An Expert In Marriage, Newt Gingrich Says Married Gay Couples Are Only “Friends” At GOP Debate - Polidicks

[url]http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/newt-gingrich-says-married-gay-couples-are-only-friends-at-gop-debate/politics/2012/01/07/32899[/url] [release]At tonight’s GOP debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, [b]Newt Gingrich called married gay couples “friends,” demeaning the significance of their relationships. Gingrich then went on to claim there was “secular bigotry” against the Catholic Church, which he falsely claimed was forced to close its adoption centers rather than allow same-sex couples to adopt.[/b] “We want to make it possible to have those things that are most intimately human between friends,” Newt Gingrich, who has been married three times amid multiple adulterous affairs, told the Republican audience. “It is a huge jump from being understanding and considerate and concerned, which we should be, to saying we therefore are going to institute the sacrament of marriage as though it has no basis,” added Gingrich. Calling the Obama administration, which is slowly showing signs of support for gay marriage, biased and bigoted, Gingrich also claimed Obama was discriminating against the Catholic Church. Rick Perry also played the “war against religion” card at tonight’s debate, stating there “is a war against religion and it’s going to stop under a Perry administration.” All the candidates spoke strongly against same-sex marriage. “I’m certainly not going to have a federal law that bans adoption for gay couples, when there are only gay couples in certain states,” Rick Santorum stated, which was mild considering his anti-gay attacks, especially over the past few days. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, balked at having same-sex relationships called “marriage.” “There is every right for people in this country to form long-term committed relationships with one another. That doesn’t mean that they have to call it marriage.” Jon Huntsman went as far as supporting civil unions. ”Personally, I think civil unions are fair,” said the former Utah Governor. “I support them. It brings a level of dignity to relationships.” Michael Lavers at Edge On The Net added: [quote]Romney, Perry and Santorum said they back a federal constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. WMUR Political Director Josh McElveen pressed Santorum on the fact that the Federal Marriage Amendment would invalidate the marriages of 1,800 same-sex couples who have taken advantage of New Hampshire’s marriage equality law since it took effect in Jan. 2010. “If the constitution says marriage is between a man and a woman, marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said. “That’s what marriage is – and would be in this country. And those who are not men and women who are married are-would not be married. That’s what the Constitution would say.”[/quote] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhztwUQRzxE&feature=player_embedded[/media] [/release]

[quote]Gingrich then went on to claim there was “secular bigotry” against the Catholic Church, which he falsely claimed was forced to close its adoption centers rather than allow same-sex couples to adopt.[/quote] [img]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-eng99.gif[/img]

[quote]Gingrich then went on to claim there was “secular bigotry” against the Catholic Church,[/quote] Gee, I wonder why.

"Faggots can't marry !" "You're homophobic" "NO I'M CHRISTIAN STOP PERSECUTING ME HERP A DERP" Christian fundamentalism in a nutshell

This just in: A candidate is appealing to the support base he has. We already established Gingrich is an idiot I thought, this stuff just doesn't much bother me any more.

And it's funny. Since he has a lesbian sister.

[QUOTE=Nikota;34111550]And it's funny. Since he has a lesbian sister.[/QUOTE] Yeah but she's a woman so it's okay It's only when two men love each other that it's shocking :downs:

And of course, Jon Huntsman shows himself to be the reasonable one, while lacking the popularity of the others.

[QUOTE=Ogopogo;34111615]And of course, Jon Huntsman shows himself to be the reasonable one, while lacking the popularity of the others.[/QUOTE] It's not funny if your leader isn't a complete and utter religious nutjob.

Secular bigotry? Jesus christ learn what words mean before you ever let them come out of your mouth

[QUOTE=Rents;34111646]Secular bigotry? Jesus christ learn what words mean before you ever let them come out of your mouth[/QUOTE] This is the guy who said that America may become "a secular atheist country potentially one dominated by radical Islamists".

[quote]Gingrich then went on to claim there was “secular bigotry” against the Catholic Church, which [b][highlight]he falsely claimed[/b][/highlight] was forced to close its adoption centers rather than allow same-sex couples to adopt.[/quote] If you lie while officially campaigning you should be fined

[QUOTE=Ogopogo;34111670]This is the guy who said that America may become "a secular atheist country potentially one dominated by radical Islamists".[/QUOTE] He must just keep naming non-christian beliefs to get his voter base worried.

People voted for this guy?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;34111707]If you lie while officially campaigning you should be fined[/QUOTE] We'd be out of debt in a minute if that was implemented.

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;34111726]We'd be out of debt in a minute if that was implemented.[/QUOTE] Call it the Hot Air Act

[QUOTE=Zeke129;34111707]If you lie while officially campaigning you should be fined[/QUOTE] I agree completely. But the problem there is that it would be almost impossible to tell if they were lying, or just plain ignorant and actually believed what they said.

[QUOTE=da bloop;34111769]I agree completely. But the problem there is that it would be almost impossible to tell if they were lying, or just plain ignorant and actually believed what they said.[/QUOTE] If they lie about important/obvious issues, they should lose their place in the presidency race. If they were ignorant about those topics they weren't fit to be a leader anyway.

[QUOTE=Miskav;34111859]If they lie about important/obvious issues, they should lose their place in the presidency race. If they were ignorant about those topics they weren't fit to be a leader anyway.[/QUOTE] Depends what the topic is. For instance, if somebody asked them what the capital of Issyria was, or the airborne velocity of an unladen European swallow carrying a coconut was, ignorance of that topic would obviously not mean they weren't worth voting for. Though for all things that would have to be sorted out with the Hot Air Act, it'd save a metric-fuckton of time in the long run. I'd certainly do all I could to have such an act passed if it were presented by Congress.

[QUOTE=Cone;34111975]Depends what the topic is. For instance, if somebody asked them what the capital of Issyria was, or the airborne velocity of an unladen European swallow carrying a coconut was, ignorance of that topic would obviously not mean they weren't worth voting for. Though for all things that would have to be sorted out with the Hot Air Act, it'd save a metric-fuckton of time in the long run. I'd certainly do all I could to have such an act passed if it were presented by Congress.[/QUOTE] That's why I said Important/Obvious. Like recognizing/having basic understanding of Evolution, or recognizing Gay rights, etc.

"secular bigotry" "I can't oppress people and take away their rights, I'm so fucking oppressed!"

[QUOTE=da bloop;34111769]I agree completely. But the problem there is that it would be almost impossible to tell if they were lying, or just plain ignorant and actually believed what they said.[/QUOTE] It should be their responsibility to know what the hell they're talking about.

[QUOTE=da bloop;34111769]I agree completely. But the problem there is that it would be almost impossible to tell if they were lying, or just plain ignorant and actually believed what they said.[/QUOTE] There'd obviously need to be a committee of some kind to decide on these cases, there'd need to be an appeals process, and an exception for anyone who makes a public retraction in case they didn't actually know they were lying

How is it that this country is so completely fucked that these degenerates are being taken seriously as presidential candidates?

Noticing that alot of these religious politicians are committing political suicide alot lately

[QUOTE=mr apple;34113264]Noticing that alot of these religious politicians are committing political suicide alot lately[/QUOTE]Trust me, they're just fine. Their constituents tend to agree with these things for some reason, or at the very least ignore them.

[QUOTE=mr apple;34113264]Noticing that alot of these religious politicians are committing political suicide alot lately[/QUOTE] Political suicide? You underestimate how many people probably agree with the crazy shit they say.

You would think that in an economically bad time that Republicans would be more concerned with shouting out about their high fiscal policies they've always chanted about instead of their other half, social conservatism. I really think the number one issue of the US at the moment is our economic situation, not whether homosexuals can marry or not. Not to demean it as unimportant, but our degrading economic situation affects all of us, homosexual and heterosexual. [editline]8th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GetBent;34113287]Political suicide? You underestimate how many people probably agree with the crazy shit they say.[/QUOTE] In New Hampshire? I thought they were mostly socially liberal? [editline]8th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;34111707]If you lie while officially campaigning you should be fined[/QUOTE] All politicians suddenly go broke :v:

I just love how these people want to invade middle east countries, fuck shit up there and try to solve their problems while extremist religious leaders doing stupid stuff in the middle east, while they themselves are completely insane religious nutjobs. Except instead of stoning people they don't agree with, they legally cockblock them and want to basically make them illegal to exist.

Because the guy working on his third or fourth marriage is totally qualified to judge other people's relationships... And these assholes try to accuse Obama of being arrogant.