It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mitt Romney Accidentally Confronts A Gay Veteran; Awesomeness Ensues

page: 9
72
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I've never liked R-Money from the start (I'll save my views on Mormonism for the Religion forums), but just watching him get owned by Mr. Garon (?) makes me a bit more hopeful that he'll not win the White House in November.

To add, Mitt comparing his service with the Mormon Church to military service is like me saying my Confirmation was like graduating high school. IT'S NOT THE SAME THING.

Cheers to Bob, and I hope he and his husband have many happy years together!




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 




I have no respect for "consistency" if it is a consistent violation of civil rights.


Could not have said it better myself. I cannot see how anyone can defend what Mitt Romney is doing here because in his attempts to be "consistent" he is revealing the stupidity of denying gay rights. We're talking about soldiers willing to give up their lives to fight the battles, but they can't even have the same rights as others because "marriage is between a man and a woman"? There's no good reason, no good justification for stopping consenting adults of any gender from getting married, I think Mitt Romney is smart enough to realize that, but then he's also smart enough to keep pandering to the ignorant Christian-right that keep the Republicans alive as a party.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Regardless of religious standings it's ridiculous to at least not allow civil union partnerships for benefits etc. As a Christian I believe this, and I guess I have a pretty strong view on it since my sister is gay and married. I believe differently than most Christians myself, however my faith should have nothing to do with constitutional rights and laws. Separation of Church and State.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I also take issue with someone whose religion believed it was okay for a man to marry twelve women but not for two men to have a monogamous relationship. Just sayin.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by powerdrone
Regardless of religious standings it's ridiculous to at least not allow civil union partnerships for benefits etc. As a Christian I believe this, and I guess I have a pretty strong view on it since my sister is gay and married. I believe differently than most Christians myself, however my faith should have nothing to do with constitutional rights and laws. Separation of Church and State.


Thank you for understanding the distinction between faith and law.

If Christianity is still a major religion 20 years from now, it will be because of Christians like you. You are what will keep your faith alive as society evolves beyond such petty dogma.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


He flip-flops more than agitated carp. Actually, I think I will write in a carp fish to be our president. They get their stuff done.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsThisThingBugged
reply to post by Cuervo
 


How exactly is marriage a "right"? It is not mentioned as a right in ANY of our founding documents and is not as recognized natural right.

If marriage between two men is a right, is polygamy also a right? If your state wants to allow for gay marriage thats fine, go for it. But lets not rewrite history and pretend like marriage appears ANYWHERE as a right in any of our countries documents...

If people want gay marriage, then vote for it. Otherwise imposing it on the nation is no better than any other tyrannical act.
edit on 5-9-2012 by IsThisThingBugged because: (no reason given)


"Imposing it" - on who? No one's asking you to become gay and get married.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Luckily, the "Christian Left" is FINALLY standing up and being counted!!!

I guess we got tired of the extreme right wing not only destroying our country but trying to destroy our God as well. The "religious right" is NOT religious and they are NOT right.
Jesus Christ said absolutely NOTHING against homosexuality and any and every passage in the Bible that they CLAIM speaks about homosexuality has been denounced and disproven time and time and time and time again by those who have compared it to the original text and shown their mistranslation. Regardless of how many times they are shown, from the original text (of course THEY think the KJV written in English is the original text because they're idiots), they still can't comprehend it. It really is a shame.

Anyone who happens to be seeking a closer relationship to God, I beg you, do NOT go to one of these evangelical fundamentalist groups, they are not Christian and they are not churches, they are merely money-making schemes who fool people who are unable to think for themselves.

If you want a relationship with God, there are churches out there who foster that. The closest mainstream church is probably the United Methodists. Episcopalians are good, Metropolitan Community Churches are great, there are many others. The way to tell is to go between now and November. If the election is mentioned in any way, shape or form, leave and leave fast and don't EVER go back.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsThisThingBugged
reply to post by Cuervo
 


How exactly is marriage a "right"? It is not mentioned as a right in ANY of our founding documents and is not as recognized natural right.

If marriage between two men is a right, is polygamy also a right? If your state wants to allow for gay marriage thats fine, go for it. But lets not rewrite history and pretend like marriage appears ANYWHERE as a right in any of our countries documents...

If people want gay marriage, then vote for it. Otherwise imposing it on the nation is no better than any other tyrannical act.
edit on 5-9-2012 by IsThisThingBugged because: (no reason given)


Actually, if you wanna get into the whole "lets not rewrite history" crap.... history was rewritten to outlaw poligamy, not the other way around. Poligamy had been around since BEFORE the time of Christ and was never forbidden by God in any way, shape or form. History was rewritten to outlaw it because a group of self righteous bigots didn't like it.
I couldn't care less if someone wanted to have multiple spouses as long as it wasn't against their will and they were of legal age. That doesn't affect me in any way, shape or form. Gay marriage doesn't affect me in any way, shape or form so why would I be upset if two people of the same gender wanted to be married? It wouldn't affect my marriage in any way. I wouldn't be forced to become gay (since people are born gay, they don't become gay) and marry another dude, so it really doesn't affect me, it ony affects the people wanting to get married and share their lives together. Let them do it. Sheeeesh.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Friedrich Von Steuben...Baron Von Steuben

Inspector General and Major General of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War.

He is credited with being one of the fathers of the Continental Army in teaching them the essentials of military drills, tactics, and disciplines.

He wrote the Revolutionary War Drill Manual, the book that served as the standard United States drill manual until the War of 1812.

He served as General George Washington's chief of staff in the final years of the war.

Largely credited with turning the tide in the Revolutionary war and being one of the most brilliant military minds of history.

He was also gay as a goose...and if not for him, there might not be an America...

Prussia didn't want the scandal of a gay military leader and drove him from europe...America's Army which appeared doomed by the British forces who had never lost a war at the time was the only place that would take him.

He joined what appeared to be an Army speeding toward a bloody and miserable defeat.

He led that American army in what was the first time in history the British were defeated...by The First American Army.

Just thought it an appropriate bit of trivia...the first known gay US Veteran...

This Vet in the video deserves every right and respect due him by the country he risked his life for...and ef that draft dodging Mitt Romney for thinking otherwise.
edit on 6-9-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 


Romney was 30 years old when the church still openly discriminated against blacks


A similar statement by Young was recorded on February 13, 1849. The statement — which refers to the Curse of Cain — was given in response to a question asking about the African's chances for redemption. Young responded, "The Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood."[9]



In 1995, black church member A. David Jackson asked church leaders to issue a declaration repudiating past doctrines that treated black people as inferior. In particular, Jackson asked the church to disavow the 1949 "Negro Question" declaration from the church Presidency which stated "The attitude of the church with reference to negroes ... is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord ... to the effect that negroes ... are not entitled to the priesthood...".

The church leadership did not issue a repudiation, and so in 1997 Jackson, aided by other church members including Armand Mauss, sent a second request to church leaders, which stated that white Mormons felt that the 1978 revelation resolved everything, but that black Mormons react differently when they learn the details. He said that many black Mormons become discouraged and leave the church or become inactive. "When they find out about this, they exit... You end up with the passive African Americans in the church".[95]


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 6-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
This is great. Mitt gets asked about same-sex marriage and basic rights for married couples. Mitt, of course, thinking that there can't possibly be an old rugged army vet who's gay, enthusiastically and proudly throws down what he probably thought was a slam dunk only to find out that he happily told the guy he didn't want him to be treated with equality. Hilarious.

Check out this video




Back in December 2011 during a campaign stop in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney decided to drop by Vietnam War veteran Bob Garon's breakfast table for a quick photo-op. What Romney didn't realize is that Garon was sitting with his husband, whom he had married just a few months earlier. What followed might be the single greatest "oblivious Romney" moment of the entire campaign. Enjoy.

edit on 5-9-2012 by Cuervo because: Added Youtube


My personal view is shared by a majority of Americans, but you clearly are in the minority on this issue.
There is nothing AWESOME about gay and lesbian relationships. While you sit there
behind your keyboard pondering how to answer this, let's be CLEAR and STRAIGHT about
the facts.

God called Gay and Lesbian relationships an ABOMINATION - Reference the Book of Leviticus,
Chapter 18, verse 22 .... It reads " You shall not lay down with man as with a woman, it is an ABOMINATION".

Christ did NOT approve of homosexual behavior, just like His father GOD did not.

You know the DIFFERENCE between WRONG and RIGHT and continuing to sin in this manner is a CHOICE you are making. I hope you can stomach the CONSEQUENCES when they come for it. Hell will not be a lonely
place for the lot of you and it will not be fun for you either.

What you choose to do in the PRIVACY of your HOME is YOUR business.

Flaunting your SEXUAL ORIENTATION in PUBLIC will bring Prejudice, Ridicule and Condemnation upon you.
YOU BRING IT UPON YOU because of your lack of MORALS. No one but YOU are responsible for what other people say to YOU about YOUR BEHAVIOR.

Let's be clear on this as well. The VETERAN in the video served his country and his country owes him a few things. It does not have to honor those things to his boyfriend because it is not generally recognized as a marriage by government. What Romney said was true about the beliefs in this country at the time it was established and have been ever since. Just because you want to FLAUNT your sexual preferences in PUBLIC tells me that you are only doing it for the attention. You are thumbing your nose at GOD and doing it in HIS FACE. Not a wise move I might add, giving His statement on the matter in Leviticus.

edit on 9/6/2012 by Labrynth2012 because: Added more commentary



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


I saw this today and couldn't believe it. Why would anyone vote for this guy? He won't let gays get married, in 2012? I'm not even a guy that sticks up for gays constantly like some do, in fact I think gay pride marches and the like are BS, if you want to be treated equally, stop making such a big deal about being "different". But there is no way anyone should support a political figure that is so against gays being married. It's just ridiculous, like the vet says, what's the difference?

In before "God said!" etc etc.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Thanks. I really appreciate that.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
The gay man in the video kept saying what difference does it make, and here is his answer. The institution of marriage has been here way before politics and is not a man made law. Its a divine natural law and has everything to do with morals and values. The purpose of marriage or divine law (laws of nature) is for a man and a woman to procreate.marriage means that they are bonded together to raise children. If these laws are broken marriage will not mean anything. I really dont care if gays have equal rights, but in marriage,according to natural law,it just cant be right. Thats my take on it.
edit on 6-9-2012 by Theophorus because: spelling



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 

WRONG AGAIN, Marriage is entirely a Religion Based Institution and unions are define as follows:




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Theophorus
The gay man in the video kept saying what difference does it make, and here is his answer.

The institution of marrage has been here way before politics and is not a man made law.


Marriage as an "institution" is precisely man made.


Originally posted by Theophorus
Its a divine natural law and has everything to do with morals and values.


Historically they had everything to do with economics and were 'arranged"...and not by God.


Originally posted by Theophorus
The purpose of marrage or divine law (laws of nature) is for a man and a woman to procreate.marrage means that they are bonded together to raise children. If these laws are broken marrage will not mean anything.


Hmmm....Well someone should start outlawing marriages that do not produce children and tell those couples who have failed to concieve that thier marriage does not "mean anything" and is illegitmate and will no longer be legally recognized.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

edit on 6-9-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorKarma
reply to post by Tardacus
 

WRONG AGAIN, Marriage is entirely a Religion Based Institution and unions are define as follows:





Right ! Leviticus Chapter 18 Verse 22 says it pretty clear and its writtings have been around longer than when Christ walked the earth. It Reads:

"You Shall NOT lay down with a man as with a woman, it is an ABOMINATION" !

This goes back into the BC (Before Christ) Timeline of human history. It was the accepted LAW of the day
back then and it was born out of what happened to SODOM and GAMORRAH.

So get over yourselves. Marriage has always been considered LAW between a man and a woman in every culture since the Sumerians and maybe beyond them.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorKarma
reply to post by Tardacus
 

WRONG AGAIN, Marriage is entirely a Religion Based Institution and unions are define as follows:





I was under this assumption too and had argued in support of that "fact" on another thread. Only to find that I was wrong. So overwhelmingly wrong that only a quick google search was all I needed to find out I was incorrect. Marriage was created by the state/government. Or, If you go back farther, the leaders of tribes sanctioned marriages. It was hundreds of years later before the vatican took over control of unions between people. And another hundred before the took it over fully. So no sir... You are incorrect, as was I.




top topics



 
72
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join