Susan's Place Logo

News:

According to Google Analytics 25,259,719 users made visits accounting for 140,758,117 Pageviews since December 2006

Main Menu

Romney Cites Scripture in Defending His Opposition to Gay Marriage

Started by Chaunte, May 12, 2007, 07:48:40 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Chaunte

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/ON_THE_2008_TRAIL?SITE=OKPON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

May 11, 7:57 PM EDT

By GLEN JOHNSON
Associated Press Writer

BOSTON (AP) -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is defending his opposition to gay marriage by citing the Scriptures.

The former Massachusetts governor, who in his 1994 Senate bid pledged to be a more effective champion for gay causes than his Democratic rival, discussed gay marriage in an interview set to air Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes."
  •  

Kate

Nice. According to his biblical "logic," heterosexual couples who *choose* to not have children should be banned from marriage too. Heck, might as well void all childless marriages since they displease his god.

Please tell me our theocracy is ENDING soon, not just beginning... ?

~Kate~
  •  

RebeccaFog

    I wouldn't worry about Romney becoming President. He didn't make much of an impression as Governor and should not even have been governor. I think he lucked out because a series of weird coincidences confused the electorate. I don't know why people in this state keep voting republican for governor. The only one who deserved the job was Bill Weld.

    I'm thinking that Romney is this decade's Dukakis.

    The only fear I have is that Bush should never have made it into the primaries back in the 2000 race, but somehow gained the trust of many strange people. If people would stop voting for Mr. Personality, it would prevent lunkheads from becoming heads of state.


P.S.
   Notice how I squeezed my political views into the News? I am trying to keep my vow to stay out of politics.
  •  

cindianna_jones

Quote from: Kate on May 12, 2007, 09:39:46 AM
Nice. According to his biblical "logic," heterosexual couples who *choose* to not have children should be banned from marriage too. Heck, might as well void all childless marriages since they displease his god.

Please tell me our theocracy is ENDING soon, not just beginning... ?

~Kate~

Kate, there is no logic in religion.  You see... what you need is faith.  For without faith you're not going to get a following.  With religious ferver, you can take your following and strengthen them by showing them how to hate someone else. 

Our theocracy is just beginning.  Hopefully we'll be able to turn them out within the next couple of years.  I'm interested in Guilliani's strategy.  It looks like he's turning on the fundamentalist platform to some degree. I think he's giving the finger to the religious zealots in hopes that he'll pick up other conservative votes that have gone to the Democratic and independent camps.

Cindi
  •  

HelenW

FKA: Emelye

Pronouns: she/her

My rarely updated blog: http://emelyes-kitchen.blogspot.com

Southwestern New York trans support: http://www.southerntiertrans.org/
  •  

LostInTime

  •  

aaronjasonsilver

 
                                               Is marriage a religious institution?

        I feel at times I am the only gay person that is not satisfied by the term "civil union". To me it feels like a consolation prize given as a means of pacifying gays. Throw them a few crumbs as their used to and they'll shut up.  Truthfully, I hope that we gay men and woman will not stop at gay unions and go after what we truly deserve, that being gay marriage.  I am saddened but not surprised that many gays are willing to accept second class citizenship after all it is what we are accustomed to. Our entire gay civil rights movement that is being courageously fought by a very few, has been about equal rights, not just some rights.  This of course means marriage as well. 
        We should not be satisfied by civil unions.  Unions are not equal.  It's unfortunate that this issue has become so politicized as did the civil rights movement back in the 60's. Even the politicians that are privately in favor of gay marriage are afraid to speak openly about it with the exception of a few impassioned politicians that have a strong sense of integrity and a clear view of what is right and wrong.                                                                                       

     We cannot look to the bible for any answers regarding equal rights.  Those laws were written at a different time and for an ancient culture. It may surprise many to know that gay marriages were widely accepted by the Romans and the Greeks.  We also must understand that many of the ancients were a very superstitious people that made many of their laws in regards to those superstitions.  We therefore cannot be influenced by scripture. The many books within the bible vastly contradict themselves on issues to numerous to mention here. Which ones should we believe?  Many religious institutions have the belief that sexual relations is solely for the purpose of procreation. This is an affront to childless marriages. Are they any less valid?  Should they therefore not have sexual relations knowing full well that there will not be any children produced?  I wonder why God would make sexuality so very pleasurable if it were only for the purpose of procreation. It wouldn't need to be enjoyable. The mechanics of sexuality would be all that is necessary to create offspring.  Beside don't we live in a country that has a law about separation between church and state? 

             Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage?  It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. Even those damned heathens.

      Straight men and woman can choose a church marriage; they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace or even by a ship captain. However, the most romantic and holy place I can imagine to pledge ones vows of love and fidelity, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a happy meal. Don't get me wrong, I do love happy meals.  The best part is no one even has to bother to get out of the car. How can one compete with that kind of service?  I've heard that they even change your oil while waiting but that may be just hearsay.                                                                                                                             

     Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except for gays. What was stated in that document  still rings very clearly yet today and likely for many years to come. We don't have to look too awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual Anglo-Saxon citizens so we could still own people. It wasn't until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that, slavery was legal. It wasn't until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren't allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our nation's history, we should then know that whenever we veer off from what that beautifully crafted document for whatever convenient reason, it is eventually overturned and changed for reasons of being fairer.  I have still yet to hear a valid reason how gay marriage could negatively impact modern society. I've heard that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the potential of destroying traditional marriage.  We only have to look at the statistics of the success of "traditional marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce.  Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not be allowed.   Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver www.aaronjasonsilver.com; Fennville, Mi  49408    for more information on issues within gay culture please read; "why gay men do what they do", an inside look at gay culture.
  •  

RebeccaFog

hi Aaron,

   The people who wish to deny gay people the same rights as everyone else do not believe in the U.S. Constitution except when it comes to allowing them to do as they please. They are small minded people who cannot be reasoned with or understood by any true sentient being. The people who feel that they can dictate how others live their lives are basically cruel, prejudiced, insecure, and scared inside. They feel the need to single out those that they don't understand and then keep those people 'in their place'.
   There is nothing wrong with gays getting married. Here, in that fathead Romney's home state, gays have been allowed to get married and nothing bad has happened to us. Actually, I need to check up on where that law is on gay marriage because it was allowed for a kind of trial period and some jerks actually came here from other states to try to keep it from becoming permanent. One of the last things that Romney (who was named after a baseball glove) did before leaving office was to try to stir up attitudes against gays being married.

   By the way, you sound like someone who wants to get married very badly. I hope you have the chance to do so sooner rather than later.
   
  •  

cindianna_jones

I still can't understand why the government is in the marraige business in the first place.  I don't have a problem letting marraiges performed in churches, marraige stores, or in the street.  But the government should not be involved.

Do you think that gays don't get married in their own churches? Hehehehe.  Sure they do.

I don't care how it all boils down in the end as long as EVERYONE may share the same and equal rights.

Cindi
  •  

RebeccaFog

   I met a woman who was squeezed out of her town hall job because she had been approving marriage licenses for gay couples. What she was doing was perfectly moral and legal, but it goes to show that even people who are following their conscience can be kicked around in order to allow the small heads their jerky 'moral' victories.
   I guess that's why we need government approval for some basic rights. If the woman could have proved that she lost her position because of that one issue, it would have become easier for her to claim that whoever fired her was in violation of legally approved civil rights.

   It's just sad that people can't just be people because of people who don't know how to behave like people.
  •