Is Romney conservative enough on homosexuality?

Mass Resistance ^ | June 16 2005 | Mass Resistance

[SmoothTalker]

Who knows what he is. He said one thing when running for office in Mass and when talking to Massachusetts log cabiners and he says another thing now. Just like on a lot of issues. Mitt is an opportunist flip-flopper. We can do better!

[Theodore R.]

Even George W. Romney was consistently liberal.

[Global2010]

Romney Ringing Ping

[ckilmer]

this is one of romney’s “yes dear” issues. he doesn’t care about it and he doesn’t think its important so whatever the mrs says on the matter goes. she’s a liberal

currently most american liberal women are ignorent sluts on homosexuals. they have been educated to believe that homosexuals are their natural allies “against” men in the war of the sexes.

In reality homosexuals are the mortal enemies of interests of women. Its easy enough to show this. It is most in the interest of women to be monogamously married. Yet in the countries where homosexual marriage has been legitimized the marriage rate has dropped to 20-30%—while the marriage rate for homosexuals has remained the same.

[Reagan Man]

A few cuts that Mass Resistence lighted. Romney's rhetoric is quite revealing and enlightening. Pandering and political expediency from old Mitt Boy. Romney is no conservative.

"I think it's important that in any discussion related to marriage that we should reiterate time and again our view that individuals in our society should be able to make the choices they want in their lives, and that we have respect for people's choices. We have a high degree of respect and tolerance for people whose lifestyle and choices and orientation is as they may choose.

snip

I am pleased that a new amendment has been brought forward that's quite clear, it defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, and it therefore would provide to the legislature the opportunity from time to time to provide benefits and rights associated with same-sex couples as the legislature and the administration felt appropriate.

snip

You know, I think the Family Institute is wise not to try and dissolve marriages that will have occurred. And I think that would be a confusing factor that would muddy the issue even further. I think it's a wise course to have the amendment take its effect from its passage forward and not try and change things that have passed.

snip

If this amendment were to pass, at that stage I would support legislation which would provide certain domestic partnership benefits, like hospital visitation rights, and rights of survivorship, and so forth. There will be children born to same-sex couples, and adopted by same-sex couples, and I believe that there should be rights and privileges associated with those unions and with the children that are part of those unions."

[red irish]

I came across this by accident. I had seen a story on the Salem witch trials and a thought came into my mind if possible could a state be filled with evil. So I typed in the words Massachusetts and evil and came up with this web-site. The story on seeing the face of evil was fearful of what is being done to children in public school. I don't think I could trust my conservative views with that of Mitt Romney.

[ml/nj]

Is Romney conservative enough on homosexuality?

What do you want him to do, advocate the death penalty for queers? I think I have a Biblical view of this, but really it isn't a Federal issue.

ML/NJ

[spintreebob]

ho hum.

I’m not homo. Nobody in my family is. This doesn’t affect me.

Meanwhile, somebody is picking my pocket. That affects me.

[Politicalmom]

Nobody in my family is gay either.

Perverts marching on public streets with NAMBLA signs performing disgusting acts and forcing their agenda on the schools DOES affect my family.

[Maelstorm]

No one is conservative enough on Homosexuality. That it still is even a political issue shows that is the case.

[ChessExpert]

There is lot of text here to take in. Sometimes it is easy to quote selectively. For example, if there is a nuanced presentation, or a presentation that acknowledges many points of view. So it is good that you posted the entire text. A reader should try to find the most essential points. These may be identified by clarity, emphasis, tone of voice, or the logic from a full reading. I think the following is clear and perhaps central:

And I'm concerned that the amendment currently under consideration in the legislature is somewhat confused or muddied by the combination of two things. One is the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, which I support. The other is the requirement that there be civil unions in the Commonwealth, which is a condition I do not support.

[CheyennePress]

"The other, I don't believe that the institution of marriage, meaning in the sense of people being able to combine as adults, is the primary factor at stake. I believe instead it's the development of future generations which is involved primarily in the definition society places on marriage. And so I believe that the ideal setting for raising children is where there is a man and a woman, a mother and a father. I believe a child should have a right to having a mother and a father. And so the implications of same-sex marriage will only be measured over generations, not over years or months. But the legal confusion, of course, has already begun."
~Mitt Romney

And here Romney is exactly right.

Those who are attempting to destroy traditional marriage are taking apart the definition that has existed time immeorium. That is:

1) Marriage is a loving bond of partnership shared between a couple in which to grow old together 2) Marriage is the institution through which children are conceived, reared towards adulthood, and taught to be responsible adults.

Activists against the traditional family have been attacking #2 relentlessly. And I note you see gay marriage in socieities so dysfunctional that they can no longer produce enough children to sustain their own populations.

Romney is right. We need a federal marriage amendment. It is absolutely in the best interest of our nation.

[CheyennePress]

>>>Who knows what he is. He said one thing when running for office in Mass and when talking to Massachusetts log cabiners <<<

No, he didn’t. But you would like for him to have, wouldn’t you?

He said he supported equal employment rights for gays. He has always been opposed to gay marriage. And if you can find a single instance where he said he wasn’t, post it.

Otherwise, you’re full of crap. Smoothtalker my arse.

[CheyennePress]

And that came out harsher than I wanted it to, but I’m tired of the tireless half-truths popping up around here.

There is a chasmic double standard in effect amongst some members of this board, and I’m not grouping you in with them.

[red irish]

Death penalty for queers? I personally would not address homosexuals as queers and where did I mention the death penalty for homosexuals? Gay activists are out there to get children so that they can grow up thinking homosexuality is ok. That offends me. And gays want to get married especially if they can force religions to recognize their marriage as legal. This is not about hate! But I do not want our next president to go ahead with gay marriage or place a judge on the supreme court who would make it easier for liberal causes to get through. And so others may understand I am not bashing Mitt Romney,he seems like a nice enough man and his sons seem to be quite charming but each of us want the MAN who can represent our views and causes.

[jdm]

He has always been opposed to gay marriage. And if you can find a single instance where he said he wasn’t, post it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI&eurl=

Watch this video.

[ClaireSolt]

Those who ask this question, don’t really know what conservative means, if you ask me. Holding a position or two is not as good a measure as how one lives. Romeny is the only real capitalist in the bunch of career government candidates, yet the ignorant parse a word or two and try to make him out to be a liberal. Although he has been married to the same woman he adores for 38 years, some think he favors gay marriage. He has five sons, but he must be pro abortion. Use your head and avoid all of the campaign spin.

[JAKraig]

What do you want him to do, advocate the death penalty for queers?

_______________________________________________________

That would be a good start, but I don’t think that would get him elected.

Mr. Romney like all the other republican candidates for for POTUS are politicians. It’s not that I don’t like politicians, there are some of them I have great respect for, some of them are even still alive today. But, the truth is that politicians have to say and do things to get elected. Ron Paul says a few things that sound good but there is no way he will ever be elected president. If I ran and ran on my principles I could never get elected because I would want to kill all the queers among other things.

When I listen to any politician I take what they say with a grain of salt. Mr. Romney is a Mormon, I know what those people stand for. If there were ever any apple pie eating flag wavers they are. There are other people in the party I would be happy with perhaps even more happy than I would be with Romney but I would not be unhappy with Romney. My personal opinion is that if Mr. Romney or Mr. Thompson win the nomination that either of them would perhaps pull off an election against the Hildabeast.

Whomever wins the nomination will have to receive votes from a lot of Democrats to win the general election, sorry Mr. Paul, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Gingrich etc., you just can’t win the general. It seems to me that if we were smart we would speak positively about those who are better than whatever the Democrats throw at us and not be so angry in their flame throwing. I will vote for whoever the republican candidate is, even if it is Rudy, and I will figure we won if he wins.