CosmicBills Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Discuss... [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRN9Y5Nvdqk&feature=player_embedded#![/media] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 So, Mitt refused to flip-flop, knowing he would lose a vote, while Obama flip-flopped hoping to gain votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 6, 2012 Author Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) So, Mitt refused to flip-flop, knowing he would lose a vote, while Obama flip-flopped hoping to gain votes. That is one way to look at it... But then there's this... Mitt's '94 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans of Mass: "One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation's military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share." So did did he really refuse to flip flop or did he refuse to admit he flip flopped already? Edited September 6, 2012 by tgreg99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) Did you really just go there? Specially considering that the President was for it, then against it, then for it again. So he was originally a fully evolved man. Then he de evolved. Then he evolved again. Not really the best topic to bring up. just sayin' Edited September 6, 2012 by WorldTraveller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 6, 2012 Author Share Posted September 6, 2012 Did you really just go there? Specially considering that the President was for it, then against it, then for it again. So he was originally a fully evolved man. Then he de evolved. Then he evolved again. Not really the best topic to bring up. just sayin' I didn't bring it up in reference to Obama. I brought it up in reference to Mitt specifically. This is a big issue for me personally as it speaks to the core of what this country is about. Mitt moved from support to opposition as a means to win an election. Political tap dancing is expected -- but dancing to the wrong side of history is alarming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 That is one way to look at it... But then there's this... Mitt's '94 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans of Mass: So did did he really refuse to flip flop or did he refuse to admit he flip flopped already? That's a big leap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 6, 2012 Author Share Posted September 6, 2012 That's a big leap. You're right. Mitt did take a big leap. From supporting equality for openly gay servicemen in 94 to telling a gay veteran to his face that gay servicemen should not enjoy the same rights as straight servicemen. It's a huge leap -- yet Mitt made it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Let's not pretend that you were actually ever going to consider voting for Mitt, just like I would never consider voting for O. You believe in moderately left policies, and I staunchly believe in Fiscal conservative positions. I happen to be pro gay marriage, pro choice and a **** load of other socially liberal positions, but the idea that I would disparage people who believe in the bible and believe that marriage is between a man and a woman is something I can respect. The difference between you and I regarding this position is that I'm not rigidly opposed or as callous as you are in your characterization to disparage their beliefs by stating that they are on "dancing to the wrong side of history is alarming". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 You're right. Mitt did take a big leap. From supporting equality for openly gay servicemen in 94 to telling a gay veteran to his face that gay servicemen should not enjoy the same rights as straight servicemen. It's a huge leap -- yet Mitt made it. Don't quibble. Romney stated in what you quoted that he was for "the don't ask don't tell" policy and that it would eventually lead to gays serving openly in the military. He didn't say anything about gay marriage. You are the one making the leap. Whether you like it or not there are laws and most states have chosen not to recognize gay marriage. Where do we stop with the continued calls against some perceived discrimination? Is NAMBLA discriminated against? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 In 25 years people will be able to marry whomever they wish, the fight against it is futile IMHO. Its no different than Civil Right for Blacks, Suffrage for Women or any other Civil Rights issue.... it will happen, might as well get with the concept of freedom and equlity for homosexuals- afterall, isnt that what we are all about i this country? I feel bad for that guy. I can't imagine fighting in the jungle in a losing war, only to have you rights on hold 40 years later by some uptight poltical party.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) I'm starting to warm up to Mitt even more. Stands his ground without appeasing every ambushing schmoe out there. Thanks for posting. I got a problem with the gay soldier though. He should realize that there are a lot more pressing problems right now besides gay marriage. Wake up stop being so selfish because none of the horseshit like "war on women", Romneys tax return or gay marriage will matter if the country goes all the way down the turlit. Edited September 6, 2012 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 In 25 years people will be able to marry whomever they wish, the fight against it is futile IMHO. Its no different than Civil Right for Blacks, Suffrage for Women or any other Civil Rights issue.... it will happen, might as well get with the concept of freedom and equlity for homosexuals- afterall, isnt that what we are all about i this country? I feel bad for that guy. I can't imagine fighting in the jungle in a losing war, only to have you rights on hold 40 years later by some uptight poltical party.. And I can tell you with near certitude, that they feel sorry for you. And that's where we are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 And I can tell you with near certitude, that they feel sorry for you. And that's where we are why feel sorry for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 In 25 years people will be able to marry whomever they wish, the fight against it is futile IMHO. Its no different than Civil Right for Blacks, Suffrage for Women or any other Civil Rights issue.... it will happen, might as well get with the concept of freedom and equlity for homosexuals- afterall, isnt that what we are all about i this country? I feel bad for that guy. I can't imagine fighting in the jungle in a losing war, only to have you rights on hold 40 years later by some uptight poltical party.. What's this, your "fine print" opinion? John Hancock, you are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 What's this, your "fine print" opinion? John Hancock, you are not. Honestly, I couldn't figure out why the print was so small.... I even tried changing it up top.. I could barely read my !@#$ing response.....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 why feel sorry for me? You feel "bad" for these people, because from your POV, they are backward looking. They feel "sorry" for you, because the more rigid viewpoints, see you as misguided. I on the otherhand, do believe as you do that it will become less of an issue moving forward, but understand where both positions are coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 6, 2012 Author Share Posted September 6, 2012 Let's not pretend that you were actually ever going to consider voting for Mitt, just like I would never consider voting for O. You'd be surprised. I have a lot of respect for Mitt and voted for him as Governor. You believe in moderately left policies, and I staunchly believe in Fiscal conservative positions. Again, you'd be surprised. We agree on way more than we disagree on. I happen to be pro gay marriage, pro choice and a **** load of other socially liberal positions, but the idea that I would disparage people who believe in the bible and believe that marriage is between a man and a woman is something I can respect. The difference between you and I regarding this position is that I'm not rigidly opposed or as callous as you are in your characterization to disparage their beliefs by stating that they are on "dancing to the wrong side of history is alarming". I'm not sure what you mean by this paragraph. I believe above all else that this is a nation built on inclusion -- not exclusion. I firmly believe homosexuality is not a choice. Using religion to thwart the personal liberties of US citizens is indeed alarming. It's never worked before and it's been tried many, many times. Each time the country has opted for personal freedom -- not restrictions. To think it's going to go any other way this time is just wrong. You take this as an attack on religion which it isn't. This is an attack on the ignorant or cowardly people who use religion as justification for oppression. Mitt isn't one of those people. He's just a guy trying to win an election by siding with a blatantly oppressive ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Honestly, I couldn't figure out why the print was so small.... I even tried changing it up top.. I could barely read my !@#$ing response.....lol Lucky you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted September 6, 2012 Author Share Posted September 6, 2012 You feel "bad" for these people, because from your POV, they are backward looking. They feel "sorry" for you, because the more rigid viewpoints, see you as misguided. I on the otherhand, do believe as you do that it will become less of an issue moving forward, but understand where both positions are coming from. This is what drives me nuts. You're a smart guy. We don't agree on everything (nor should we), but there's no doubting your sincerity or intelligence. You know your history and I don't believe you to have a bigoted heart or any of that nonsense people start throwing out when talking about this topic. But we're talking about core values here. Freedom for the minority versus oppression from the majority. The right's stance on gay marriage runs counter to everything this nation was built on. So where do you draw the line? You like the right's fiscal policies but you're willing to tolerate supporting a party that is actively trying to change the constitution to limit the freedoms of a segment of the population. And it's a position that the moderates in the GOP don't even believe in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 You feel "bad" for these people, because from your POV, they are backward looking. They feel "sorry" for you, because the more rigid viewpoints, see you as misguided. I on the otherhand, do believe as you do that it will become less of an issue moving forward, but understand where both positions are coming from. I am just glad to hear that you care about another man... lol The underlined, yes, it will come to pass- I certainly can appreciate both positions, but again I lean towards more rights and freedoms than less, and I still don't see how having two men/Women enter into a marriage contract affects my morals, my marriage, or what I teach my children about values. When I hear about preserving "our" values I cringe a bit, because what I hear is "our way or the highway"... to diverse a country for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts