Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mitt Romney Accidentally Confronts A Gay Veteran; Awesomeness Ensues

page: 7
72
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:03 PM
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.


If you mean Romney is consistent in the fact he flip-flops consistently, I would agree. Two points however concerning Romney;

1. He cheated by changing the voting requirements, against Ron Paul at the RNC in order to keep Ron Paul off the ballot and out of any air-time at the convention. Romney is a cheater and cheaters are always losers because their wins, should they occur, are stolen, so he might be a thief as well.

2. Romney and his spawn are practicing LDS Mormon's. The LDS Mormon church frowns heavily on the use of surrogacy and in-vitro fertilization as a conception or birthing process. Mitt obviously supports his son Tagg's decision to use a surrogacy center for the production of the next line of spawn. It is interesting that the surrogacy center chosen is owned by a military contractor's daughter. Her father owned the companies that developed and produced weapons systems to kill the ANC (Mandela's "freedom fighters"), many of them. So the daughter's education and her life up to at least the age of 25 was paid for in the blood of others it would seem (I know her).

On the surrogacy and the LDS church

We have Romney, an alleged mercenary and what appears to be a corporate rapist/scavenger with no ethics or moral compass, who listens to no one, including his own church (to which he professes allegiance when it suits him) who supports his son's decision to get in "bed" with the daughter of a man whose past has been financed by blood in a rather unatractive manner. Does that sound like a good combination to you, or a marriage made in hell?

If you would like to pursue this, I can provide more information, since I was there in this military past that providing so much funding ;-) Romney should have checked out who his son was dealing with, as this is one of those skeletons in the closet that could very easily fall out on the floor. I might even write a whole thread on this because the entire situation is quite nasty ;-)

Cheers - Dave




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaron2209
That vet is great.

We have the same debate going on in Australia and those against same sex marriage all spout the same rubbish over and over i.e. "Marriage is between a man and a woman". That's the only justification they ever come up with and it is the most flimsy BS justification I can think of.

I hope you guys can keep Mitt out of the White House


Actually NO it is NOT BS! Just because you have a strong feeling that marriage can be between two people of the same sex doesn't mean it fits the definition of marriage. Why can't you queers just ask for the same benefits as those who get married and go without a ceremony. A marriage started with God in which makes marriage a holy event. So if two people get married of the same sex it is not HOLY NO MORE! Get it! I am no catholic either and already know of the queer "priests" in which are in the catholic church ( or circus the meaning of church in Hebrew). So go ahead with your unrighteous self and start studying the meaning of words in the dictionary and what those words mean in other languages so you can make yourself more righteous than what you already are which probably won't do much for you.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:19 PM
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.


ANYONE who apposes gay marriage is a fear mongering homophobe... So yes... he should have said he supported gay marriage... not for any political stance, but because its right...

You would applaud a man under a rock for staying under said rock?

pathetic.
edit on 6-9-2012 by Aninonymous because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 

I wasn't aware that the constitution defined marriage - does it?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aninonymous

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.


ANYONE who apposes gay marriage is a fear mongering homophobe... So yes... he should have said he supported gay marriage... not for any political stance, but because its right...

You would applaud a man under a rock for staying under said rock?

pathetic.
edit on 6-9-2012 by Aninonymous because: (no reason given)


How idiotic of a statement is this! lol So I guess I am not suppose to pay attention to the meaning of words either ?? Your logic is stupidity.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Cuervo
 

I wasn't aware that the constitution defined marriage - does it?


Yes it does, so go look it up yourself because I shouldn't have to pick up after your laziness.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 
I find it interesting how Americans are lining up on one side or the other on what will become very minor issues if Obama and those with are allowed another term to force their Globalist-Collectivist-Marxist-Police State down our throats. Gay Marriage is nothing of importance compared to Obamacare, Gay Marriage is nothing compared to the Law of the Sea Treaty, Gay Marriage is nothing compared to crashing our dollar and forcing us all onto some kind of new money they will have an accounting of, track and tax at will. If Romney is elected we will have some civil unrest amongst a bunch of Godless Homosexuals,Blacks and Minorities but if Obama is elected it is going to probably erupt into civil war and you Liberals are going to be shoved (nicer word)back into the dark ages. Admittedly our country is probably screwed regardless of who is elected/re-elected but the issues Obama stands for and Romney stands for are are going to erupt into Americans against Americans. I must add that either way, regardless of who is elected, I will be leaving with my family; there are a lot nicer places in the world than America; even Russians are looking great these days. Obamacare, the inevitable crash of the US Dollar and Ugly Americans is why.

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



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorKarma
reply to post by Cuervo
 
I find it interesting how Americans are lining up on one side or the other on what will become very minor issues if Obama and those with are allowed another term to force their Globalist-Collectivist-Marxist-Police State down our throats. Gay Marriage is nothing of importance compared to Obamacare, Gay Marriage is nothing compared to the Law of the Sea Treaty, Gay Marriage is nothing compared to crashing our dollar and forcing us all onto some kind of new money they will have an accounting of, track and tax at will. If Romney is elected we will have some civil unrest amongst a bunch of Godless Homosexuals,Blacks and Minorities but if Obama is elected it is going to probably erupt into civil war and you Liberals are going to be shoved (nicer word)back into the dark ages. Admittedly our country is probably screwed regardless of who is elected/re-elected but the issues Obama stands for and Romney stands for are are going to erupt into Americans against Americans. I must add that either way, regardless of who is elected, I will be leaving with my family; there are a lot nicer places in the world than America; even Russians are looking great these days. Obamacare, the inevitable crash of the US Dollar and Ugly Americans is why.

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


I agree! It doesn't matter who you pick! You are just picking the lesser of the evil. In this case they are both just as bad. Though at the same time something has to happen sooner or later. Above that I feel the same way you do. I'm torn apart in my heart with a country falling apart minute after minute, hour after hour. What are we to do? lol This is insane.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
marraige being between only a man and a women is a religious concept.This country isn`t governed by religious concepts or beliefs. if you want to live in a country like that then you should move to Iran
if we are going to start to allow religious concepts to dictate our laws then the big question becomes which religion gets to call the shots?
Would christians be comfortable with allowing the muslims to call the shots? if not than why whould christians expect any non christians be comfortable with allowing christians to dictate the laws of this country based on their own religious concepts and beliefs?
edit on 6-9-2012 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2012 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by Rastafari

Originally posted by littled16

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Mitt Romney is against equal civil rights, he's hateful and bigoted. This really shouldn't surprise anyone, his religion teaches that black people and native americans were cursed with dark skin because of their sins. It also teaches that homosexuality is a product of evil.

edit on 5-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)


Is that something you know or just something you heard? I ask because there are many Mormons in my area and some of them are black and some are native Americans. I wouldn't think they would convert to Mormanism if they were actually preaching nonsense like that.


I am mormon and i have mayan blood hence my dark skin color, and yes we do learn these things that have been taught to us. Ive never felt offended by it and neither has the hundred thousands of blacks, hispanics, africans, and native americans that are members. There are reasons why we believe these things, but just one thing, our church doesnt teach us that WE are cursed because of OUR sins. Its completely different than that, and neither you or realspoke will understand anything unless you attend our church with a positive mentality.
edit on 6-9-2012 by Rastafari because: (no reason given)


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.


So if God denieth none that come, why does Romney denieth equal rights to groups of individuals based on their sexual orientation?



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
No matter what though if someone is trying to justify something that is not right, I will stand tall against them no matter what tribulations I may have to endure.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus
marraige being between only a man and a women is a religious concept.This country isn`t governed by religious concepts or beliefs. if you want to live in a country like that then you should move to Iran
if we are going to start to allow religious concepts to dictate our laws then the big question becomes which religion gets to call the shots?
Would christians be comfortable with allowing the muslims to call the shots? if not than why whould christians expect any non christians be comfortable with allowing christians to dictate the laws of this country based on their own religious concepts and beliefs?
edit on 6-9-2012 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2012 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)


Even if I didn't believe in Yahweh I would still be technical about everything because I HAVE a brain! DO YOU? The meaning of the word is the meaning of the word so just because you feel it is not just you want to change the meaning of it? lol



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoubleDNH

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by Rastafari

Originally posted by littled16

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Mitt Romney is against equal civil rights, he's hateful and bigoted. This really shouldn't surprise anyone, his religion teaches that black people and native americans were cursed with dark skin because of their sins. It also teaches that homosexuality is a product of evil.

edit on 5-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)


Is that something you know or just something you heard? I ask because there are many Mormons in my area and some of them are black and some are native Americans. I wouldn't think they would convert to Mormanism if they were actually preaching nonsense like that.


I am mormon and i have mayan blood hence my dark skin color, and yes we do learn these things that have been taught to us. Ive never felt offended by it and neither has the hundred thousands of blacks, hispanics, africans, and native americans that are members. There are reasons why we believe these things, but just one thing, our church doesnt teach us that WE are cursed because of OUR sins. Its completely different than that, and neither you or realspoke will understand anything unless you attend our church with a positive mentality.
edit on 6-9-2012 by Rastafari because: (no reason given)


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.


So if God denieth none that come, why does Romney denieth equal rights to groups of individuals based on their sexual orientation?


Well first off talking about Yahweh and his rule. Yahweh actually will not accept any of those who are homosexual and DO NOT repent for it. Yeshua took upon our sins only if we BELIEVE in him, ACCEPT him as CHRIST, and follow the laws of Yahweh after they understand and know the laws of Yahweh. THAT INCLUDES FOLLOWING HIS LAW NOT JUST BELIEVING AND ACCEPTING HIM AS CHRIST.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
The government has a self-interest in promoting heterosexual marriage - its called reproduction and continuation of the human species, and the building of a work force.

People can marry whoever they want. But the government has no business supporting any of it unless it serves an economic and survival interest.

Tax breaks, benefits, and any other government perk that is associated with marriage should be only applied to couples that are serving the national interest and insuring the continuity of the population.

That would exclude gays, and that would ALSO exclude hetero couples that are not actively engaged in the raising of children. Just being together, married or NOT (and gay or NOT), should not be a reason for the government to grant any benefits above the benefits given to EVERYONE

However, the bearing and raising of children is the MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTION that humans perform. Without this, we would fade from existence. The government HAS AN INTEREST in enabling couples to provide a healthy environment for this most important function.

What other reason is there for government to give preferential treatment to any couple over the rest of the population?

It should not be a religious or a moral issue when discussing government support of anything other than the traditional marriage that creates a family and continues the survival of our population by adding to it.

Marriage is not a government function. But support of the traditional marriage that includes the raising of a family, and the government providing benefits above those of singles, gay couples, or even childless hetero couples, is an economic and national security function that helps to promote healthy growth of the next generation of citizens.

So, WHY should we EVEN CONSIDER more discrimination against unmarried people? Why should we consider preferential treatment for any couple above the treatment given to all citizens? WHY SHOULD WE GRANT RIGHTS to any 'preferred' group of people (married people) THAT ARE NOT GRANTED TO ALL CITIZENS?

We shouldn't unless it serves a national interest, and that interest is producing and raising the next generation. Not sex (I don't care WHAT kind it is).

You want equal rights? Then demand we STRIP ALL BENEFITS and make everyone EQUAL in ther treatment by the government. Remove ANY recognition of marriage, and return it to the church or the community. The demands of gay marriage recognition by the government is just another example of preferences and rights being applied unfairly, it does NOT make another group equal to 'the rest of us', it only adds to the existing inequality. SIngle and co-habitating couples should be protesting this, NOT supporting it, and NOT allowing the argument to be sidetracked into accusations of bigotry and bias and homophobia.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I am no christian and wouldn't want to be a christian. At one point of time I was catholic which is the same thing as christian for the most part. Christianity was started with paganism and STILL IS PAGAN today. You still probably celebrate Christmas, Easter and the rest of those PAGAN holidays too!



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by lakesidepark
The government has a self-interest in promoting heterosexual marriage - its called reproduction and continuation of the human species, and the building of a work force.

People can marry whoever they want. But the government has no business supporting any of it unless it serves an economic and survival interest.

Tax breaks, benefits, and any other government perk that is associated with marriage should be only applied to couples that are serving the national interest and insuring the continuity of the population.

That would exclude gays, and that would ALSO exclude hetero couples that are not actively engaged in the raising of children. Just being together, married or NOT (and gay or NOT), should not be a reason for the government to grant any benefits above the benefits given to EVERYONE

However, the bearing and raising of children is the MOST IMPORTANT FUNCTION that humans perform. Without this, we would fade from existence. The government HAS AN INTEREST in enabling couples to provide a healthy environment for this most important function.

What other reason is there for government to give preferential treatment to any couple over the rest of the population?

It should not be a religious or a moral issue when discussing government support of anything other than the traditional marriage that creates a family and continues the survival of our population by adding to it.

Marriage is not a government function. But support of the traditional marriage that includes the raising of a family, and the government providing benefits above those of singles, gay couples, or even childless hetero couples, is an economic and national security function that helps to promote healthy growth of the next generation of citizens.

So, WHY should we EVEN CONSIDER more discrimination against unmarried people? Why should we consider preferential treatment for any couple above the treatment given to all citizens? WHY SHOULD WE GRANT RIGHTS to any 'preferred' group of people (married people) THAT ARE NOT GRANTED TO ALL CITIZENS?

We shouldn't unless it serves a national interest, and that interest is producing and raising the next generation. Not sex (I don't care WHAT kind it is).

You want equal rights? Then demand we STRIP ALL BENEFITS and make everyone EQUAL in ther treatment by the government. Remove ANY recognition of marriage, and return it to the church or the community. The demands of gay marriage recognition by the government is just another example of preferences and rights being applied unfairly, it does NOT make another group equal to 'the rest of us', it only adds to the existing inequality. SIngle and co-habitating couples should be protesting this, NOT supporting it, and NOT allowing the argument to be sidetracked into accusations of bigotry and bias and homophobia.


It has NOTHING to do with what the GOVERNMENT WANTS. BESIDES if the GOVERNMENT had it their WAY, THEY would FORCE EVERYONE TO ACCEPT QUEER MARRIAGE so population would GO DOWN.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

WE ALL HAVE A CHOICE TO MAKE!



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Mitt Romney has his beliefs and I respect that. He believes marriage should be between a man & a woman...more power to him and he has that right for his opinion. Will he lose votes yet, but he will also gain votes for that same reasoning. I don't see the big issue here in this video.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ruthlesstruth
Actually NO it is NOT BS! Just because you have a strong feeling that marriage can be between two people of the same sex doesn't mean it fits the definition of marriage.


Just because you have a strong feeling that marriage is defined as heterosexual only does not mean you get the monopoly on the definition, either.



Originally posted by ruthlesstruth
Why can't you queers just ask for the same benefits as those who get married and go without a ceremony. A marriage started with God in which makes marriage a holy event.


Your godling has nothing to do with a promise that people make with each other. Marriage is a social contract and only includes your narrow beliefs if you like it to. Marriage existed loooong before your Jesus and looooong before your books were written.

Your Jesus man has nothing to do with marriage.



Originally posted by ruthlesstruth
So if two people get married of the same sex it is not HOLY NO MORE! Get it! I am no catholic either and already know of the queer "priests" in which are in the catholic church ( or circus the meaning of church in Hebrew). So go ahead with your unrighteous self and start studying the meaning of words in the dictionary and what those words mean in other languages so you can make yourself more righteous than what you already are which probably won't do much for you.


"Holiness" is not a requirement for people to promise to love each other. Do you really think you are marrying god or your spouse? Marriage is defined by society, not your cult.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by HawkeyeNation
Mitt Romney has his beliefs and I respect that. He believes marriage should be between a man & a woman...more power to him and he has that right for his opinion. Will he lose votes yet, but he will also gain votes for that same reasoning. I don't see the big issue here in this video.


Honestly, there is no big issue here just the argument over what is right and what is wrong. This argument really has nothing to do with politics at all.





new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join