Btw, am I the only one kind of annoyed by Ann Romney? I mean she goes on TV to try and convince women to vote for a guy who's against many very traditional "women's issues" (though certainly all women think they're important).

Ann Romney went to private fucking school, so I suspect her parents had some decent money, she married a wealthy man who became even more wealthy and eventually politically connected.

She's suffered from several fairly severe medical conditions and credits traditional and alternative treatments for her being able to compete in dressage (horse fashion, essentially, expensive hobby, yes, I know you have to put them through their paces, it's all walking the runway). Her message to normal women who have these issues is "treatments you cannot pay for, and a hobby to keep your spirits up, which you also cannot afford," essentially "fuck you".

The whole "I raised boys" thing also pisses me off. There was a time, outside of my control, during which I was the stay at home care for my special needs daughter... Yeah, that beat the everliving fuck out of working. I know a few permanent stay at home dads who also vastly prefer that to working. I'm not saying it's not a valid job, I am saying I'm sick and tired of people acting like it's so hard when I'd rather be doing that than kissing ass and slipping business cards in the ass cracks as I go down the line. Ann Romeny, again, is fucking lucky she had a rich fucking husband so it was an option at all for her, UNLIKE THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICAN MOMS, who must work and earn shitty wages and benefits for it.

Is there actually a contingent of women who identify with Ann Romney? Nevermind that unlikeable fuck of her husband, what about her? To me she's the epitome of a privileged twit who acts like she deserves whatever she has due to her hard work. As for the working American woman, anything below lower upper class, I can't imagine them not being deeply offended whenever she opens her pie hole.

So, done ranting, but seriously, fuck Ann Romney.

I never said that this meant they were opposing "homosexuality" itself, though I would be entirely surprised if most of these individuals celebrated and encouraged homosexuality.

I do feel that it means that they are opposing gay people, however. They are opposing us in our fight for same sex marriage. That of course doesn't directly translate to "down with gay people!" but as a gay person who has had plenty of experience with those who are very much not fond of my sexual orientation or even the fact that I breath the same air as they, I am relatively sure that there are certainly those among them who would gladly say "down with gay people" if they felt they could get away with it. That of course has nothing to do with Romney's speech,but it sure is hard for someone like myself not to recall to mind this fact when I hear things like "I will honor the institution of marriage" when I know darn well what he means by those words. He is against legalized same sex marriage and will probably continue to defend DOMA which means that same sex marriage or civil union, there will still be restrictions that heterosexual couples do not have. That being said, I personally took the OP's words as hyperbole.

Thank you for the link you shared to your post. I have read it.

I would like to take this time to let you know that myself and many other gay people are never going to be satisfied with "civil unions", because for us that is like telling us we should be satisfied with Folger's Crystals instead of the real thing. I respect and am even grateful for your separation of the religious aspect from the secular aspect because many "defenders of marriage" can't seem to do this, but I do have to disagree to an extent with your definition. I do not believe that you and your wife have a "civil union" and "not a marriage" merely because of the absence of a religious institution's blessing. I believe that because the law recognizes it, you have a civil marriage (and perhaps on some level you do as well, I noted that you referred to your wife as your "wife", and not as your "civil partner"). Also, on a side note, common law marriages are seen as marriages, not as common law civil unions.

Let me share with you part of my take on the whole "Gays should just be happy with Civil Unions" argument (the other part is much more personal, emotional, impassioned and not exactly congruent with this particular discussion). Marriage has different definitions depending on what culture you look at, what religion you look at, etc. In Old Testament Judaism, marriage was a legal contract between a man and a woman who decided to live together as husband and wife. Sure there was a religious aspect to it, but it was a legal contract. I do not agree that "marriage" should be the religious term for such a union and "civil union" should be the legal term. I believe that "marriage" is the appropriate word for such a contract between two people, legal or religious. But when it comes to the "blessing" part that you mention, the appropriate word is "Matrimony". This is the word for the sacramental aspect. Many "defenders" of marriage confuse the words "Marriage" and "Matrimony". With all due respect, I think that maybe you could possibly be doing this as well. One of the largest religions in the world, Roman Catholicism, recognizes a difference between "marriage" and "Matrimony". It is for this reason that children born of parents who have a Catholic annulment are not considered to have been born out of wedlock, even if the Tribunal determines that the Sacrament of Matrimony did not take place and once divorced, the man and woman are free to pursue other marriages, with the Church's blessing.

Gay people are not out to demand that ALL of the Synagogues, Mosques, Temples, Churches etc. grant us their spiritual blessings when we say that we want legalized Same Sex Marriage. We simply want the Government to grant us same sex civil marriage. Not civil unions, but civil marriage. The sacramental or religious aspect is between us and our faith if we have one. There are churches and temples that are "gay affirming" and that will grant us matrimony if we seek that. So if that was all we wanted, we would already be set.

Here in Washington we have Civil Unions and the "Everything but Marriage" law which supposedly means that those with civil unions rather than marriages still have all of the same legal benefits as those who are married. Perhaps on a State level this is true, but if I were to "civilly join" with a male Russian citizen, he would be denied a green card if we were to seek one out based on our union. So we do not really have "everything but marriage". Sadly, this will remain true even if the majority votes for same sex marriage in November (it will be on our ballots then and I hope with all of my heart that it makes it, I really do). DOMA (which can never ever be seen as gay friendly, or even neutral in any way, shape or form) will see to that. DOMA aside however, I still want marriage and not "everything but marriage". As I said, I will not be satisfied with Folgers Crystals.

Anyway, I want to thank you for your civil and friendly tone despite our disagreement about Romney's intent behind his words, I appreciate that. Sorry if my contribution is kind of disjointed and all over the place. I am not very eloquent.

Lol!

@Zephyr: Not...FOLGERS CRYSTALS! As for me, marriage holds no special meaning or sanctity. If you love someone, you live with them. No papers are needed.

I respect that, but many men and women, gay or straight, including myself, do feel otherwise, and I think we should all have the same equal opportunity to express that legally if we want to. I know I want to do it.

Here's the new election debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcMWnNcOxg4&feature=plcp

I don't think Romney stands a chance anyway. Latino voters (who basically elected Obama in 2008) are certainly not going to vote for Romney. We know who the black people are voting for, and there was more than 40% of the white electorate who voted Obama in 2008. Even if there is a % of disappointed people concerning Obama's actions, I still don't see how Romney could win this election.

Inaccurate.

It made Ron Paul look like he had a fighting chance. :P

Then again, if Romney was the best they could do...

I don't personally like marriage either, but it comes with a lot of legal benefits that should in no way be denied gay couples if they're willing to take the good with the bad of marriage.

Heck, he could be a Kenyan Muslim and avid goat screwer. Still better than Romney when it comes to getting the US back on its fucking feet.

The reason the people who say that is because he's black and that is just disrespectful worse then people criticising Kennedy because he's Catholic thinking he is gonna listen to the Pope

Thanks and Amen. :)

OK, I am not anti-Obama or pro-Romney, believe me, but I don't think they say he is Muslim because he is black. Not all the people who make that claim are white, after all. Some are black people. Black people did not universally love or vote for Obama. I don't know what the guy believes and don't care one way or the other. He says he is some sort of Christian tho and I have no reason to disbelieve him.

Why does every topic of discussion always boil down to race... is there any hope that we can ever get by that?

Obama is not a devout christian, he only said as much to get elected. One can't blame him. To be president in the states, you must be married, hetero, religious, and...a giant fucking hypocrite, since many of the U.S presidents never actually believed in god. The superstitious populace demands it though.

lol whole RNC itself was a flop. hell half the repbs didnt even believe the shit they were doing anymore.

Anyway with DNC's Bill clintons speech they never had a chance of winning.