what is Romneys stance on Gay marriage/dont ask dont tell?

[zz4vetteguy]

Originally Posted by NEED-A-VETTE

I think the biggest issue here is that most of what the American public sees are the extreme activists on both sides: the LGBT community and the religious community. This is what is flashed across the television in catchy, grab your attention, 30 second sound bites.

However, when you really get down to it, you take my daughter and ZZ4...and really hear them speak and they make sense. They're concise and rational. This is the way I hear all my gay and lesbian friends speak. They're not the activists that you see on television that are pushing for all or nothing.

I so love you right now...even my ex and my own mother said I never made any sense.

I will admit, sometimes I let my feeling and emotions get the best of me and say things during the heat of the moment that I don't stop to think about what I am saying, but personally, I don't want to change anyone's way of thinking, I would just rather educate them and let them see the aspect of the other side, not so they change their mind, just so they have a better understanding.

[NEED-A-VETTE]

Originally Posted by zz4vetteguy

I so love you right now...even my ex and my own mother said I never made any sense.

I will admit, sometimes I let my feeling and emotions get the best of me and say things during the heat of the moment that I don't stop to think about what I am saying, but personally, I don't want to change anyone's way of thinking, I would just rather educate them and let them see the aspect of the other side, not so they change their mind, just so they have a better understanding.

Indeed.

Everyone has their beliefs...and that's totally fine. But there's room for rational talk and compromises. But people have to be willing to step back from the extremes and flat out hatred and meet in the middle from both sides.

[Blademaker]

Bigger issues in this world than homosexuality.

Personally......I don't care, its none of my business.
One thing I want to point out, is that I've seen more behavior between heterosexuals that would be deemed inappropriate in public than I have of homosexuals.

Years ago, I got up early on one of the few days I had off to go fishing. A guy in the apartment next door noticed I was loading up my gear, so we chatted for a moment, and I asked if he wanted to go. He looked surprised and said sure. A few miles down the road he told me he was gay.
I told him BFD, we're going fishin', not fuckin'.
He laughed hysterically and said you're not my type. To which I replied, Likewise.
The subject never came up again.

Like I said, its not up to me to judge, and I just don't care.

[NEED-A-VETTE]

Originally Posted by Blademaker

Bigger issues in this world than homosexuality.

Personally......I don't care, its none of my business.
One thing I want to point out, is that I've seen more behavior between heterosexuals that would be deemed inappropriate in public than I have of homosexuals.

Years ago, I got up early on one of the few days I had off to go fishing. A guy in the apartment next door noticed I was loading up my gear, so we chatted for a moment, and I asked if he wanted to go. He looked surprised and said sure. A few miles down the road he told me he was gay.
I told him BFD, we're going fishin', not fuckin'.
He laughed hysterically and said you're not my type. To which I replied, Likewise.
The subject never came up again.

Like I said, its not up to me to judge, and I just don't care.

That's awesome!!!

[kingpin]

Originally Posted by Blademaker

Bigger issues in this world than homosexuality.

Personally......I don't care, its none of my business.
One thing I want to point out, is that I've seen more behavior between heterosexuals that would be deemed inappropriate in public than I have of homosexuals.

Years ago, I got up early on one of the few days I had off to go fishing. A guy in the apartment next door noticed I was loading up my gear, so we chatted for a moment, and I asked if he wanted to go. He looked surprised and said sure. A few miles down the road he told me he was gay.
I told him BFD, we're going fishin', not fuckin'.
He laughed hysterically and said you're not my type. To which I replied, Likewise.
The subject never came up again.

Like I said, its not up to me to judge, and I just don't care.

Did you bait his hook for him?

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Craig

Ms. NEED-A VETTE & Mr. zz4vetteguy, I understand and respect your position on legalizing gay marriage; can you understand and respect the position that asking Christians to accept a position that puts us at odds with our government and God's Word is not a position we want to be put in? Which is what "legalized gay marriage" does to us. This is not a troll post, this is the real issue, I'd love a reasoned response, this has been a good and useful dialog so far.

(I'll read it in the morning, I'm off to bed).

No.



Lewis C.K. nails it right here -

louis c. k. on gay marriage - YouTube

[Craig]

Originally Posted by NEED-A-VETTE

Where in my post did I say I wanted DOMA changed? I'm fine with domestic partnerships or civil unions, provided it gives my daughter the right to do things such as put her partner under her health insurance (as an example).

Thanks for the response, and sorry, didn't mean to indicate that you were a proponent of same-sex marriage; I would agree that there should be a provision such as a civil union. Also glad to hear your daughter is a Christian; the church has done much to push the gay community away. It’s a complicated issue, but I hate the thought that people would reject Christ because the church rejected them; that’s not how it should be.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by zz4vetteguy

Craig, as I said, I respect you opion and outlook on the situation (more then some others here) but just to play devils advocate, let me ask your opinion on the the subject I brought up earlier.

I believe that the people who are claiming that Marriage is a religious union, and whole heartedly feel that, beleive that, and live by that are a minority of the people using that "excuse" (I am using that word lightly with lack of a better word at 3am). How is it supposed to be taken seriously that it is a religious union when straight couples who are athiests are married, or people don't want God or religion mentioned at all in their ceromony, they are married by Elvis, or in a Drive thru, a donut shop by a baker who was ordained over the internet, or the Grim Reaper (seriously...no chit, I was watching a show on the Travel Channel about extreme weddings, and one chappel you can get married by the Grim Reaper), or people like Celeberties who are married 17 times, or people who get married and then file for divorce hours later.

Thanks for the compliments and response. I still think most folks think that marriage is a religious union, I think that’s why same sex marriage gets voted down on so many ballots. But I would agree that it’s not treated that way. Lot’s of people living together prior to marriage, pre-marital sex, etc. But, in the end, most folks that get married stay married; so it appears to still be a respected union. I really do believe what you’re describing above is the minority, but it does get a lot more attention.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Blademaker

Bigger issues in this world than homosexuality.

Personally......I don't care, its none of my business.
One thing I want to point out, is that I've seen more behavior between heterosexuals that would be deemed inappropriate in public than I have of homosexuals.

Years ago, I got up early on one of the few days I had off to go fishing. A guy in the apartment next door noticed I was loading up my gear, so we chatted for a moment, and I asked if he wanted to go. He looked surprised and said sure. A few miles down the road he told me he was gay.
I told him BFD, we're going fishin', not fuckin'.
He laughed hysterically and said you're not my type. To which I replied, Likewise.
The subject never came up again.

Like I said, its not up to me to judge, and I just don't care.

Okay, that's amusing. And if I haven't stated it before, I agree with your last statement, it's not really any of my business. It's not until someone shows up at a Christian church, with the ACLU, and demands that a Christian pastor marry a gay couple; that's when we all have a problem.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Craig

Okay, that's amusing. And if I haven't stated it before, I agree with your last statement, it's not really any of my business. It's not until someone shows up at a Christian church, with the ACLU, and demands that a Christian pastor marry a gay couple; that's when we all have a problem.

Not only has that never happened, its not even part of the discussion.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Not only has that never happened, its not even part of the discussion.

It's what we're trying to prevent.

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Not only has that never happened, its not even part of the discussion.

Wrong.

First example on Google:

Ontario Christian minister forced to conduct same-sex ‘marriages’ or get sacked

Originally Posted by Above Cited Article

A Church of Christ minister who has been responsible for civic marriage ceremonies at Cambridge city hall for the past 15 years is facing the axe if she doesn’t agree to perform same-sex “marriages.”

Reverend Jay Brown told LifeSiteNews that city council voted 8 to 1 Monday night on a motion, brought forward by Councillor Donna Reid, that Brown be forced to officiate at homosexual “marriages” or they would issue a “request for proposal” to find a replacement.

Rev. Brown explained that as a minister of the Church of Christ she must follow the precepts of her church, which does not allow homosexual “marriage,” but that she was always ready to accommodate same-sex couples by recommending a designated minister who would be happy to perform the ceremony.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Loco Vette

Wrong.

First example on Google:

Ontario Christian minister forced to conduct same-sex ‘marriages’ or get sacked

You may want to reread what you post. She is performing "Civil ceremonies at city hall". No one is going to her church and forcing her to marry them.

My point stands.

[Broken Wind]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

My point stands.

There it is again.

[NEED-A-VETTE]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

You may want to reread what you post. She is performing "Civil ceremonies at city hall". No one is going to her church and forcing her to marry them.

My point stands.

Civil ceremonies are non-religious ceremonies, so in this capacity, she is not performing a religious role, simply a civic role, unrelated to her church. Much the same as a judge marrying two people. By performing civil ceremonies, she's basically (temporarily) relinquishing her duties as a religious leader and performing the ceremony under the hat of a civic leader.

If part of the duties of a civic leader is to perform same sex unions, and it is not something she is comfortable performing, then she should step out of that civic role. No one appears to be asking her to perform same sex marriages that are endorsed by her church.

I would certainly be against forcing churches to perform same sex marriages, if it went against their fundamental beliefs. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

You may want to reread what you post. She is performing "Civil ceremonies at city hall". No one is going to her church and forcing her to marry them.

My point stands.

I did read it, thank you for the assumption that I cut/paste without reading.

Rev. Jay Brown told LifeSiteNews that city council voted 8 to 1 Monday night on a motion, brought forward by Councillor Donna Reid, that Brown be forced to officiate at homosexual “marriages” or they would issue a “request for proposal” to find a replacement.

She DOES perform "Civil ceremonies at city hall." That is not enough. The city council voted 8 to 1 to force her to perform "Marriages" or look for a new job.

Your "point" falls flat on its face.

[NEED-A-VETTE]

Originally Posted by Craig

Thanks for the response, and sorry, didn't mean to indicate that you were a proponent of same-sex marriage; I would agree that there should be a provision such as a civil union. Also glad to hear your daughter is a Christian; the church has done much to push the gay community away. It’s a complicated issue, but I hate the thought that people would reject Christ because the church rejected them; that’s not how it should be.

I gotta be honest, some of the most hateful words that she has heard, with me witnessing some of them, has been from people that call themselves Christians. Having said that, she understands that their words don't reflect the majority.

Even my aunt, the born again Christian that sent her the letter in BMT, doesn't have hateful words for my daughter. She loves her the same as before she ever came out. So, my daughter is aware that there are some who will say hurtful and derogatory things, but it doesn't represent the vast majority.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Loco Vette

I did read it, thank you for the assumption that I cut/paste without reading.



She DOES perform "Civil ceremonies at city hall." That is not enough. The city council voted 8 to 1 to force her to perform "Marriages" or look for a new job.

Your "point" falls flat on its face.

Yes, and you are reading more into the story than is there. In Canada, civil unions are "marriages". There is no difference. She is unwilling to perform civil unions "marriages" for gay couples.

Again, no one is going to her church and forcing her to marry them.

My point stands.

[NEED-A-VETTE]

Originally Posted by Loco Vette

I did read it, thank you for the assumption that I cut/paste without reading.

She DOES perform "Civil ceremonies at city hall." That is not enough. The city council voted 8 to 1 to force her to perform "Marriages" or look for a new job.

Your "point" falls flat on its face.

Aren't civic marriages, by definition, marriages performed without any religious affiliation? A judge would perform a civic marriage, yes? So, the job for which she is filling is purely civic in its nature, as oppose to religious.

If they wanted a religious marriage ceremony/union, and the government were forcing her to perform it within her church, that would be one thing. But she's not performing this particular duty in a religious capacity, she's performing it in a civic capacity, the same as a Justice, Judge, Magistrate, etc.

Did I read this article wrong?

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Yes, and you are reading more into the story than is there. In Canada, civil unions are "marriages". There is no difference. She is unwilling to perform civil unions "marriages" for gay couples.

Again, no one is going to her church and forcing her to marry them.

My point stands.

Gee. First I didn't read it and now I'm reading too much into it.

From another part of the article I either didn't read or read too much:

The Cambridge Record reports that Dana Christiaen of the region’s AIDS committee said that forcing ministers to perform same-sex weddings was a core issue for the gay and lesbian community, while homosexual activist Allison Rogers said allowing a different official to perform Cambridge’s same-sex weddings was “deplorable.”

Christiaen’s comment reveals that the heart of the issue of “gay marriage” may be more than forcing a Christian minister to perform a function that is expressly forbidden by her church.

So the minister thinks there is enough of a difference that she is being pressured to go against her beliefs about, the city council thinks there is enough of a difference that they voted 8-1 to pressure her go go against her beliefs, and the proponents of the idea acknowledge that "forcing minsters to perform same-sex weddings was a core issue for the gay and lesbian community" but according to you, "Not only has that never happened, it is not even under discussion."

Your point flops. And that is before we even start talking about the other results Google spit up.