US Presidential Election 2012

My only worry is that message might actually encourage some Americans to vote for him!!

“The multiculturalism movement must be unmasked for the fraud that it is,” Romney wrote in his 2010 book, “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.” “There are superior cultures, and ours is one of them."- The Boston Globe

Seems Romney and Hitler would have got along just fine!

I'm trying not to make this my personal Romney bitching thread but this hits close to home.

Romney rejected birth certificates for children born to gay parents - Boston Globe

Mitt. Romney. Is. A. Total. Idiot.

he also means a baby is God's creation and was meant to happen even if it was rape.. *facepalm*

Eldorion wrote:I'm trying not to make this my personal Romney bitching thread but this hits close to home.

Romney rejected birth certificates for children born to gay parents - Boston Globe

Actually I think most heterosexual couples should probably not be married either...

halfwise wrote:

Eldorion wrote:I'm trying not to make this my personal Romney bitching thread but this hits close to home.

Romney rejected birth certificates for children born to gay parents - Boston Globe

Actually I think most heterosexual couples should probably not be married either...

??

Norc wrote:Mitt. Romney. Is. A. Total. Idiot.

he also means a baby is God's creation and was meant to happen even if it was rape.. *facepalm*

I'm pretty sure that was someone else.

no, I may have heard wrong, but that leno dude quoted him.

why half wise do you think they shouldn't marry? just curious, you are free to stand your grounds and reasoning.

I wasn't sure if he meant in that they shouldn't be married either because you know, the high percentage of marriages that end in divorce, or if he was against gay marriage. Strange use of the word 'most' if that is the case

Most people, gay and straight, have absolutely no business inflicting themselves on someone else for the rest of their lives. (Okay, a crabbit reading of the situation 'cause I've met many women I consider absolute treasures, but I'm trying to make a point here.)

If they do, it should be all about the children. In the US we have both civil unions and marriage. There are some tax benefits and legal rights granted to marriages that don't get granted to civil unions.

Everyone, homo or hetero sexual, should start out with a civil union, and only be granted a marriage once they either give birth to or adopt kids. The right to gay marriage thereby devolves on whether they have a right to adopt (or have in vitro fertilization either themselves if women or by surrogate if men).

Whether same sex couples can successfully raise kids I'd call a matter to be decided by social science: let the test be done in large enough quantities that you can see if there's any problem. Personally i doubt any problems will be all that significant. Anyway, if same sex couples are allowed to raise a kid (and who's gonna stop them if they take in a stranded niece or nephew) then they should have the right to marry. If a mixed sex couple never has kids or are judged unfit to have kids, they should not have the right to marry. Everyone is entitled to a civil union.

I'm just saying I'll support Romney's stance if he's willing to take it to the logical conclusion.

Hang on, we all ready KNOW that a same sex couple can raise children successfully.

I'd also say that most people who would want to get married, want to get married, despite the responsibilities, not enter into a civil union before they have children. Legalizing marriage between lesbian and gay male couples is the only way that you will achieve equality, that's obvious. But regardless if you're talking of marriage in the eyes of the law, or in the eyes of God, you can't just enforce a rule of children before marriage. That is quite ridiculous. Many couples take the responsible route of NOT having children because they can't afford to raise them. So they can't get married? Some people don't want children period. So they can never get married, ever? That's crazy talk dude.

No, there just has to be a logical difference between a civil union and a marriage. The only logical difference would be having kids.

People are hung up emotionally on the word 'marriage' because it has a history 'civil union' does not. I'd say that allowing people a choice between civil union and marriage actually cheapens marriage. Both can be seen as an eternal union because that's all in the pledge you make to each other. But to grant legal differences? The only legal reason I can see to do that is children. In addition to the pledge you've made to each other, you add a pledge to the new people you are bringing into the world.

Yes, people who are not raising kids have an entirely different set of commitments. Families and married childless couples simply should not be classed together under the same word. You can still call them husband and wife, though. Just not mother and father.

Oh, and before birth control came along (late 50's was it?) people never had the option of deciding to have a childless marriage. That's a new thing in history. It deserves separate treatment. It's time to redefine marriage because it doesn't mean what it used to mean.

Plenty of couples remained childless prior to the 1950s. Some of them made a choice, and others just couldn't conceive due to biological issues with one or both partners. I see no reason to deny the term "marriage" to childless couples, especially when it never has been in the past.

Personally I'd rather do away with the notion of "civil unions" altogether. It's a "separate but equal" category that was invented as a way to exclude gays from marriage without entirely denying them the legal protections that normally come with marriage. I suppose it's better than nothing, but it's still an unjust exclusionary system. Sort of like Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That was a step forward when it was instituted in the early '90s, but in this day and age it needed to be removed so that true equality could take its place.

I'm also not sure why there would be any question of whether gay parents can raise kids.

EDIT: I hope this doesn't come off as harsh because I'm not trying to be, I just have strong feelings on this matter. Nothing personal meant against anyone here (or elsewhere).

halfwise wrote:No, there just has to be a logical difference between a civil union and a marriage. The only logical difference would be having kids.

People are hung up emotionally on the word 'marriage' because it has a history 'civil union' does not. I'd say that allowing people a choice between civil union and marriage actually cheapens marriage. Both can be seen as an eternal union because that's all in the pledge you make to each other. But to grant legal differences? The only legal reason I can see to do that is children. In addition to the pledge you've made to each other, you add a pledge to the new people you are bringing into the world.

Yes, people who are not raising kids have an entirely different set of commitments. Families and married childless couples simply should not be classed together under the same word. You can still call them husband and wife, though. Just not mother and father.

The difference between a civil union and a marriage is that one was created to grant same-sex unions but one that was so obviously inferior to a marriage between a mixed couple that many places in your country don't legally recognise it. That's the difference right there.

Inventing (or changing the meaning of a term) purely for the purpose of creating a sense of responsibly around raising children and making it easier for each couple to 'get out' with a tiered system is ridiculous.

God dammit Eldorion

I may be wrong, but I don't think couples ever felt they had a choice before the late 1950's. If a couple didn't have kids, either there was something physically wrong with them, or they were viewed as out on the fringe, probably because the main workable method of birth control was abortion. There was always a stigma attached to childless marriages.

If civil union has an unsavory history, fine - find something else. But the concept of a childless marriage as something normal is new in history. Saying that it's the same as the time honored family marriage is somewhat naive.

To me the difference between single sex and mixed sex unions is miniscule, but the difference between a couple and a family is huge. Since for the first time in history couples don't just assume they will become a family, keep the concept of marriage intact and award it once they become a family.

In Ancient Rome the 'purpose' of marriage was to legitimize the children between a women and a man.

Mixed and same sex couples today want to get married. The underlying concept of an authority recognizing that two people are together has not changed. Nowadays legitimizing a child isn't done through marriage because its purpose has changed. Is there a universal concept of marriage anyway? But the idea of two people being together has not changed.

Women want to have careers and the average age of of mother is increasing- marriage has to change. Personally I think it's preferable for a child to be born to a married couple who have lived happily for years rather than that child being the condition that finally opened up marriage to them.

Marriage smarriage. Why the fuss? Who cares?

Missing the concept Ally: people live happily together as a union for years, then upon the arrival of the child the union changes into a marriage. Face it, the arrival of a child changes the relationship anyway - may as well have a name for it. And the legal status changes.

Orwell - if I was president I'd say my job is to run the country, not people's lives - and then refuse to have anything to do with the issue.

My point is that that's not how people view marriage anymore. People living happily together as a union for years IS what people want from marriage. Then, possibly kids.

Halfwise the bit Im not following if where you say that upon the arrival of children, and the change to marriage you say the legal status would change.
Do you mean like tax breaks for married couiples, rights to inherent, name the partner as next of kin ect should only be available to married people in your scenario? Or what would be the change in legal status if not?

The legal status of couples without kids should not be the same as those with kids. There is indeed a new two-stage marriage that Ally is talking about, and it requires a different formulation. Yes, taxes, inheritance etc.

Why do I think we shouldn't just give the same term of marriage to all couples? Because for the first time in history this double stage couple thingy is normal. Governments need to reflect that - married couples without children simply don't deserve special tax breaks. Otherwise I could just marry a room-mate and save all sorts of money.

And forcing mixed sex couples to use the civil union concept would lend it the legitimacy it hasn't had in the past.