote:

You cannot say you respect someone’s dignity while arguing against their constitutional rights.

There is no constitutional right to gay marriage.

Wondering wrote:

Does any marriage get greater protection? Yes or no.
Does each new child in a family increase that protection? Yes or no.

Quid pro quo, I asked first. Is marriage a choice, yes or no?

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>You know M.L. will never shut me up? I like her posts, because of the clarity. We respect the dignity of our LGBT neighbors, want to join against common enemy; those opposing democratic intercourse, and consider this a minor political dispute.
I hope to see more of Mona's posts because it shows we're wearing them down, we're winning!

Don't you mean whining?

You live in a dream world, Brian.

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
When gay marriage is legal they use it to corrupt elementary school kids and alienate the kids from their family values.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

When gay marriage is legal they use it to educate elementary school kids about reality and alienate them from stupidity.

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no constitutional right to gay marriage.

That remains to be seen. Ever hear of substantive due process?

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Quid pro quo, I asked first. Is marriage a choice, yes or no?

Translation: Wondering, you got me again.