Romney Signs on to Anti-Gay Group's C...

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

There are 12982 comments on the EDGE story from Aug 5, 2011, titled Romney Signs on to Anti-Gay Group's Campaign Pledge. In it, EDGE reports that:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has signed on to a campaign pledge created by the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage, a group that seeks to obstruct marriage equality and, in states where gay and lesbian families are legally allowed to wed, to roll family parity back.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#12471 Jun 28, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I try to keep things simple for you so you can learn. You wouldn't understand a 'big boy' argument and you prove it daily. I bet you wonder why I call you Justice Dumbass.
Translation, you made another stupid argument you cannot factually support.

Wondering, do you ever tire of making yourself out to be a moron?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#12472 Jun 28, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
Can we return to the original subject? While Romney has signed on to an anti-gay pledge. I seriously doubt he is sincere about it.
Oh, so he is simply insincere in his attempt to win an election.

Well, that certainly spins him in a different, though not better, light. I'd stick to my day job, were I you.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#12474 Jun 28, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation, you made another stupid argument you cannot factually support.
Wondering, do you ever tire of making yourself out to be a moron?
I've asked you many questions you can't seem to answer.
I've given you facts you don't understand.
You've proven you don't have a clue about the 1st ammendment or the full faith and credit clause.
You claim 1 = 2.
You claim that families with kids don't get 'greater protection' than families without kids.
You claim that a family of 3 doesn't get this 'greater protection' but a man that wants a second wife does. Each would be a family of 3.
I've asked you to show me any document that describes these 'greater protections' and you've come up empty.
Don't blame me for your incompetence. You are the poster child for stupid.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#12475 Jun 28, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so he is simply insincere in his attempt to win an election.
Well, that certainly spins him in a different, though not better, light. I'd stick to my day job, were I you.
My point was not to make excuses for him, rather I was trying to paint him as a waffler who can't be trusted.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12476 Jun 28, 2012
Protecting the definition of marriage is pro-gay since most of the parents of gays were married.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#12477 Jun 28, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>My point was not to make excuses for him, rather I was trying to paint him as a waffler who can't be trusted.
that is why I will vote AGAINST him.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#12478 Jun 28, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Protecting the definition of marriage is pro-gay since most of the parents of gays were married.
By your reasoning and inclination, including that gay is undesireable, it follows that heteros should stop getting married so there will be fewer gay people.

You're silly.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#12479 Jun 28, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Protecting the definition of marriage is pro-gay since most of the parents of gays were married.
You really are out of touch with reality Brian.

Protecting the Constitution requires that we dismantle, from time to time, bad laws that have too long sullied our books and led some Americans to be treated as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the laws.

This does not mean that we must do away with legal marriage, but rather that we need to equally afford its protections to all, excepting those where a compelling state interest is served by denying such protection.

Have you come up with a single rational reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry? Your current argument doesn't rise to that level. In fact I am not sure it rises to the level of a sane thought.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#12480 Jun 28, 2012
lides wrote:
Have you come up with a single rational reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry?
Key word there is rational. It is well known that Justice Dumjbass is irrational and unless you agree with him your reasons are irrational. The good news, your reasons must be rational by the standards set by Justice Dumbass. His standards are irrelevant.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#12481 Jun 28, 2012
Brenda Lee Johnson wrote:
The information in the links Luke provided is 100% accurate! Who are you trying to kidd?...
Dumpling, I said all along that the information in those links is 100% accurate, it just doesn't say what he claims it does. If he had bothered to actually check LifeSite's sources, he would have found he was being lied to, frequently, repeatedly and often in every story he was plagiarizing. I find your picture fascinating too dear, just like your posts, a waste of space.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#12482 Jun 28, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
A lot of innocent people died from AIDS, it's a serious disease and HIV is predominately a gay disease here in this country.
Everyone who dies of AIDS is innocent.
And the flu is a serious disease, it kills more people than AIDS in this country.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#12483 Jun 28, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of two men can't make a baby are you having problems with? My reading comprehension? I don't think so. Although it is always a hoot when gays want to change the meaning of words, laws, etc. You can have your own dictionary and constitution if you want it, just remember, it will only apply to gays.
What part of you don't have to be able to make a baby in order to marry are you having problems with? This whole reproduction thing is a non issue. And no amount of twisting things will make it one. IF you had to be able to spawn in order to marry, it would be an issue.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#12484 Jun 28, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
For ANY gay couple, male or female, that requires a third person. So, like I said, a gay couple can f$%# 24/7 for a year and they can't produce a child.
Um...so what?

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#12485 Jun 28, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Protecting the definition of marriage is pro-gay since most of the parents of gays were married.
That makes absolutely no sense.
And your kids would have been better off raised by wolves than by you.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#12486 Jun 28, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>My point was not to make excuses for him, rather I was trying to paint him as a waffler who can't be trusted.
I'd never vote for a Mormon.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12488 Jun 29, 2012
lides wrote:
You really are out of touch with reality Brian. Protecting the Constitution requires that we dismantle, from time to time, bad laws that have too long sullied our books and led some Americans to be treated as second class citizens with less than equal protection of the laws.
There is no Constitutional gender equality right; the Constitution explicitly says male and female are different. Homosexuals may marry under the same laws as everyone else; they always have.

There is no orientation test for a marriage license; stop your government from making marriage unisex.

.
lides wrote:
This does not mean that we must do away with legal marriage, but rather that we need to equally afford its protections to all, excepting those where a compelling state interest is served by denying such protection.
According to lides, a new standard changes the definition of marriage for incest couples, polygamists and pedophiles.

.
lides wrote:
Have you come up with a single rational reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry? Your current argument doesn't rise to that level. In fact I am not sure it rises to the level of a sane thought.
Same sex couples don't have the same utility that heterosexual couples have for the future of society.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12489 Jun 29, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
I'd never vote for a Mormon.
That's because Rose is an anti-Mormon bigot. We don't accept anti-religious bigotry here in America.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12490 Jun 29, 2012
snyper wrote:
By your reasoning and inclination, including that gay is undesireable,
I've never written that gay is undesirable; I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality.

.
snyper wrote:
it follows that heteros should stop getting married so there will be fewer gay people. You're silly.
Read what same sex supporters write so you'll understand their plans for the future.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#12491 Jun 29, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
There is no Constitutional gender equality right;
Brian, the 14th Amendment mandates that states provide ALL persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the law. Do you know what that means? It means that in regards to the legal protections that states must provide their citizens, there is gender equality.
Brian_G wrote:
the Constitution explicitly says male and female are different.
Are you once again referring to the 2nd Section of the 14th Amendment, which it has been pointed out to you time and time again, has been superceded?

Are there women in Congress, Brian?
Brian_G wrote:
Homosexuals may marry under the same laws as everyone else; they always have.
There is no orientation test for a marriage license; stop your government from making marriage unisex.
Brian, this fails to rise to the level of having a rational basis. Marriage, in most jurisdiction is confined to being between a man and a woman, and you have been utterly incapable of illustrating any legitimate state interest served by such a restriction, which expressly abridges the right of homosexual citizens to marry the same sex partner of their choosing, which would render it constitutional.
Brian_G wrote:
According to lides, a new standard changes the definition of marriage for incest couples, polygamists and pedophiles.
No, it doesnít. In each of those cases there is a legitimate state interest served by denying the right to marry. Incestuous procreation has a demonstrably higher instance of mental disease and birth defects, polygamists seek greater protection of the law for three or more (I see you are still having difficulty counting), and pedophilia (in addition to being an illegal act) involves minors who are incapable of granting legal consent or entering into a legal contract.

These are truly some of the most inept of arguments that you offer.
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex couples don't have the same utility that heterosexual couples have for the future of society.
No, they donít. They are prevented in most jurisdictions from being able to marry the adult consenting same sex partner of their choosing, and as has been pointed out time and time again, you seem to lack the competence to indicate a legitimate state interest served by such a restriction.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#12492 Jun 29, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Read what same sex supporters write so you'll understand their plans for the future.
It appears that many of them plan to get married.

Do you really mean to paint everyone with a single brush? That would be foolish. Would you like it if I implied that you, as a same sex marriage detractor, were just like Pastor Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church?

Are there extremists within the gay rights movement? Of course there are. To quote Theodore Roosevelt "Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe." An intelligent person could see that these are not the bulk of the movement, nor are they respected within the movement, nor do they have the political capital to support their agenda.

You've yet to offer any rational reason to deny homosexual US citizens the right to marry the adult consenting same sex partner of their choosing that would make such a restriction constitutional, or render your argument competent.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Coffee Party 1,563,354
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 min Trump Failed Again 279,065
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 6 min Clearwater 15,288
News Trump's critique of Sessions reflects long-held... 10 min Retribution 6
News Trump stops hundreds of planned regulations 14 min Retribution 50
News Democrats aim to blast Trump for favoring wealthy 16 min inbred Genius 1,077
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 20 min Dr Guru 242,222
News By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans prefer Obamacare ... 5 hr PPstuff 245
More from around the web