• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

Silver Soul

Well-Known Member
I found an article courtesy of Boston Spirit Magazine with Romney who interacted with a same-sex couple when he was Governor in Massachusetts.

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/blogs/bostonspirit/2012/09/romney_a_wimp_not_so_much_acco.html

“It was like talking to a robot. No expression, no feeling,” recalls David Wilson, one of the plaintiffs in the case who met with Romney that day. “People were sharing touching stories, stories where you’d expect recognition in the other person’s face that they at least hear what you’re saying — that there’s empathy. He didn’t even shake his head. He was completely blank.”

Occasionally Romney would say something.

“I didn’t know you had families,” remarked Romney to the group, according to Wilson. The offhanded remark underscored that Romney, the governor of the first state prepared to grant same-sex marriage, hadn’t taken the time to look at what the landmark case was really about.
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
I'm sorry Silver, were you thinking that someone of his Generation would actually have empathy with the gay community? He's 65 years old. He isn't even in touch with my generations views!

And I'm voting for him!
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
I'm sorry Silver, were you thinking that someone of his Generation would actually have empathy with the gay community? He's 65 years old. He isn't even in touch with my generations views!

And I'm voting for him!

If Romney wins, people will never stop complaining about how horrible he is.
 

Kaiserin

please wake up...
If Romney wins, people will never stop complaining about how horrible he is.

People will only stop complaining about Romney being horrible when he stops being horrible, I'm afraid.

About the actual definition of marriage: I agree with the idea that it's not quite as big of an issue what it's called, as long as the rights are the same, but that generally ceases to be the case once a state defines marriage as between a man and a woman and calls that the end of it. It's specifically done to prevent gays from having the same rights, and I really doubt most of the people who've tried to get that definition set in stone would agree to giving homosexual couples another alternative. They're also the ones who complain about gay agendas a lot of the time, after all. :|
 

BigLutz

Banned
But if he loses, he'll go back into obscurity just like the 2008 republican nominee.

Yeah.. because obviously we have not heard from John McCain, John Kerry, or Al Gore since their failed Presidential runs...
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
Yeah.. because obviously we have not heard from John McCain, John Kerry, or Al Gore since their failed Presidential runs...

The only reasons people still know Gore is because he made a movie.

Who's John Kerry and John McCain? Never mind. Unless they have anything to do with homosexuality, they don't matter.
 
???

I don't mean any offense by this at all, but you cannot live in the United States, and pay attention to politics, and not know who Senators Kerry and McCain are. Its just not possible.

Rmoney tried to get the presidential nomination in '08. He failed. But no one forgot about him. He was the '12 frontrunner for the GOP nomination the moment we found out McCain had lost back in '08. If he loses this November he'll still be around. He has far too much money and influence to just fade away.

[edit]
But all that aside, I cannot reconcile the alleged meeting detailed in that story with his numerous, previous, enthusiastic endorsements of homosexual marriage. The story makes a bunch of claims, but there's no real proof that he was that cold hearted and uncaring, other than the testimony of those people whom he let down. I'm inclined to assume that they may be a little butthurt, and not in a good way.
 
Last edited:

Eterna

Well-Known Member
???


But all that aside, I cannot reconcile the alleged meeting detailed in that story with his numerous, previous, enthusiastic endorsements of homosexual marriage. The story makes a bunch of claims, but there's no real proof that he was that cold hearted and uncaring, other than the testimony of those people whom he let down. I'm inclined to assume that they may be a little butthurt, and not in a good way.

If you have no problem accepting witness testimony that that sexual orientation can be changed why would you deny witness testimony about this?
 
If you have no problem accepting witness testimony that that sexual orientation can be changed why would you deny witness testimony about this?

There's actually a bunch of stuff that makes mattj's position on the issue easier to understand.

First, as he says, it has been widely known that Rmoney has been supportive of homosexuals. In fact, he's been supportive of quite a few things that liberals like, which is not hard to understand since he was governor of Massachusetts, which has traditionally been quite liberal.

So he's running for president on the Republican ticket against Democratic incumbent Barack Obama. Some media source, a pro-gay source mind you, runs a story about how Rmoney is so out of touch with gays that he will say, "I didn't know you had families." Can you think of a better way to keep pro-gay people who are concerned about Obama's economic recklessness from voting Rmoney?



Though there are similarities between the potential motivations in this case and the potential motivations of ex-gays, we do not have the same kind of reason to dispute it. We have people saying basically, "Well I know there are so many other gays who said they can't change and showed evidence that they can't change, and it's a proven fact that gay brains are different than straight brains so there's no reason why we should believe the ones who said they could change." All this obviously fails to take into account the fact that people are individuals ("some gays couldn't change" can never prove "no gays can change"). And all of this when we could be asking whether the gays who said they couldn't change have a motivation to avoid taking this possibility seriously.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
If you have no problem accepting witness testimony that that sexual orientation can be changed why would you deny witness testimony about this?

One could say that witness testimony about their own sexual orientation is based strictly around how they feel, meanwhile testimony by a person sitting in the room is in essence third person and thus they have a bit more reason to be biased.
 

Peter Quill

star-lord
One could say that witness testimony about their own sexual orientation is based strictly around how they feel, meanwhile testimony by a person sitting in the room is in essence third person and thus they have a bit more reason to be biased.

Didn't we already discuss on how we can't accept witness testimony based on their self because of the inherent bias behind it? Which isn't to deny that third person can be biased biased, but it seems a bit faulty idk.
 

Eterna

Well-Known Member
Though there are similarities between the potential motivations in this case and the potential motivations of ex-gays, we do not have the same kind of reason to dispute it. We have people saying basically, "Well I know there are so many other gays who said they can't change and showed evidence that they can't change, and it's a proven fact that gay brains are different than straight brains so there's no reason why we should believe the ones who said they could change." All this obviously fails to take into account the fact that people are individuals ("some gays couldn't change" can never prove "no gays can change"). And all of this when we could be asking whether the gays who said they couldn't change have a motivation to avoid taking this possibility seriously.

Changing your sexuality would require a change in brain structure. Can therapy change ones brain structure?
 
If you have no problem accepting witness testimony that that sexual orientation can be changed why would you deny witness testimony about this?

I can tell you how I feel.

You can't tell me how I feel.

I can't tell you how you feel.

How can that woman know Rmoney didn't feel any empathy towards their cause?

I thought that was self evident.
 
Last edited:

Eterna

Well-Known Member
I can tell you how I feel.

You can't tell me how I feel.

I can't tell you how you feel.

How can that woman know Rmoney didn't feel any empathy towards their cause?

I thought that was self evident.

It's not hard to infer how people feel about a certain subject when speaking with them.
 

Randdy

Saulleron bond
As I don't bother about this issue....... let every one enjoy their lives as they like. If they are happy in homosexuality, let them do.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Changing your sexuality would require a change in brain structure. Can therapy change ones brain structure?

I don't know about brain structure particularly, but we change our own brain chemistries all the time with our choices and actions.

It's not hard to infer how people feel about a certain subject when speaking with them.

You can guess whatever you want about people, but that doesn't mean you'll reach the truth. Like when you spent pages trying to convince mattj that he thought something he clearly didn't.
 
Last edited:
Top