Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of particular interest was the following quote from the article:
Quote:
Addressing another issue of concern to conservative voters, Rep. Ron Paul said he opposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage because he didn't believe it was a federal issue.
"This should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they're economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that's already in the dictionary. We do know what marriage is about," Paul said.
But Romney said that he supports a federal ban because he comes from a state that has gay marriage and knows "the consequences of gay marriage fall far beyond just the relationship between a man and a woman. They also relate to our kids and the right of religion to be practiced freely in a society."
What a load of bunk!
A. What the heck does gay marriage have to do with the right of religion to be practiced freely in society? If a church is against same-sex marriage, fine - be against it. Don't conduct same-sex marriages. But don't tell me that legalizing it is somehow going to infringe on the free exercise of religion.
B. The consequences of heterosexual marriage can be just as devastating to children when those kids are in homes with parents that are constantly fighting, or end up divorcing one another.
A. What the heck does gay marriage have to do with the right of religion to be practiced freely in society? If a church is against same-sex marriage, fine - be against it. Don't conduct same-sex marriages. But don't tell me that legalizing it is somehow going to infringe on the free exercise of religion.
B. The consequences of heterosexual marriage can be just as devastating to children when those kids are in homes with parents that are constantly fighting, or end up divorcing one another.
Well, I'm not sure what Romney had in mind, but I can offer an educated guess:
A. The gay rights lobby aggressively opposes all expressions of disapproval of homosexuality in society, regardless of the motive or of who's expressing it. Gay agitators have been successful in establishing such censorship in Canada, where people whose words offend gays are prosecuted and fined. Their counterparts on this side of the border get away with as much of the same as they can, and they keep pushing the envelope. In California, for example, homosexual activists have successfully lobbied the legislature to forbid the use of the words "mother" and "father" in public schools. The granting of legal status to same-sex unions confers official approval on homosexuality and it greatly elevates its status in society. The more prestige homosexuality has, the more likely gays are to get their way in matters of law. The abridgement of free speech and of the free exercise of religion in the name of anti-discrimination is most likely what Romney is referring to.
B. Regarding Romney’s statement that the consequences of gay marriage “relate to our kids,” he may simply be referring to how children view homosexuality. Again, the granting of legal status to gay unions confers official approval on homosexuality and it elevates its status in society. Children are likely to view whatever behavior receives social approval as an option for themselves and they are especially likely to mimic fashionable, "trendy" behavior, and many parents simply do not want to see their children become homosexuals, bisexuals, "try-sexuals," or what have you.
Again, these are just my guesses and Romney can certainly speak for himself, but I doubt if this explanation is far off the mark.
So... you're saying gay people are simply participating in behavior because its 'trendy'?
Children are taught to have negative feelings of homosexuals by their parents... teaching them about gay people in a non-partisan way isn't doing them a disservice. It will help them understand a large part of our society.
Also, very few people 'become' homosexual: they are born that way.
I know these aren't your thoughts, and simply what you think Romney would say... but I'd still like to address these points, in case anyone does agree with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellinghamite
Well, I'm not sure what Romney had in mind, but I can offer an educated guess:
A. The gay rights lobby aggressively opposes all expressions of disapproval of homosexuality in society, regardless of the motive or of who's expressing it. Gay agitators have been successful in establishing such censorship in Canada, where people whose words offend gays are prosecuted and fined.
So they think it's a GOOD thing for churches to offend and hurt other people?? Mmkay. But regardless of what the "gay agitators" or supporters do about hate speech, it still doesn't stop a church from only performing straight weddings... they are protected, and have the right to do as they please.
Quote:
Their counterparts on this side of the border get away with as much of the same as they can, and they keep pushing the envelope. In California, for example, homosexual activists have successfully lobbied the legislature to forbid the use of the words "mother" and "father" in public schools.
I've worked in & with California public schools, and don't know much (anything, really) about this legislation. But as somebody who's worked in schools & libraries, I TOTALLY appreciate the problems in using "mother and father" with children... and believe it or not, the main issue has nothing to do with gay families, since those are rare even here in San Francisco. The reason we typically use neutral terms (like parent or guardian) is due to the variety of family structures, including step-parents, grandparents/relatives raising kids, adoption, single parents, and so forth. It's quite embarrassing when you tell a child to have their dad sign something, and they reply that they don't have one.
Quote:
The granting of legal status to same-sex unions confers official approval on homosexuality and it greatly elevates its status in society. The more prestige homosexuality has, the more likely gays are to get their way in matters of law.
So what?? Gay people are still humans, who live and work in this country, and pay taxes (actually more than straight people overall) just like the rest of us... so why SHOULDN'T they "get their way" in their country's laws? Whatever happened to "All men are created equal" and that pesky stuff in the Constitution? You know, this argument sounds eerily like the arguments against women's rights, civil rights for Blacks/minorities, and so forth. I bet if I looked up some old articles from the '60s and '20s, I'd find pretty much the same words. Sorry, but I don't think straight people should have the market on equal rights.
Oh, and to answer the thread's original question, I don't know or care! I'm serious about that, since I honestly haven't followed anything about the Republican candidates... can't even really tell who's who, aside from Giuliani - who I actually kinda like, but that's not surprising considering his liberal views. I'm not going to vote that way, so I will concentrate on my candidates, whom I still haven't made a clear decision on. Personally, I think this whole election is going to become a real circus! Should be interesting, and possibly frightening, to watch.
So... you're saying gay people are simply participating in behavior because its 'trendy'?
Children are taught to have negative feelings of homosexuals by their parents... teaching them about gay people in a non-partisan way isn't doing them a disservice. It will help them understand a large part of our society.
Also, very few people 'become' homosexual: they are born that way.
I'm offering an educated guess as to what Mitt Romney--or his speechwriters--may be thinking. And it's highly questionable just how sincere Romney's stance on this issue is, since he seems to have changed his position as soon as he threw his hat into the presidential bullring.
Regarding your comments, I can't say they line up well with what I know.
My own parents certanly never taught me to "have negative feelings of homosexuals." Most people I know, in fact, are generally, if not completely, accepting of gays. Some of the religious people I've known consider homosexual behavior sinful, but a majority of them have no discernable onus against homosexuals as people; they just object to their sexual behavior. Almost all of these folks are evangelical Christians. Since persons of that persuation comprise only about a fourth of the U.S. population, it's hard for me to imagine that their attitudes are typical.
While I've known a number of people I think probably emerged from the womb with a predisposition to homosexual attraction, such people certainly don't account for all of the homosexual behavior that goes on. A woman I know who finished high school in the early 1990s expressed to me on several occasions a desire to experiment with lesbian behavior. When I asked her why, she explained that she'd become interested in it because so many of her classmates had been doing it. This surprised me, as I had finished high school only seven years before she did, and such behavior was unthinkable to my classmates. This is quite a change to have taken place in less than a decade, and it's caused me to wonder just how "non-partisan" the teaching about about this subject really is in schools.
In college I majored in eduction and did what they call a "field experience" at a high school. My field of pedagogy had nothing to do with social science or psychology, though, so the classroom instruction didn't touch at all on issues of sexuality. In one after-class conversation, however, a middle-aged teacher I worked with commented on the changes he'd seen in adolescent behavior over the years. One change that he found remarkable was the much greater incidence of bisexuality among today's youth than there used to be. He didn't appear to object to it, it was just something he'd noticed.
How did this change occur? I suspect it has a lot to do with the now commonplace positive portrayals of homosexuality in the media, particularly in programming aimed at adolescents ("Dawson's Creek," "Degrassi," "How I Met Your Mother," etc.) MTV, for its part, glamorizes sex generally, and it consistently bashes and ridicules anti-homosexuality. In fact, about the only time I ever see opposition to homosexuality presented on television without any stigma attached to it is on religious programs. In motion pictures, the "gay is ok" message is presentedly even more aggressively than it is on TV.
All this is on purpose, too, I've discovered. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen's 1990 book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s is very enlightening. These two gay activitsts described in this work how homosexuals planned to push Hollywood in an aggressively pro-gay direction, and with as many homosexual screenwriters and actors as Hollywood has, I don't imagine it was a difficult sell.
Even more revealing is the magazine article that Kirk co-wrote with Erastes Pill in 1987, "The Overhauling of Straight America." It outlines gay activists' mostly covert campaign to first desensitize Americans to homosexuality, then create sympathy for homosexuals while making gays look good and opponents of homosexuality look as bad as possible. It's very manipulative, and in practice it's been very effective. With gay activists having almost no political enemies in the major mass media and many allies, the media have usually complied with their wishes. So effective has this campaign been that no matter who you are, you've probably been affected by it, and probably unwittingly.
Undoubtedly many of the people who have been influential in leading Mitt Romney to the position he now takes on homosexual marriage are aware of such things, hence my educated guess.
The abridgement of free speech and of the free exercise of religion in the name of anti-discrimination is most likely what Romney is referring to.
Your posts in this thread were very well brought out, Bellinghamite... I have seen this, and as a "fundamental" Christian, I know that there will be a spiritual battle ahead and a severe testing of faith..which I don't think any of us here can imagine. Exactly like you put it... "abridgement of free exercise in religion in the name of anti-discrimination". Oh no, "our Constitutional rights of freedom of religion will never be taken away", but... "anti-discrimination" will trump that. It's inevitable.
In California, for example, homosexual activists have successfully lobbied the legislature to forbid the use of the words "mother" and "father" in public schools.
I'm not sure what this has to do with religious expression. Nor am I familiar with this legislation, its implications and how it has been upheld, but I think it's a great idea. When I was in public school, the words "mother" and "father" were never used on official documents, only "parent(s)/guardian(s)". And that's for a very good reason - the majority of kids today don't have a family consisting of both one mother and one father. Overhauling terminology usage has little to do with gay rights, regardless of who may have lobbied for its furthering in the legislature.
The problem comes from some members of social, religious and political organizations who decry such advancements in society as some sort of prohibition on their parts.
Quote:
The granting of legal status to same-sex unions confers official approval on homosexuality and it greatly elevates its status in society. The more prestige homosexuality has, the more likely gays are to get their way in matters of law.
I am partially in accordance here, but it is important to recognize that the amount of respect that we (GLBTQ) receive de jure (if you will) rises equally with the amount of respect we receive de facto, from friends and family members. For instance, most of the gay people and gay-friends (for lack of a better term, lol) here that I know refer to marriage and husband/wife instead of civil union (well, actually, we don't even have that here in TN) or partner. Increased societal approval of gay people and gay marriage doesn't necessarily hinge on official recognition, but often legal sanctioning of changes in the institution of marriage et. al. do hinge on societal recognition.
But beyond that, I don't understand what "getting our way" in matters of law means. I do understand the point you were making (for Romney ), but I think that the word choice was poor. After all, we are only pursuing that which the heterosexual community already has.
I'm not sure what this has to do with religious expression. Nor am I familiar with this legislation, its implications and how it has been upheld, but I think it's a great idea. When I was in public school, the words "mother" and "father" were never used on official documents, only "parent(s)/guardian(s)". And that's for a very good reason - the majority of kids today don't have a family consisting of both one mother and one father. Overhauling terminology usage has little to do with gay rights, regardless of who may have lobbied for its furthering in the legislature.
The problem comes from some members of social, religious and political organizations who decry such advancements in society as some sort of prohibition on their parts.
I am partially in accordance here, but it is important to recognize that the amount of respect that we (GLBTQ) receive de jure (if you will) rises equally with the amount of respect we receive de facto, from friends and family members. For instance, most of the gay people and gay-friends (for lack of a better term, lol) here that I know refer to marriage and husband/wife instead of civil union (well, actually, we don't even have that here in TN) or partner. Increased societal approval of gay people and gay marriage doesn't necessarily hinge on official recognition, but often legal sanctioning of changes in the institution of marriage et. al. do hinge on societal recognition.
But beyond that, I don't understand what "getting our way" in matters of law means. I do understand the point you were making (for Romney ), but I think that the word choice was poor. After all, we are only pursuing that which the heterosexual community already has.
Well said. Funny how equal rights gets translated to prestige or special rights.
And really -- this whole argument about equal rights for gays infringing on Christians rights to practice religion is a fear tactic being used to rile people.
Well said. Funny how equal rights gets translated to prestige or special rights..
Well, one thing I can tell you for sure is that those who oppose gay marriage do not view homosexuality as "equal" to heterosexuality--and that's an understatement. For many of them, it's not less good, it's downright bad, and it deserves no equal status.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorytampa
And really -- this whole argument about equal rights for gays infringing on Christians rights to practice religion is a fear tactic being used to rile people.
That's probably true to a point. However, there are penalties in certain locales--and at certain businesses--for expressing disapproval of homosexuality. Express disapproval of Christianity, however, and it's highly unlikely you'll face any penalty. Does that not look a bit like "special rights?"
We never hear about gays speaking out against the official censorship of religious opposition to homosexuality where such censorship exists, either. This makes it look like they approve of the prosecutions and fining of Christians for practicing this particular aspect of their religion (and here I'm thinking specifically of Philadelphia and Canada, in case you're wondering.) If gays really think it's okay to classify the quotation of Bible passages that condemn homosexual behavior as "hate speech" and then enact laws to punish it, then are Christians really just being riled by a "fear tactic?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But regardless of what the "gay agitators" or supporters do about hate speech, it still doesn't stop a church from only performing straight weddings... they are protected, and have the right to do as they please.
I'm serious about that, since I honestly haven't followed anything about the Republican candidates... can't even really tell who's who, aside from Giuliani - who I actually kinda like, but that's not surprising considering his liberal views. 
