Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in Fact

Re: Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in F

Ooh gotta love delusional people talking about facts and rights.

 

Re: Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in F

What about single parents? Should we just outlaw divorce, because a child needs both a mother and a father?

 

Re: Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in F

I live with my mother and no father because my parents split up about four years ago. This isn't something you're trying to stop, even if you may disagree with divorce, because it'd be political suicide for you. Look, even if you never support gay marriage, stop trying to pick on things you think people will vote for.

I agree with you on the birth certificate thing; they shouldn't be changed after a kid is born or to omit biological family. That's why there should be separate lines for parents and biological parents, if they're different. Nothing would have to be altered then -- wouldn't you be happy?

Transcript:
Today, same-sex couples are marrying under the law in Massachusetts. Some are actually having children born to them. We've been asked to change their birth certificates to remove the phrase "mother" and "father" and replace it with "parent a" and "parent b". It's not right on paper, it's not right in fact. Every child has the right to have a mother and a father. <applause>

 

Re: Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in F

... Part of me just died inside.

 

Re: Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in F

He's such a loser...

 

Re: Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in F

*Sigh* I don't wanna live on this planet anymore...

 

Re: Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in F

Not surprising coming from him.

 

Re: Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in F

And just think of all the gay republicans that are still going to vote for him anyway. Blows my mind.

 

Re: Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in F

It's pretty sad that these "gay Republicans" are so delusional that they think Mitt Romney even wants their support. He didn't even acknowledge their endorsement. All he cares about is getting elected. The man is a vicious hatemonger without an ounce of honor or integrity.

 

Re: Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in F

*insert argument about marriage or divorce papers here*

 

Re: Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in F

Romney is an prime example of all that can go wrong with a person--and deluded and egomaniacal to think himself near perfect. The idea that this man may be our next President terrifies me. It frightens me as a woman, a mother, a bisexual, a Democrat, and as a person who believes in the individual rights of others.

 

Re: Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in F

Newt Gingrich was running in the primary this year and he said "Gays, vote for Obama. Don't vote for me." I made a thread about it (because I knew some people on EC had expressed an interest in voting for Newt), and a gay republican on EC told me, "Well, he's just saying that because it was obviously a democratic set-up." So, you know. :rolle:

 

Re: Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in F

Romney = hypocritical, racist, sexist, waste of human flesh. And Paul Ryan looks like an elf..

 

Re: Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in F

Yuck, Willard is bad enough, but some people here were actually supporting Newt? The hateful lizard who said that gay marriage is a "pagan" ritual and a fad that will disappear in a few years? I don't know what sort of internalized self-hatred motivates this "gay Republican" movement. I'm guessing it's kids who think it will get their homophobic Republican parents to accept them...

 

Re: Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in F

You have to be kidding me. Just because someone has a different opinion than yours doesn't mean that they are self-hating or wanting to please their parents.

Gay people can identify themselves as republicans and still support themselves in every other way. It wasn't long ago that every single politician was anti-gay. Who were we supposed to vote for back then? Only the supportive politicians? Not vote?

The republican party is changing and will keep on changing as the older more radical people die off. To ignore such a shift and to imply that being republican is nothing else short of treason to the gay community hurts everyone in the long run.

 

Re: Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in F

No, I'm not kidding. Not even in the slightest.

This isn't a matter of a "different opinion". It's not a disagreement about tax rates or stimulus funding or education. It's a matter of people voting for someone who hates them and wants to deprive them of basic civil rights. A Gay Republican makes about as much sense as a Jewish Nazi.

And if you vote Republican, you are voting to go back to those good old days when institutional homophobia was expected from every level of government and society, and LGBTQ people forced to live in the shadows.

Um, yeah it's changing...it's moving further and further toward anti-gay extremism. John McCain in 2008 opposed a federal marriage amendment to ban gay marriage nationwide. In 2012, Mitt Romney has made his strong support for a federal marriage amendment a centerpiece of his campaign on this issue.

The Log Cabin Republicans proposed to put a plank supporting civil unions in the Republican platform this year. Not only was the proposal resoundingly rejected, but the GOP delegates retaliated and put even harsher anti-gay language into the platform to make sure gay Republicans know they aren't wanted in the GOP. The Republican Party's platform on social issues was WRITTEN by Tony Perkins, the leader of an identified anti-gay hate group.

This is a party that has gone completely off the deep end with hate and extremism.

 

Re: Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in F

There are a number of different reasons why gay Republicans will continue to vote for that party despite its hostility toward gay rights in general: classism, their belief that privatizing everything and cutting taxes are the solution to balancing the budget, perceived strength in national defense, social conservatism, etc. To give them the benefit of the doubt, I suppose they continue to exist in hopes of moving the GOP more to the left on the issue of gay rights (which seems like a pipe dream, at least for now).

I suppose they're willing to overlook Romney's homophobic beliefs (IMHO, his only "core value") in the hopes that, if elected, they will be able to convince him to move to the left on gay rights. With a generally hostile Republican majority likely to remain in Congress, I just don't see how it can realistically happen regardless of their success or failure at winning over a President Romney (ugh) to their side.

 

Re: Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in F

your father is a drunk you who beats you? Sorry but he's your father you "deserve him" Your mother beats you? no it's OK you "deserve her" it's your right

 

Re: Romney: "Some Gays Are Actually Having Children Not Right on Paper Not Right in F

Some people don't believe that having Romney in power will do any major damage to the path to equality. And while I disagree, there is some validity to that. By having Romney people aren't going to magically go anti-gay again. Laws already in place are not going to be repealed. ENDA is not going to pass even with Obama so that's a mute point for many. Most of our fight is now fought locally and in the courts, both things that the president cannot interfere with.

A movement this huge cannot be stopped by one person. The years of fighting cannot be stopped by one person. To many, this is a safe bet. You might disagree, but that still doesn't make them traitors or full of self-hate.

But at least we have a strong (sort of) republican group made up of gay people! That is progress right there! Most laws in states have been passed with bipartisan support, most local politicians are not extremely anti-gay, and the older people you are talking about will die off.