Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mitt Romney Accidentally Confronts A Gay Veteran; Awesomeness Ensues

page: 5
72
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 


i misunderstood your comment, i apologize. I just get jumpy when people insult my religious beliefs but have never had any type of real knowledge to the religion like attended church service. i actually meant to write it to realspoke




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
If marriage is a right then govt. decides who can marry
If marriage is not a right but just a choice you marry who you want.

That's just reality and logic that liberals just don't get



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr


The book of Mormon is strictly against racism. But people want to make Mormons seem evil and dont bother to see if what there being told is true. The reality is the curse there talking about was repealed when they found god again. Book of Mormon records that Lamanites converted and that "their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites… and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites"

As far a racism The Book of Mormon is pretty clear "[The Lord] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come, black and white, bond and free, male and female...and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."2 Nephi 26:33 In fact Mormons never denied membership based on race (although slaves had to have their master's permission to be baptized), and several black men were ordained to the priesthood even during Joseph Smith's lifetime. So people that attack a religion without looking into it just show there own prejudices.

s


I learn new things everyday in the Book of Mormon, i havent read that part where the curse was lifted, thanks for sharing that with me.
And yes the BOM does teach not to be racist, i go to church with very successful white families and all of them have never shown anything else but love to non-whites, and we show nothing but love back to whites. Something to be honest i rarely experience outside my church, because unfortunately I look like im "up to no good" or a "criminal" even though i dress casually and the friendliest person to encounter. Unfortunately i have felt victim of racism WITHIN the hispanic community because of the color of my skin.
edit on 6-9-2012 by Rastafari because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2012 by Rastafari because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
If marriage is a right then govt. decides who can marry
If marriage is not a right but just a choice you marry who you want.

That's just reality and logic that liberals just don't get


Um, what?

Liberals don't get it? Marriage equality is actually a pretty conservative belief and yes, it is a right and yes, you should have the choice to marry someone who is the same sex as you. Why? Because not everyone is as bigoted as you.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Rastafari
 


It's cool! No offense taken. I have friends who are Mormon so I made it my business to attend their church a few times just as I have attended services of other religions that different ones of my friends belong to. Just as many of them have attended mine (I am Southern Baptist, but was raised Catholic).

I do my best not to judge anyone for their religious beliefs (or non-belief) unless it is just hateful. I don't agree with some of them but that's okay, they don't agree with me either. Point is I don't think the focus should be on knocking the presidential candidates religious beliefs or trying to make them sound like something they are not.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


The only relevant and correct answer. *applause* It's not even a question Mitt should be answering unless his response is what NavyDoc said. Since when has marriage (of any sort) ever been an issue for the federal government to make decisions about?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsThisThingBugged
reply to post by Cuervo
 


So should Mitt have said he supported gay marriage to appease this guy? I applaud any politician that is consistent, and doesn't just tell people what they want to hear.

SURELY you're joking, right? Otherwise, I'd assume you can't be applauding Romney at all...




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


That was hilarious! It was like watching John Kerry on steroids!

I have said it before and I'll say it again: I'm writing in Spongebob!



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
If marriage is a right then govt. decides who can marry
If marriage is not a right but just a choice you marry who you want.

That's just reality and logic that liberals just don't get


How can marriage be a right if government decides who you can marry?

I'm not a liberal and I "don't get" your "reality and logic" ...

You do know that rights are not granted by government, right?

The bill of rights are limits set on government, they grant us nothing.

Government can't grant what I already have.

We should be able to marry who we want. Government should have no say in the matter. That is our right.
edit on 6-9-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I dont think that the government should be in the business of bestowing or withholding rights from it`s citizens based on their race,religion,gender, sexual preference, etc.

Married people have the legal right to not be forced to testify against their spouse.If gay people are forbidden to marry then they will always be denied that particular legal right.
If something is considered a right than it should be available to all U.S. citizens.

Personally i try to keep my nose out of things that don`t affect me. if gay people want to get "married" it doesn`t matter to me, i still have to go to work, pay my bills, pay my taxes whether gay people are "married" or not.
If we are going to step on the slippery slope of allowing the government to bestow and withhold rights then it`s just a matter of time before they start withholding rights that might affect me or you directly.


edit on 6-9-2012 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
While Im pro gay-marriage I think its more important that a politician sticks to his guns and we know what to expect of him. Obama changes his stance on gay-marriage at the whim of public sentiment and thats neither honest nor consistent. Gays will be more recognized in every manner in society, but whats more important now is the economy not sexual orientation.


Actually - - Obama did it the right way.

By inviting gays to the White House - - listening to them - - getting to know them.

Listening to his daughters and seeing the direction of the next generation.



edit on 6-9-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by queenannie38
 



Opposition to gays serving was highest in the Marine Corps, where nearly half the marines are opposed. The Navy was the most welcoming, according to the Pentagon review.

articles.nydailynews.com...

officials at the Pentagon said the final tally on completed responses was 109,883 -- a response rate of only about 27.5 percent.

www.stripes.com...

As you said moot point now.


I guess you didn't notice...I linked to that first link, too...and that article is about the second survey which was done after the low response rate of the first survey...to which your second link's article referred.

"Nearly half the marines" is not the same as "most service members."

"Most service members" would be greater than half of all 5 branches combined...technically speaking...by the same token, then "nearly half the marines" is less than 1/10 of the total population of military personnel.



It makes perfect sense to me that the branch with the highest rate of confessed discomfort (or whatever) with gays serving alongside would be the Marine Corps. But I was rather surprised that the number wasn't over but rather under half.

I think the heart of this matter, for military personnel, is not about sexual orientation at all but rather a question of honor and of honesty.


Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it was a simple matter of right and wrong: "A policy that requires people to lie about themselves to me seems fundamentally flawed," Gates said.


Because...the way it was, under DADT...you either had to lie...which goes against everything else the military upholds and promotes...or you had to deny and/or try to change your essential nature as an individual. It is an inevitable FAIL situation, no matter what. And for what purpose? Not one of a practical nature, for sure. Trickle-down homophobia, perhaps?


"You don't have to be straight to shoot straight."

Makes sense to me!



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Rastafari
 


Really? The bible has a list of many things that are an abomination (depending on which version you read of course)

Are you going to drag all the women in your church "out by the ear" if they are wearing pants? Because that is also an abomination to God (Deuteronomy 22:5).

No anyone who is arrogant in your church? You should drag them out too because they are an abomination in God's eyes as well. (Proverbs 16:5)

Ever told a lie? You need to stop going to church (Proverbs 12:22)

The bible has a list of things that are an "abomination" that could easily apply to ANYONE, yet people like you focus on this one thing and refuse to recognize the "abominations" committed around you daily by heterosexual people including yourself, your family and your friends.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsThisThingBugged
reply to post by Cuervo
 


So should Mitt have said he supported gay marriage to appease this guy? I applaud any politician that is consistent, and doesn't just tell people what they want to hear.


I applaud him for that as well, but I wouldn't want the president to support limiting the freedoms of those in the minority. Very un-presidenty.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
The truth of the matter is simple. Marriage should not be a legislative matter. It was and has always been a religious matter. Man DID NOT institute marriage. God did. In the old days (old testament, Hammarabi, etc) women were considered chattle just like your donkey, weapons, horses, children, etc. The way to track taxes, tithing, and property you had to register all with the priests. '
The reason the US got involved was to keep a black freedman woman/man from marrying a white woman/man. Plain and simple. One of my very best friends ran for State Representative for Kentucky and this issue got brought time and time again until they debated it. We were shocked to do the history and learn. I don't have time to site my sources but the information is all out there. I will try to link some sources later.
My warning is this. Our country is being divided over things. The polarity started years ago. Divide and conquer is as old as time.
I respect Romney's integrity and conviction. I understand people who want to be in same sex marriages and outside of work covered insurance benefits and social security most things can be solved by a simple power of attorney.
I will say this as well since our "love lives" have been legislated. We should not let our emotions ever decide when they conflict against the statistics.
I sat in a debate on the House floor of the Indiana State Representatives, a packed house I might add. The debate was between a medical doctor who had a friend that was gay and wanted to marry his partner and an Indiana State Rep. I thought this "logical, calculating," medical doctor was going to shut the state rep down. What I learned about countries that have allowed state sanctioned marriage was flooring. I had no idea. The Representative effectively shut the doctor down with hard facts that left the doctor's closing statement with literally "i love my wife and I am lucky to have her. She is my best friend. I am lucky we were both born heterosexual so we could fall in love and get married, my friend can not." I thought, "WHAT!!!??" that's it? That is his argument?
Somethings in Denmark have experienced are the highest rate of alchol and drug abuse in the world among young adults whose parents are homosexual partners verses those in a traditional marriage. Before you think it is because of close-minded social stigmas thrust upon them stop because you will be wrong. You see when two women/men are married they more times than not divorce at a higher rate than heterosexuals. The cost to society and the public coffers is overwhelming. For one, everybody in economics knows divorce is costly. Two, children more often than not were brought into the family "unaturally" through surrogates and adoption. Guess what happens when custody battles come. Most go from fighting and using the child as a weapon to threaten the other with using the child as a burden. Before you think the alcohol/drug abuse is higher in all adopted children stop again you will be wrong. Overwhelmingly it is higher in young adults that are from same sex families. The children tend to need more counseling, therapy, medication, and typically have a high rate of suicide after the "state" fails them. Who do you think bears the burden of taxes and "health care" in these socialized systems of "state parenting?" That's right society!
SO before we go making decisions based on aww what feels good we need to look at some cold hard facts as I am sure Mr. Romney has done.
By the way I support neither candidate.
I will attempt to source al previous info later today,

Goldhaber, O. (2007). "I Want My Mommies: The Cry for Mini-DOMAs to Recognize the Best Interests of the Children of Same-sex couples." Family Court Review, 45(2), 287- 301. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2007.00144.x

I started to do research and in the Netherlands the divorce rate is lower than heteros.
However this articek wxplains the Netherlands in a differnt light.
Article
edit on 6-9-2012 by sirjunlegun because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by MegaMind
 


I think the Bill of Rights was originally drafted with the idea of protecting our rights rather than limiting government.



I could be wrong, however.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by CoherentlyConfused
 


Except that the Federal government passed the Defense of Marriage Act. I think is why people want to know how any potential president would treat the gay marriage issue. I'm not saying the federal government should be involved. They shouldn't. I am saying they got themselves involved once this legislation was signed into law.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by PvtHudson
 




edit on 9/6/2012 by queenannie38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH


That was awesome! Thanks for sharing, S&F



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


Actually, I think you both are right. The Bill of Rights prohibits the government from making laws that infringe on our rights, which in turn, means it protects our rights from being infringed upon. It really just depends on how you look at it.

One thing people don't realize is that the Bill of Rights simply illustrates some of the most important rights. It certainly does not illustrate them all. This is why I am bothered by people who use the Bill of Rights to say something like, "Show me where it says you have that right in the Constitution?" To them I would ask, "Do you think you have a right to travel where you want? A right to privacy? A right to procreate?" I would imagine they would say, "Yes", but then I would have to explain that NONE of these rights are illustrated in the Constitution.

This also means that marriage could very well be seen as a right. In fact, who is anyone to tell me I cannot marry a certain person? And who is the government to dictate to me what sex that person should be? Which is why I believe that the second the government chose to legally recognize marriage is when marriage become a legally recognized right and, as such, should be extended to all consenting adults.





new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join