Politics Romney - Is he ready?

What do you think? Can I keep my finances private? Why or why not? Of course we do not have a "right" to privacy! Can you clarify what you are trying to prove?

 

What do I think?

I think Bork, like Ron Paul, must have regular seances with the Framers to know their original intent and that it is not subject to interpretation.

 

​

I responded to your post and it is not as clear as what you wrote subsequently.

I am not a Romney defender, his view is not totally clear to me because he has responded to the question in different ways. Some are trying to protect the importance of marriage between a man and a woman and are not anti-gay. Many fail to distinguish between legal rights and marriage in the context of their faith. Personally I believe the law should be natural. Even for single people, they should not be treated different than "married" couples - i.e. tax treatment.

Same sex families involves a complication that includes either adoption or some form of a surrogate. In either case the complication can be managed but it is still a complication. I did not use the word "cannot" or anything similar in the context of same sex families.

You are making leaps in logic that I do not. If you disagree with what I actually wrote, let me know.
--- merged: Sep 20, 2012 at 12:37 PM ---

Good dodge. You have political potential.

 

See Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which the USA voted in favour of and has the force of international law).

Why is it not feasible?

 

the intent is very clear from their numerous writings. it's 180 degrees opposite of what liberals/big government statists believe on many issues so they are forced to ignore the framers or construe their writings by cherry picking.

 

Ace's statement also speaks to the belief held by most (all) in the anti-gay crowd that homosexuality is an acquired affliction that can be passed on to the children of same-sex couples. I think this would be the brunt of the ignorant argument for heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage when it comes to suitable family structures for propagating the human race.

In any event, it's just another cover for their Christian intolerance.

 

Mitt Romney 'Dyed His Face Brown' to Appeal to Latino Voters

meanwhile, the romney campaign....um.....what is there to say?

 

This puts me in the "Alice In Wonderland" perspective, I think I have fallen through the rabbit hole. I am totally lost on the point in dispute.

In a civilized human society we want fathers to give a shit about their children.

In a civilized human society we want mothers to give a shit about their children.

In a civilized human society when mothers and fathers give a shit about their children it is the desired state of affairs for children in my opinion and in the opinion of many people who are not anti-gay!

I am not saying nor have I ever stated or implied that a gay couple can not provide a good secure and nurturing home for children. In some circumstance a child in a same sex marriage household can be better off than in other types of households. I will also add that in some circumstances a child may be better off as a ward of the state - it depends on individual circumstances. Circumstances which need to be considered on a case by case basis. Children are not commodities, they are not pets, they are not pieces of furniture, they are not props for holiday photos! From a broad perspective we want natural parents involved in the lives of their children - this view is not anti-gay.
--- merged: Sep 20, 2012 at 3:48 PM ---

Bullshit. You folks continue with red hearing arguments. It is a dishonest type of exchange. If you want to discuss my view on this point ask.

Have you ever sat down with a Christian and had a detailed discuss on these points? No doubt you can find some who hold views based on intolerance or hate - but you castigate an entire population! Is that open mindedness? Of course not. Want to start over?
--- merged: Sep 20, 2012 at 3:50 PM ---

Japan and China are getting close to a military conflict and this is the focus of the media you follow?

 

Maybe it would help if you could state clearly the point you are making, Ace. From this last post I could assume you are inferring that gay fathers and gay mothers don't give a shit about their children - but I doubt that is what you are trying to say. I am, however, buggered if I know WHAT you are trying to say, though.

What is wrong with gay marriage? Why should it be prevented?

Are you saying that the odd beliefs of some bigots are more important? I don't get it at all.

I get the idea that, in an ideal world, all children would live with two, loving biological parents. Is that an argument to ban divorce?

Perhaps you could be clearer. Baraka's points seem perfectly clear to me and respond directly to what you are saying. Maybe what you are saying is not what you mean?

 

the senkaku dispute is not going to lead to war.
but i can imagine republicans who are watching the surreal follies of the romney campaign wishing for something like that to happen tho, figuring perhaps it will save them from themselves.
but hey, maybe the right's campaign of voter suppression and gerrymandering will result in another period of sustained republican obstruction of anything and everything the quite centrist obama administration tries to do. like the jobs-for-veterans bill that senate republicans managed to scuttle.
there's an achievement for your side, ace.

obviously, what's important are your incoherent views in favor of discrimination against a population based on who they choose to love.

 

There is no ideal. No broad perspective where a child brought up in a home with both his male and female parent is better off than one brought up in a home with his grandparents, or a single parent, or a gay couple. That is just bullshit.

The recipe is not dependent upon what spoons are used to stir it. It depends on the ingredients that go into it. Love, discipline, and affection are the key ingredients and they are not in the sole ownership of natural parents.

To say that natural parents are somehow an ideal naturally places other parental scenarios on a lower rung. Your defense of marriage between a man and a woman as the best way to raise a child virtually insults not only gay couples but all adults out there raising a child who may not be of their own conception but who they are bringing up in a loving and nurturing environment.

Surely you know some, Ace as well as knowing natural parents who are fucking up their kids on a daily basis.

 

Another red hearing. A father is a father. A mother is a mother. Perhaps it would be just as easy for people to read what I write.

I understand you have not been engaged in this exchange from the beginning. I made it clear I have no objection to gay marriage. In fact my views are more liberal (libertarian) on these types of questions than most everyone I know. I don't care if a 80 year-old woman wants to marry her dog. My position is clear - others are conflating issues.

 

Context - there are ideals. Some have ideals governed by their faith, again that may or may not be driven by intolerance or hate. Even you have ideals. Most humans recognize we often do not live up to our ideals, but still strive for them. That is why I am optimistic about the future. I feel sorry for those who do not have the capacity for this optimism. In the context of same-sex marriage the US has been trending toward a more ideal state on this question. I do understand it is not happening fast enough for some. and even President Obama has evolved, since May of this year.
--- merged: Sep 20, 2012 at 4:19 PM ---

I used the term military conflict. There has already been fleet movement. Tensions are mounting. President Obama is MIA as usual - is he going to do SNL or get a security briefing - hard choice. Your focus is on Romney's skin tone.
--- merged: Sep 20, 2012 at 4:22 PM ---

If you don't understand my point there is nothing I can do at this point to help clarify it. If you don't understand the unique role of a man and a woman in propagating the species...

 

The one where both a father and mother gives a shit about their children. If your ideal, is a world of anonymous sperm/egg donors as a norm we disagree. And to be clear this is a point that has nothing to do with being gay or not - gay people generally have functional reproductive organs.

 

Oh God I didn't want to do it but.....It's red "herring"

Well, I was talking ideal as in "an ideal situation" and don't understand what living up to our ideals and the capacity for optimism has to do with the context of what was being discussed.

A biological mother and father, living together and raising their own offspring is the ideal situation in terms of raising children. That is what I'm assuming you are saying.

I disagree but am sure that Mitt Romney doesn't.

 

how about that romney campaign? not so pretty to talk about it, is it?

so we have a pissing match over uninhabited islands between china and japan, which neither government has the slightest interest in allowing to escalate into a way, and ace would prefer some neo-con dick-waving...that speaks to an understanding of international politics as half-assed as your idiotic defense(s?) of homophobia.