Politics Romney - Is he ready?

Some thoughts from the right wing "family values" base:

"...one of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the 'prophets' of a new sexual order." - Family Research Council​

"This is another attempt by the homosexual lobby to indoctrinate children as young as kindergarten in the homosexual lifestyle. Young people who are sexually confused need the facts about homosexuality. They need to know that research shows they aren't `born gay,' that there is hope for a way out of the lifestyle, and that continuing in homosexuality presents serious health risks.." - Family Research Council​

“As with smoking, homosexual behavior’s ‘second hand’ effects threaten public health.” - American Family Association​

“Homosexuality is not only harmful to homosexuals themselves, but also to children and to society.” - American Family Association​

​

“There is an overwhelming correlation between homosexual preference and pedophilia. This is further evidence that homosexuality is in fact sexual deviancy. For this reason alone, no homosexual should be elevated to the United States Supreme Court.” - American Family Association​

​

Same sex marriage will only increase sexual confusion in children and encourage dangerous sexual experimentation among the nation's youth." - American Family Association​

​

​

 

Honestly, I'd prefer gay men raising the next generation than right wing radical Republicans.

 

As long as they're lawyers first.

 

Guys, I'm like 20 miles from San Francisco. I hate going there. You know why? Semen. Everything is coated with warm, glistening man-semen. I don't know how they keep it from drying. Frankly, it makes me queasy. But that's what the gays do when they are recognized as human beings with the same rights as the rest of us. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike gays. Some of my favorite TV shows have gay characters. Still, you give 'em an inch, they're going to coat it in semen.

 

It's far from clear to me, or to others on this thread. Rather than guess, I'm asking what it is.

 

It's the constant temptation posed by the idea of men fucking other men.

"Please dear fucking God don't legitimize it lest I find myself unable to resist and sweet rapture be as easy to indulge in as a hot dog at Coney Island."

 

vanilla troll pudding sans vanilla

 

well, one thing is sure. romney's campaign is a giant pile of steaming shit at this point.
ace has turned yet another thread into a thread about ace and his questionable grip on logic.
it's certainly easier than talking about the steaming pile of shit that is the romney campaign.

 

I didn't know the market traded on such things.

Doesn't look good for Romney.
Intrade - Mitt Romney to be elected President in 2012

 

Note I said "their" Christian intolerance. "Their" constituting "those" who hold such views. Had I the intent of castigating an entire population I would have said:

It's just another cover for Christian intolerance.

And even expressed ^this way does not castigate all Christians but only the intolerant ones.

And yes, I've had many long discussions on the topic with Christians. Some are more open-minded than others on the subject of same-sex marriage and parenting. Much like non-Christians, really. I don't believe all anti-gay or anti-gay lite thought dwells solely in the minds of the religious, though I do think those that are most fervent in their opposition to homosexuality have religious motivations.

 

since most people seem to be equating Mitt's campaign with a steaming pile of poo - this seems more than appropriate



yes, you can actually buy this.

 

Someone forgot to tell those framers who, in their writings, were opposed to having a bill of rights for concern that by only enumerating some rights, those not identified might be be in danger.

 

What I find so bizarre, particularly coming from R Paul and his bots, is the anti-libertarian notion that the only (protected) rights that the framers intended for "we the people" are those specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

It goes against everything the framers like Jefferson believed in and wrote about earlier...."the inalienable rights..of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness."

Or perhaps you think Jefferson pulled a Romney-like flip flop between the time of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

 

agreed, which is probably why the 9th amendment was thrown in there to make sure.

that's why it's funny to see liberals construe the 2nd to imply it was only intendd for law enforcement, the military, or possibly hunting for the average citizen. if they could only read down to the 9th, let alone the founders writings.
--- merged: Sep 21, 2012 5:06 PM ---

i haven't really seen much of this, possibly from some of the conservative GOP type people that he picked up on his 2nd run. most of the ron paul crowd is ok with gay marriage and abortion. the state should really have no say in marriage what so ever. it's a religious ceremony and the only role of government should be to enforce a contract between two mutually agreeing parties regardless of gender.

 

So it does sound like you think Jefferson was a flip flopper and unless a right is specified in the Bill of Rights, it can never be a protected right, even if he thought earlier that rights were inalienable.

R Paul does not believe that consensual sex among two men in the privacy of their bedroom is a protected right..or married couples having access to contraception....or any person having access to public (but privately owned) facilities...or a woman's right over her own body.

 

well maybe he was. i think i made it clear the 9th covers unenumerated rights.

wrong, i have no idea where you got this idea.

having a right to something and having totally paved access by government to said right is a different story. by your definition the government should provide everyone a gun since the 2nd amendment is a right, or news paper access for free speech, or money for education. just because i have the right to own a house, a car, or anything for that matter doesn't mean the government has the duty to provide it. i know this what leftists/statists feel a right actually is though.

 

You are stumbling all over yourself.. I said nothing about government proving anything other than a right to privacy....( inalienable right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness)

Paul's position on state sodomy laws (he said the Texas law in the Lawrence case may be stupid but not unconstitutional) or state laws that prohibited married couples from having contraception (Connecticut law in Griswald case) is that these are not protected rights because the Constitution does not specifically include "privacy" as a right.