GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney offered his take on gay marriage:

Here's a partial transcript of what he said when asked what he would say to a gay couple that wants to get married:
"For those who are not familiar with it, of the four nationally leading candidates for president -- and I count myself as one of those, but also Mayor (Rudy) Giuliani, and Sen. (John) McCain and (former Sen.) Fred Thompson -- there's only one of us who's in favor of a federal amendment to the constitution to limit marriage to the relationship between a man and a woman. And that's me."

"I feel very strongly about this because, as I said earlier, I believe that maintaining the strength of the marriage relationship, the family relationship, is critical to the strength of an entire society."

"And I believe that the development of children is enhanced by having a male and a female as part of their upbringing in their home. Even when there's a divorce, you still have a mom and a dad. And even where one member of the partnership may pass away, the memory and the characteristics of that gender, of that partner influence the development of a child."

"I'm in favor of promoting, as a society, the marriage of men and women and the development of children in that kind of setting."

(Sprenglemeyer (http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/sprengelmeyer/archives/2007/11/flavor_of_the_day.html#more))

Reaction so far has been fairly definitive:

• "... as he described in Iowa Thursday, kids would be better off having straight parents who are dead than two dude or two chick parents who are living." (Jim Newell, Wonkette (http://wonkette.com/politics/mitt-romney/romney-adds-death-aspect-to-gay-marriage-debate-318188.php))

• "There's more -- MUCH MORE -- including Romney's lengthy statement about why he thinks all kids need a father and mother (even if they're divorced or one of them is dead)." (Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News (http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/sprengelmeyer/archives/2007/11/flavor_of_the_day.html))

• "One dead parent is better than two gay ones. Praise Jeebus." (JoeMyGod (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2007/11/phoboquotable-mitt-romney.html))

• "So… kids are better off with one dead parent—or, hey, two dead parents—than two gay parents." (Savage, Slog (http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/latter_day_douchebag))

• "Romney didn't used to be so callous about same-sex parents or the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender population. He used to like us." (Birkey, Minnesota Monitor (http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2704))

The funny thing is that I joke that Mitt is the GOP's foremost closet homosexual. Style, tube-steaks, vanilla steamers, and a ferocious need for everyone to know that he is the most homophobic candidate, even if that means forgetting about Huckabee at least.

And when I mention the old phrase, "Better dead than red," it's usually to jokingly wonder what's happened to American (red-state) conservatives. So when Mitt says, "Better dead than gay," I'm wondering if when the GOP is finally coming out of the closet.

• • •

A note on edit: Before conservatives shed tears and fury over the fact that I did not equally represent conservative analysis of Romney's statement, it's because I haven't come across it yet. So if you're one of those who feels like complaining, and you know where some conservative analysis is, why not post it instead of dwelling on how much your feelings are hurt that I don't give the GOP and conservatives the benefit of affirmative action?

Oh, I'm sorry, did that paragraph hurt your feelings?

There's nothing more heart rending than a trolling gook.

Sadly this may be sufficient to get him the conservative vote; he's obviously trying to make amends for being a Mormon

Sadly this may be sufficient to get him the conservative vote; he's obviously trying to make amends for being a Mormon

Well, the tough talk, certainly, is a pitch to the GOP base. Especially since this is actually a policy flip for him. (See Minnesota Monitor (http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2704).)

But the basic cruelty and hatred? Pure LDS.

Lds?

Lds?

The word "Mormon" is actually inappropriate in a certain way that I'm not prepared to accurately explain. The official name of the operation is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

i think romney is a dick

I guess you're not voting for him then?

I guess you're not voting for him then?

what have it away?

i think romney is a dick

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call him a tube steak?

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call him a tube steak?

perhaps but it wouldn't make feel as warm and fuzzy inside

perhaps but it wouldn't make feel as warm and fuzzy inside

Entendre, please. Double. Straight up.

:bravo:

Entendre, please. Double. Straight up.

:bravo:

did i say something funny? i wasn't really try to be all that humorous. i was going for cute

did i say something funny?

Well, you got both cute and funny. Essential points:

• SUBJECT: Mitt Romney
• CROSS-REFERENCE: Closet homosexual
• DOUBLE ENTENDRE: "... feel as warm and fuzzy inside."

Said Milo Binkley to Oliver Jones, "Who's gonna rock me to sleep tonight?!"

What? 'Tis true, though, that you don't feel as much of the fuzzy inside.

sweet

GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney offered his take on gay marriage:



Reaction so far has been fairly definitive:

• "... as he described in Iowa Thursday, kids would be better off having straight parents who are dead than two dude or two chick parents who are living." (Jim Newell, Wonkette (http://wonkette.com/politics/mitt-romney/romney-adds-death-aspect-to-gay-marriage-debate-318188.php))

• "There's more -- MUCH MORE -- including Romney's lengthy statement about why he thinks all kids need a father and mother (even if they're divorced or one of them is dead)." (Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News (http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/sprengelmeyer/archives/2007/11/flavor_of_the_day.html))

• "One dead parent is better than two gay ones. Praise Jeebus." (JoeMyGod (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2007/11/phoboquotable-mitt-romney.html))

• "So… kids are better off with one dead parent—or, hey, two dead parents—than two gay parents." (Savage, Slog (http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/11/latter_day_douchebag))

• "Romney didn't used to be so callous about same-sex parents or the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender population. He used to like us." (Birkey, Minnesota Monitor (http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2704))

The funny thing is that I joke that Mitt is the GOP's foremost closet homosexual. Style, tube-steaks, vanilla steamers, and a ferocious need for everyone to know that he is the most homophobic candidate, even if that means forgetting about Huckabee at least.

And when I mention the old phrase, "Better dead than red," it's usually to jokingly wonder what's happened to American (red-state) conservatives. So when Mitt says, "Better dead than gay," I'm wondering if when the GOP is finally coming out of the closet.

• • •

A note on edit: Before conservatives shed tears and fury over the fact that I did not equally represent conservative analysis of Romney's statement, it's because I haven't come across it yet. So if you're one of those who feels like complaining, and you know where some conservative analysis is, why not post it instead of dwelling on how much your feelings are hurt that I don't give the GOP and conservatives the benefit of affirmative action?

Oh, I'm sorry, did that paragraph hurt your feelings?

And note that nowhere in Romney's justification for his position does he say why being against gay marriage will increase the prevalence of what he considers a normal family. Does he think the gays will get frustrated and, being more attached to the idea of marriage than their gayness go straight, or pretend to be straight? Does he think that straight people will see gay marriages and decide not to get married?

Oh, I'm sorry, did that paragraph hurt your feelings?

No, Tiassa,not me. But your continuing, never-ceasing sensationalist rhetoric and anti-anything propaganda is expressly intended to hurt the feelings of those who don't share the same beliefs.

Just curious, Tiassa, would you really want everyone on Earth to beleive exactly as you do?

Baron Max

CCRs don't care. We don't love him either. With all his liberal behavior in MA, we don't trust him. He is the most "presidential" of ALL the candidates, but his Mormonism will hurt him more than any of his past liberal stunts.

I think you're preaching to nobody. We don't care.

No, Tiassa,not me.

Oh, what a relief. Your recent tantrums had me worried there for a moment.

:rolleyes:

I think you're preaching to nobody. We don't care.

Your consideration for non-Christians is strikingly repugnant.

but his Mormonism will hurt him more than any of his past liberal stunts

Please realize how absolutely silly Christians sound when fighting among themselves about who gets to be in the club.

You're grasping at straws here. Most non-Christians don't care either. Romney is not their enemy.
Mormons aren't even in the same ballpark as born-again Christians. Apples and oranges.

You're grasping at straws here. Most non-Christians don't care either. Romney is not their enemy.
Mormons aren't even in the same ballpark as born-again Christians. Apples and oranges.

what mormons are just as nutty as alot of born again christians

We don't believe in the same things. Born-again Christians make Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior and believe in the trinity.

Mormons believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon into English by divine inspiration from golden plates that he received from the angel "Moroni". They believe in the book of Mormon while born-agains believe in the Bible. Mormons allow adultry, polygamy, etc...:(

Mormonism is a "restoration" of the earliest Christian and Judaic doctrines. Those doctrines don't NEED restoring. :(

There is NO comparison between Christians and Mormons.

We don't believe in the same things. Born-again Christians make Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior and believe in the trinity.

Mormons believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon into English by divine inspiration from golden plates that he received from the angel "Moroni". They believe in the book of Mormon while born-agains believe in the Bible. Mormons allow adultry, polygamy, etc...:(

Mormonism is a "restoration" of the earliest Christian and Judaic doctrines. Those doctrines don't NEED restoring. :(

There is NO comparison between Christians and Mormons.

and in no way shape or form have you refuted my comment that mormons are just as nuts as born again christians

Mormons aren't even in the same ballpark as born-again Christians. Apples and oranges.

And? Born-agains aren't in the same league as Catholics, yet they call themselves Christians.

re: OP,

it's astounding how liberals just pounced on what he said and collectively either didn't get it, or decided to twist his words in the same way. do you all suffer from the same mental disorder? or did you have a conference call before you decided to twist his words into something else and then condemn THAT?

the response is so stupid it isn't even worth conservatives' time to respond to.

re: OP,

it's astounding how liberals just pounced on what he said and collectively either didn't get it, or decided to twist his words in the same way. do you all suffer from the same mental disorder? or did you have a conference call before you decided to twist his words into something else and then condemn THAT?

the response is so stupid it isn't even worth conservatives' time to respond to.

or you could understand that we understand what he meant and are correctly using that and it is you who are misunderstanding

or you could understand that we understand what he meant and are correctly using that and it is you who are misunderstanding

i doubt that. i'm conservative (on some things) so i understand him better than a paranoid liberal would.

better dead than gay? give me a freakin' break

it's astounding how liberals just pounced on what he said and collectively either didn't get it, or decided to twist his words in the same way.

It's a convenient comeback, isn't it, Otheadp? "It isn't even worth responding to." Yet you're apparently wrong. It's worth responding to in order to denounce it and say it's wrong, but it's not worth actually making the point.

Perhaps you could answer a question, then?

"And I believe that the development of children is enhanced by having a male and a female as part of their upbringing in their home. Even when there's a divorce, you still have a mom and a dad. And even where one member of the partnership may pass away, the memory and the characteristics of that gender, of that partner influence the development of a child."

"I'm in favor of promoting, as a society, the marriage of men and women and the development of children in that kind of setting."

(Mitt Romney (http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/sprengelmeyer/archives/2007/11/flavor_of_the_day.html))

What, exactly, does that have to do, then, with the question of what he would say to a gay couple that wants to get married?

Really, if it's so easy to see, why not help liberals see the light instead of leaving them out in ignorance?

We don't believe in the same things. Born-again Christians make Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior and believe in the trinity.

Mormons believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon into English by divine inspiration from golden plates that he received from the angel "Moroni". They believe in the book of Mormon while born-agains believe in the Bible. Mormons allow adultry, polygamy, etc...:(

Mormonism is a "restoration" of the earliest Christian and Judaic doctrines. Those doctrines don't NEED restoring. :(

There is NO comparison between Christians and Mormons.

Thats a common misconception as you most likely know, Mormons do not allow polygamy or adultry, however there are very small splinter factions of their religion that do, surely you wouldnt say that because some "christians" burn crosses and drag minorities behind trucks that all christians do? Is it cold up there..on your pedistal?

he is talking about the positive lasting effect that having a normal set of parents leaves on an individual. that once a child grows in that environment and then something happens to one parent, that child still grows up "normal" -- (here's an opportunity for you to cry about that particular evil term :))

if you have the same child grow up with gay "parents" and then something happens to one "parent", then the child won't be as "normal" -- i.e. the only variable here is normal parents vs. gay "parents". all else being equal.

it's not about wanting to kill all homosexuals, as the name of this thread implies, or about better not having any parents at all than homosexual ones.

here's an opportunity for you to cry about that particular evil term

Well, since he's already guided by imaginary concepts, why complain about this one?

In the meantime--

the response is so stupid it isn't even worth conservatives' time to respond to.

--thank you for the shot of irony.

And I'll even do you the courtesy of wasting my time on you: You've created an incredibly convoluted explanation to represent an idea he could have easily expressed more simply and directly. At what point does Romney invoke normalcy? He doesn't.

In other words--

"And I believe that the development of children is enhanced by having a male and a female as part of their upbringing in their home. Even when there's a divorce, you still have a mom and a dad. And even where one member of the partnership may pass away, the memory and the characteristics of that gender, of that partner influence the development of a child."

--because those characteristics will continue to influence the child, the child is better off with dead heterosexual parents than living homosexual parents.

Better dead than gay.

if you stretch it, i mean if you REALLY stretch it, then it could mean what you say it means. which by the way is an opinion many people hold in America (and i don't 100% disagree with it).

my understanding of his words is as i described in my previous post.

my understanding of his words is as i described in my previous post.

I understand that some perspectives do require additional material in order to silence critical elements distressing to the conscience. Romney does not invoke normalcy. "Normal" is your insertion. What Romney does discuss:

• The family relationship is important to our society
• Children develop better with heterosexual parents--even when those parents are absent--than with homosexual parents
• As president, he would promote heterosexual marriage because that kind of setting (e.g. absent heterosexual parent) is better than having homosexual parents in a stable home.

It's a series of assertions that have nothing to do with normal. They have to do with better and worse. Society is better off with orphaned and abandoned children than those loved and nurtured by heterosexual parents.

So think about that. Think about the woman who drank herself into such a blackout that two of her three children (in the home; she had previously lost custody of four older children) died of neglect (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003974701_webrobinson25m.html) while the father was in jail.

According to Romney, those kids were (are) better off than if their parents had been intelligent, secure, attentive, compassionate, loving, and gay.

And that's absolutely absurd. Nobody should die that way. No child should die that way. Especially within arm's reach of both mother and sustenance. But hey, at least she wasn't gay.

I understand that some perspectives do require additional material in order to silence critical elements distressing to the conscience. Romney does not invoke normalcy. "Normal" is your insertion. What Romney does discuss:

• The family relationship is important to our society
• Children develop better with heterosexual parents--even when those parents are absent--than with homosexual parents
• As president, he would promote heterosexual marriage because that kind of setting (e.g. absent heterosexual parent) is better than having homosexual parents in a stable home.

It's a series of assertions that have nothing to do with normal. They have to do with better and worse. Society is better off with orphaned and abandoned children than those loved and nurtured by heterosexual parents.

So think about that. Think about the woman who drank herself into such a blackout that two of her three children (in the home; she had previously lost custody of four older children) died of neglect (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003974701_webrobinson25m.html) while the father was in jail.

According to Romney, those kids were (are) better off than if their parents had been intelligent, secure, attentive, compassionate, loving, and gay.

And that's absolutely absurd. Nobody should die that way. No child should die that way. Especially within arm's reach of both mother and sustenance. But hey, at least she wasn't gay.

2 points:
1) your third assertion "better than having homosexual parents in a stable home" is not what he asserts. he asserts that a homosexual couple is by definition not a stable home.
2) you compare the worst case of a heterosexual couple (mom's on drugs, dad's in jail) to the best case of a homosexual couple (stable, loving, nurturing, etc.)

that's not a fair comparisson. wouldn't you agree? and Romney's comparisson was not so extreme, even though he did make the hypothetical heterosexual couple more dysfunctional than the homosexual one.

1) your third assertion "better than having homosexual parents in a stable home" is not what he asserts. he asserts that a homosexual couple is by definition not a stable home.

Okay. I'll overlook the word "enhanced" and run with your take on this one. It's equally repugnant and serves my point well enough. I mean, regardless of what people might believe according to a survey result, such an assertion is actually incorrect.

2) you compare the worst case of a heterosexual couple (mom's on drugs, dad's in jail) to the best case of a homosexual couple (stable, loving, nurturing, etc.)

Well, I can work back from the worst-case scenario to something pretty damn normal. I just didn't think you'd stopped to look at what he was implying.

that's not a fair comparisson. wouldn't you agree?

It's perfectly fair. Romney made the statement, did not draw any boundaries to exclude such a situation. The comparison I made is well within the breadth of Romney's statement.

and Romney's comparisson was not so extreme, even though he did make the hypothetical heterosexual couple more dysfunctional than the homosexual one

Romney's comparison would be funny if we weren't expected to take him seriously. The argument contradicts itself so hard:

"I feel very strongly about this because, as I said earlier, I believe that maintaining the strength of the marriage relationship, the family relationship, is critical to the strength of an entire society."

"And I believe that the development of children is enhanced by having a male and a female as part of their upbringing in their home. Even when there's a divorce, you still have a mom and a dad. And even where one member of the partnership may pass away, the memory and the characteristics of that gender, of that partner influence the development of a child."

"I'm in favor of promoting, as a society, the marriage of men and women and the development of children in that kind of setting."

(Mitt Romney)

Marriage-divorce-marriage. Notice how he sandwiches divorce in between two mentions of marriage? It's a simple concept called primacy and recency. We're supposed to focus on the mentions of marriage. (If we include one more paragraph, it would go marriage-marriage-divorce-marriage.)

He wants to promote marriage because divorce has virtue? I mean, I realize that particular statement is odd, but what is the relationship between marriage and divorce in his argument?

Frankly, I think you're just having a normal internal conflict. I don't intend to f@ck with it. I've seen it happen about all sorts of things. In theory, you find the concept of "better dead than gay" repugnant, but are unwilling that Romney actually said it because in acknowledging the repugnance of the concept, you also face the possibility of conceding ground on a certain issue. You might agree with the political outcome he seeks, but don't like to include yourself alongside so disgusting an argument.

And if that's the case, I'll take it for now. We've got time. And any progress is encouraging.

It's perfectly fair. Romney made the statement, did not draw any boundaries to exclude such a situation. The comparison I made is well within the breadth of Romney's statement.

alright, let's run with that scenario (parents on drugs or in jail vs. homosexual stable couple). given the extremity of such a scenario (because typical parents are better than that, and typical homosexual couples are worse than perfect), the child will be better off with the homosexual "parents". i admit there will be a minority of children that will be worse off under Romney's vision.

however, we're working under the assumption that no solution is perfect. and the alternative, i.e. to entirely overlook the type of couple (hm are we talking about adoption here, or just raising kids?) that are raising the child, will hurt more children than under Romney's plan.

this is sort of like communism vs. capitalism. everybody suffers together more, or some suffer but less.

He wants to promote marriage because divorce has virtue? I mean, I realize that particular statement is odd, but what is the relationship between marriage and divorce in his argument?
you might be over-analyzing. divorce is a fact of life. he isn't encouraging it. he's recognizing that it exists regardless of what religion has to say about it.

I think you're just having a normal internal conflict
you bet i do. there is no simple sound-bite length answers to each of these questions. i can't endorce the outcome of having a child under the supervision of crackheads when the alternative is a non-crackhead homosexual couple. but that situation is not typical and i have to accept it as a potential consequence. just as in capitalism you have to accept that because of the laws of statistics there are bound to be some homeless people.

anyway, this discussion isn't even about adoption rights. it's about gay "marriage". it's only a piece of paper. gay couples already have the right to have kids and raise them in their homes with their partners. so this discussion is really moot.

alright, let's run with that scenario (parents on drugs or in jail vs. homosexual stable couple). given the extremity of such a scenario (because typical parents are better than that, and typical homosexual couples are worse than perfect), the child will be better off with the homosexual "parents". i admit there will be a minority of children that will be worse off under Romney's vision.

however, we're working under the assumption that no solution is perfect. and the alternative, i.e. to entirely overlook the type of couple (hm are we talking about adoption here, or just raising kids?) that are raising the child, will hurt more children than under Romney's plan.

Where and how, then, do we factor in the growing body of evidence suggesting that children of gay parents fare just as well as their peers who are raised by heterosexual parents and, in some cases, even better?

you might be over-analyzing. divorce is a fact of life. he isn't encouraging it. he's recognizing that it exists regardless of what religion has to say about it.

Well, divorce doesn't exist without marriage.

And remember, when one parent is "gone" because of the divorce, it's usually been ugly. So either the parents have fought over the kids, or one of the parents has simply up and abandoned the family. In either case, though, the kids are better off than having a stable home with loving parents who are gay.

just as in capitalism you have to accept that because of the laws of statistics there are bound to be some homeless people.

Property is robbery. Aside from that, I think I get what you're after there.

this discussion isn't even about adoption rights. it's about gay "marriage". it's only a piece of paper. gay couples already have the right to have kids and raise them in their homes with their partners

Did Romney disqualify adopted children from his consideration? I don't think so.

so this discussion is really moot

What an interesting exit strategy.

however, we're working under the assumption that no solution is perfect. and the alternative, i.e. to entirely overlook the type of couple (hm are we talking about adoption here, or just raising kids?) that are raising the child, will hurt more children than under Romney's plan. You seem to be assuming that married gay couples will be significantly more common than seriously dysfunctional straight ones (married and unmarried).

And that in married gay couples there will be no adequate straight role model for the average child.

And agreeing with Romney that a child raised with a straight parent dead or missing is presumptively better off than a child with two present gay parents.

Those are odd assumptions, both statistically and on grounds of reason. We might consider, for example, that possibly a higher proportion of gay couples' children will be adopted or otherwise refugee from heterosexual unions - and so the "extreme" situation you are willing to forego in this imperfect world is not presumptively all that rare.

We also note that none of those arguments actually pertain to forbidding gay marriage, as Romney proposes. Whatever the virtues or defects of straight marriage, there seems to be no obvious way gay marriage affects them. anyway, this discussion isn't even about adoption rights. it's about gay "marriage". it's only a piece of paper. Romney is proposing amending the Constitution of the United States over this deal. That's pretty big.

Property is robbery.
i knew you were on the socialist side but i had no idea you were a flat out commie :)

Where and how, then, do we factor in the growing body of evidence suggesting that children of gay parents fare just as well as their peers who are raised by heterosexual parents and, in some cases, even better?
some people might not consider what you call evidence as evidence. we can't really know. the real evidence will be seen in a few generations where it will show whether kids growing up with gay "parents" grew up with no emotional issues and were able to be good parents and grandparents themselves. right now it's all trends and speculation subject to the institutionalized pressure to present PC reports.

What an interesting exit strategy.
:)
ok so now i'm clear what we're really talking about -- gay adoption rights.

i knew you were on the socialist side but i had no idea you were a flat out commie

I stand to the left of the Communists, with Goldman, Pankhurst, and Chaplin. I would someday, like to run the American Communist Party, but only in order to dissolve it, challenge the current international, and build a new one with an eye toward an organic, "grassroots" revolution.

some people might not consider what you call evidence as evidence. we can't really know. the real evidence will be seen in a few generations where it will show whether kids growing up with gay "parents" grew up with no emotional issues and were able to be good parents and grandparents themselves. right now it's all trends and speculation subject to the institutionalized pressure to present PC reports.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, and one that I'm aware is compelling among certain crowds. I think you're overestimating the challenge to the evidentiary value and exaggerating the spectre of political correctness.

ok so now i'm clear what we're really talking about -- gay adoption rights.

Romney kind of wrapped it all up in one. Iceaura has a point, and one that I missed: " We also note that none of those arguments actually pertain to forbidding gay marriage, as Romney proposes. Whatever the virtues or defects of straight marriage, there seems to be no obvious way gay marriage affects them."

Remember, this a country that has placed children with convicted murderers and accused child molesters because the judge thought granting custody to law-abiding lesbians was dangerous. Only eleven years ago (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur61.htm).

Now that is a good family situation, eh? I mean, he may have been convicted of killing his first wife and his eldest daughter may have accused him of sexual molestation, but it's a at least they didn't put that 11 year-old with her lesbian mother, eh? Because that would have been dangerous.

If the Republicans could only have a major official who was openly accepting of his Lesbian daughter's having a child with her partner then maybe the party would begin to take gay rights seriously...;)

Anyway Romney is more of a douche bag than a dick.

some people might not consider what you call evidence as evidence. Those people have an obligation to provide evidence of their own. They are the ones proposing amendments to the Constitution, and legal persecutions of various kinds. It is they who are messing with other people's lives, not the other way around.

Really sincere belief backed by self-reported prayer is not evidence, btw - unless you have proven your prophetical validity by handling snakes, possibly.

I stand to the left of the Communists, with Goldman, Pankhurst, and Chaplin. I would someday, like to run the American Communist Party, but only in order to dissolve it, challenge the current international, and build a new one with an eye toward an organic, "grassroots" revolution.
that's how the soviet revolution started. remember the "soviets" concept? we all know how that turned out...

Remember, this a country that has placed children with convicted murderers and accused child molesters because the judge thought granting custody to law-abiding lesbians was dangerous. Only eleven years ago.
this, i hope, is an outlier case. there was also a case where an adoptive parent was granted full custody over a biological parent. i can't find the link but i saw a movie which was based on that true story. it's an outlier too.
what SHOULD have happened in the story you linked to, was that the kid would be taken away and put into foster care of a STRAIGHT couple. because keeping everything else the same, a straight couple would be a better setting for a child than a gay couple.

Those people have an obligation to provide evidence of their own. They are the ones proposing amendments to the Constitution, and legal persecutions of various kinds. It is they who are messing with other people's lives, not the other way around.
the whole concept of a gay 'parents' is new. the other side, the one you say needs to show evidence that it works, has been around for thousands of years. yes, i'm talking about the whole "one man one woman" concept. even the concept of divorce is relatively new (think of pre 1960s - the divorce rate was really small).

re: changing the constitution, it is pretty serious. but the substance of the change would be a change in formality. there already are gay "marriages". gays are not seeking any contractual benefits that a normal couple receives. those already exist by and large. and those benefits that don't exist, i don't mind there being an equal treatment. what this amendment is REALLY about is gays demanding to be recognized by society of their arrangement as the same as normal marriage -- having it in writing. it's symbolic.

the whole concept of a gay 'parents' is new. the other side, the one you say needs to show evidence that it works, has been around for thousands of years. yes, i'm talking about the whole "one man one woman" concept. even the concept of divorce is relatively new (think of pre 1960s - the divorce rate was really small). The "concepts" may be new, but the practices are not - the "one man one woman" structure has never been as overwhelmingly representative as modern "conservatives" seem to believe.

If you look at the average lengh of two-parent continuity in childraising, for example, you'll find that we've just exchanged abandonment and death and separation of various kinds for formal divorce, statistically. The spinster schoolmarm aunt and the bachelor farmer uncle have long been important features of many childhoods - often they lived with companions, often they boarded the children of their relatives for years in times of trouble. Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer did not have highly unusual or aberrant familial situations.

The centrality of straight marriage has always been there, but the importance of all these other arrangements has always been there as well.
what this amendment is REALLY about is gays demanding to be recognized by society of their arrangement as the same as normal marriage -- having it in writing. it's symbolic. If it were merely symbolic, a symbolic repudiation would be sufficient - what Romney advocates is a formal, very real, widely applicable forbidding of legal recognition. You are already and would remain free to symbolize as you choose - refusing the symbolic sanctions of the church, say - regardless. Romney wants to put the secular power of law immovably behind your symbolism.

GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney offered his take on gay marriage
This thread title is quite misleading. It sounds like Romney is advocating the execution of homosexuals.
When in fact, all he said is that the ideal enviroment for a child is to have a mother and a father. The extra "even is one parent is dead" is a bit much, but the thread title sounded much worse.

Reminds me of the time I got a ticket for minor possession of alcohol (I was caught drinking a beer on the beach). I didn't tell my parents about it since it happened in another county I figured they'd never find out.

But a friend of my dad saw it in the paper and told my dad I'd been arrested for a DUI. He was pissed off about me getting a DUI. But when I told him it was just minor possession, he was like, "Oh, no big deal".

Same thing here. I thought Romney had said something terrible when I saw the thread title, but now I see it was just liberal hysteria.

This thread title is quite misleading. It sounds like Romney is advocating the execution of homosexuals.

That's entirely up to you.

But a friend of my dad saw it in the paper and told my dad I'd been arrested for a DUI. He was pissed off about me getting a DUI. But when I told him it was just minor possession, he was like, "Oh, no big deal".

Same thing here. I thought Romney had said something terrible when I saw the thread title, but now I see it was just liberal hysteria.

Interesting analogy. Speaks more about you than anything else,

Because you're not a drug abuser, Tiassa?

we've just exchanged abandonment and death and separation of various kinds for formal divorce, statistically.
...
Finn and Tom Sawyer did not have highly unusual or aberrant familial situations.

strong point, but still wrong. please show me the statistics that there was 50% abandonement / death / separation in pre-1950 America (or anywhere else in the world). because today's divorce rate is 50%.

and death is different as the parent still have raised the child before passing.

If it were merely symbolic, a symbolic repudiation would be sufficient - what Romney advocates is a formal, very real, widely applicable forbidding of legal recognition. You are already and would remain free to symbolize as you choose - refusing the symbolic sanctions of the church, say - regardless. Romney wants to put the secular power of law immovably behind your symbolism.

you're right. it's more than symbolism.

what gay advocates really want is to change peoples' beliefs - not more rights. they already have those rights. but it's not enough. they can't leave people alone to think what they want. they want 'justice' in every way possible.

that's why "equal but different" is not good enough.

I'm lost. How is this:

"And I believe that the development of children is enhanced by having a male and a female as part of their upbringing in their home. Even when there's a divorce, you still have a mom and a dad. And even where one member of the partnership may pass away, the memory and the characteristics of that gender, of that partner influence the development of a child."

saying its better to be dead than gay? I would have said the exact same thing, mainly because its what I know.

strong point, but still wrong. please show me the statistics that there was 50% abandonement / death / separation in pre-1950 America (or anywhere else in the world). because today's divorce rate is 50%. The divorce rate is not 50% per year, but 50% over the lifetimes of the principals.

The average lengh of a marriage hasn't changed that much - so a child born into a straight marriage has about the same chance of losing a parent now as ever - much less, if the presence of the divorced parent is counted.

The point is that the raising of a child to adulthood in a conventional family, continuously from birth within a nuclear family household composed of a straight married couple and their children, is no less likely now than in the average past, and this likelihood would be generally unaffected by gay people marrying. The welfare of the children of married people is not threatened here, nor is their number reduced.

And that various "unconventional" raisings of children were extremely common in the past, including farming them out with childless and/or unmarried people of unspecified sexual orientation but responsible habits. So no modern erosion of societal stability and practical norms is a factor here either,

except symbolically.
what gay advocates really want is to change peoples' beliefs - not more rights. they already have those rights. but it's not enough. they can't leave people alone to think what they want. they want 'justice' in every way possible. It's the opposite. Gays want to be able to leave people alone to think what they want. Gay people want to have ordinary, common rights without having to change other people's beliefs first. They do not have these rights, as of now - even expensive and detailed legal contracting, continually updated throughout life, between two gay people will not guarantee them the legal recognition of an ordinary one-step ten minute Reno marriage.

For example: in many states if a spouse dies and a relative challenges the will, that relative must pay the legal bills of the surviving spouse. Under the types of contracts available to gays, the survivor must foot that bill themselves - they have no privileged legal standing with respect to blood relatives. Similarly in matters of medical care, powers of attorney, and so forth.

The divorce rate is not 50% per year, but 50% over the lifetimes of the principals.

the divorce rate is considered as .....over 50% of all marriages will end in divorce. Not "per year" nor "over a lifetime" or any other such bullshit.

The average lengh of a marriage hasn't changed that much - so a child born into a straight marriage has about the same chance of losing a parent now as ever - much less, if the presence of the divorced parent is counted.

Pure bullshit ....and piled quite high, too.

Baron Max

that's how the soviet revolution started. remember the "soviets" concept? we all know how that turned out...

An interesting perspective. Certain aspects of the Revolution disagree with your point:

So now everybody agrees that the Revolution was a disaster. But this depends on assuming that the Russia of Stalin and the Cold War was the natural consequence of the Bolshevik Revolution; that Lenin and the Bolsheviks, on the one hand, and Stalin and his generals, on the other, all believed in the same things. Yet there is one piece of evidence which suggests that this might not be true, which is that Stalin had all those from the other group shot. This, you might think, indicates a difference of opinion of some significance. Yet almost all modern historians, whether right wingers ... or ex-Stalinists ... blame Lenin and the leaders of the Revolution for the atrocities of Stalinism, despite the fact that they were the first ones he killed. Which is like arriving at a crime scene and shouting, "There's the murderer, there! That dead bloke! Stop him before he escapes!"

(Mark Steel)

Also, there is a reasonable argument that the reason the Revolution came when it did is because Lenin knew he was ill. Again, Mark Steel:

Robert Service argues that one of the reasons that the Revolution happened in 1917 was because Lenin knew that he was ill, and so decided to have it quickly. The way you might think, "Well, I'm seventy-seven. If I don't go to the Lake District this year, I might not get another chance."

So, in the first place, part of your point makes the same mistake as many historians of diverse stripes in trying to force the Revolution and Stalinism into the same box. Additionally, the "grassroots" idea doesn't seem present. While there were certainly spontaneous labor actions and protests taking place, the Revolution itself may have officially opened in order that one ambitious reformer might feel that he wouldn't have to wonder if he'd let his opportunity slip away.

Now throw into that, Trotsky:

And then there was Trotsky. Where Lenin was meticulous, Trotsky was flamboyant. He'd also been drawn toward the idea that Russia's Revolution would have to be led by workers. His problem, though, was that he didn't know any. As he explained in his autobiography:
I was walking along the street with Grigory Sokolovski. "It's about time we started," I said. "We must find workers and set to it."

"I think we can find them," said Sokolovski. "I used to know one. He's a watchman, who belongs to a Bible sect. I think I'll look him up.
(Steel)

It should be noted that Steel's version of the story is slightly abridged. See chapter seven of Trotsky's My Life (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/ch07.htm).

A form of my revolutionary argument reads:

There’s a reason Marx said he wasn’t a Marxist. But that’s the point of dissolving the Party, too. It’s time to see if the people have the tools they need to build toward a proper Revolution. Society will evolve into a Marxist condition. It’s already happening. The proper Revolution won’t require bloodshed or overthrow. It will happen naturally ....

.... When I was a kid, my father was strongly anti-Communist. One of his reasons, he explained to me, was that he didn’t want the government controlling his education, health care, retirement, and so on. But now the bourgeoisie provides those things through the companies they own. With government, you can demand fulfillment of the social contract. Government institutions are supposed to be for the best interests of the people. Corporations, on the other hand, answer to the bottom line. Their only commitment to integrity is the belief that the appearance of integrity is good for profits. Decisions are being taken out of people’s hands. Sure, we have a choice: inadequate option A, counterintuitive option B, or counterproductive option C.

(B.D.'s Last Refuge (http://bdhilling.wordpress.com/about/))

You don't have to overthrow anything by force. If you simply fight for knowledge, freedom, equality, integrity, and decency, the New Revolution will occur naturally, and without bloodshed by the revolutionaries. There are encouraging signs: the rise of neocons brings to power a conservative sect that has given over to liberalism about deficit spending and social programs; the people have insisted that certain things transcend mere capitalism: healthcare, the value of human life, education, retirement.

In 1917, humanity had not the means to sustain such a revolution. We might today. I think we need to progress a little bit further, but I think the processes leading to the New Revolution are already underway.

this, i hope, is an outlier case.

It is, but it is also a benchmark indicating just how irrational the bigotry gets.

what SHOULD have happened in the story you linked to, was that the kid would be taken away and put into foster care of a STRAIGHT couple. because keeping everything else the same, a straight couple would be a better setting for a child than a gay couple.

So ... let me get this straight ... putting kids into a state-run system that cannot keep track of the children is better than allowing them to live with homosexuals?

• Winters, Rebecca. "Florida's Little Girl Lost". Time.com. May 5, 2002. See http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,235431,00.html

• Associated Press. "Florida foster care agency that lost girl, 2, who was found in Wisconsin may lose its state contract". TwinCities.com. October 31, 2007. See http://www.twincities.com/wisconsin/ci_7334659

As we learned in 2002:

The push to whisk children from dangerous homes is predicated on the idea that foster care is safer. Yet in the past two years, more than 60 children have died in DCF's care, and nearly 400 are unaccounted for, like Rilya ....

.... Investigators say one of their best leads is a murdered child discovered in April 2001 in Kansas City, Mo., and they are awaiting DNA evidence to see whether Rilya has been found at last.

(Winters (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,235431,00.html))

I hope you understand that I disagree with your assessment that I disagree that such a fate would be better than living with loving, devoted, attentive gay parents.

Sixty dead in two years: that's one every other week. Four-hundred missing? That's almost four a week.

the New Revolution...
we should start a new thread about this, just to separate the topics. feel free to copy the stuff on the subject from your last post into an OP.

So ... let me get this straight ... putting kids into a state-run system that cannot keep track of the children is better than allowing them to live with homosexuals?
no... that's not what i said. i said that if a child is to be taken away from an abusive environment by Child Services and put into a foster home, it's better that the new parents be a straight couple (all else equal).

For example: in many states if a spouse dies and a relative challenges the will, that relative must pay the legal bills of the surviving spouse. Under the types of contracts available to gays, the survivor must foot that bill themselves - they have no privileged legal standing with respect to blood relatives. Similarly in matters of medical care, powers of attorney, and so forth.

that's sad. you're right - it's not enough that gays write detailed contracts about their relationship - they need to get the same EQUAL rights as married people. but don't call it marriage. that way everyone is happy. gays get their rights, and straights get to keep calling it marriage. yes some straights dont care what it's called, but a huge majority will get offended (privately) at gays calling it marriage. you know what, gays can even call it marriage even though it may offend a huge majority of the population. but don't make the government -officially- call it marriage.

we should start a new thread about this, just to separate the topics. feel free to copy the stuff on the subject from your last post into an OP.

Sounds good. Mind if I put that part off for tonight, though?

no... that's not what i said. i said that if a child is to be taken away from an abusive environment by Child Services and put into a foster home, it's better that the new parents be a straight couple (all else equal).

I'm going to disagree about what you said:

• what SHOULD have happened in the story you linked to, was that the kid would be taken away and put into foster care of a STRAIGHT couple. because keeping everything else the same, a straight couple would be a better setting for a child than a gay couple.

The issue was a custody battle between parents. What you appear to advocate has nothing to do with taking a child out of an abusive environment and putting them in a foster home. What you appear to advocate is that a child should be denied her mother because the mother is a lesbian.

Now, as to what you say you said, I disagree because, where some would complain that the sample isn't big enough, the other side has nothing. So protesting the growing body of evidence showing that children of gay parents do just fine, what you're coming back to is, as you noted earlier, an opinion. The problem with that is that it advocates a solution that says, "I don't like what those asserted facts imply, so I'm going to go with the fact-free solution that accommodates my opinion."

And that's still problematic. I mean, some heterosexuals might think that gays are unfit to be parents, but in the United States today there are at least 100,000 children who are, apparently, unfit for heterosexual parents. We have a desperate backlog of kids who need homes. And the disproportionate majority of these children exist because of heterosexuality.

An interesting perspective. Certain aspects of the Revolution disagree with your point:
“
So now everybody agrees that the Revolution was a disaster. But this depends on assuming that the Russia of Stalin and the Cold War was the natural consequence of the Bolshevik Revolution; that Lenin and the Bolsheviks, on the one hand, and Stalin and his generals, on the other, all believed in the same things. Yet there is one piece of evidence which suggests that this might not be true, which is that Stalin had all those from the other group shot. This, you might think, indicates a difference of opinion of some significance. Yet almost all modern historians, whether right wingers ... or ex-Stalinists ... blame Lenin and the leaders of the Revolution for the atrocities of Stalinism, despite the fact that they were the first ones he killed. Which is like arriving at a crime scene and shouting, "There's the murderer, there! That dead bloke! Stop him before he escapes!"
How many revolutions go wrong? The French revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Cuban Revolution. The list goes on. To say that the main architect of the revolution is not responsible for the atrocities it because he himself got killed in the chaos that ensued is wrong. He set the whole thing off. He's as responsible as Stalin.

..., but in the United States today there are at least 100,000 children who are, apparently, unfit for heterosexual parents. We have a desperate backlog of kids who need homes.

That doesn't mean that the children should just be given to anyone who claims that they want them. Care and protection of the kids is the main goal in adoption clinics, not the "joy and happiness" of a couple of gay males!

Baron Max

To say that the main architect of the revolution is not responsible for the atrocities it because he himself got killed in the chaos that ensued is wrong. He set the whole thing off. He's as responsible as Stalin. That would make an interesting form of argument to apply to Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, and 9/11. I don't think even Ward Churchill went that far.

That doesn't mean that the children should just be given to anyone who claims that they want them.

Okay. Sure. Right.

Um, why do you raise that point?

Could it have anything to do with what comes next?

Care and protection of the kids is the main goal in adoption clinics, not the "joy and happiness" of a couple of gay males!

In the first place, where did you get the basis of that argument? Who makes the "joy and happiness" claim you're arguing against?

Secondly, many American heterosexuals breed specifically because they think it will bring them joy and happiness. My daughter's mother wanted a kid for status.