Better dead than some sort of faggot.

I’ve lived in Massachusetts for six years now, so I already knew that Mitt Romney is a total shitbag.

I feel very strongly about this because, as I said earlier, I believe that maintaining the strength of the marriage relationship, the family relationship, is critical to the strength of an entire society.

And I believe that the development of children is enhanced by having a male and a female as part of their upbringing in their home. Even when there’s a divorce, you still have a mom and a dad. And even where one member of the partnership may pass away, the memory and the characteristics of that gender, of that partner influence the development of a child.

I’m in favor of promoting, as a society, the marriage of men and women and the development of children in that kind of setting.

There you go, kids. Better to have dead parents than gay parents. It’s awesome how getting the Republican nomination depends on who can say the vilest shit. C’mon, Rudy, Mitt said gay parents can’t compete with dead ones! You better come back with some really compelling torture scenarios!

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Better dead than some sort of faggot.

  1. Steve

    The quoted part is, indeed, exactly what he said. The bits I wrote are my sarcastic, uncharitable characterization of what he said.

    That the Republican candidates feel the need to outdo each other saying the craziest, vilest shit, on the other hand, is my sober political assessment. It’s one of the reasons I’m so sarcastic and uncharitable when discussing them.

  2. Ananth

    So its now vile to say that a child benefits from having both a male and female parental influence growing up? It’s also now crazy to say that parents influence their children even after they are gone from this earth? Your definition of of vile and crazy is somewhat loose and hardly seems a sober assessment.

    I think we kid ourselves if we don’t acknowledge some basic truths that all other things being equal, 2 parents are better than 1, and a mom and a dad is better than 2 moms or 2 dads. That’s not to say that gay couples can’t be parents or shouldn’t be parents, but I think it’s just as wrong to assume that a man can replace a mom or a woman can replace a father completely or equally.

  3. Steve

    So its now vile to say that a child benefits from having both a male and female parental influence growing up? It’s also now crazy to say that parents influence their children even after they are gone from this earth?

    No, silly, it’s vile for a man running to be the administrator and enforcer of the laws for the entire country to say those things in the service of denigrating gay parents.

    And I don’t know who’s kidding whom, but I don’t think it’s been proven at all that the kids of heterosexual couples turn out better than the kids of gay couples. Which is what I assume you mean when you say one is better – that statistically, the children of one have better outcomes than the children of the other.

  4. Ananth

    No, i don’t mean statistically at all. I mean in the context of how society and families function and will continue to function, you can’t think that its not beneficial to have positive loving role models for both gender roles in a family dynamic. I mean, of course two gay men can raise a daughter, but you aren’t going to try and tell me it’s not better to have a woman around to help when that girl hits puberty, to explain, to help? Yes you can have surrogates for mothers like aunts and grandmas, but it’s not the same. I don’t think it denigrates gay parents to acknowledge that fact anymore than saying having two parents is better denigrates single parents.

    The idea that there is no difference between men and women is silly. Of course each individual circumstance is different but as much you may want to, you can not substitute any woman for any man or vice versa and think that there would be no difference.

    I don’t see why it is impossible for you to accept that rationale fair people can have an opinion about gay marriage and gay adoption that doesn’t equate it with as heterosexual marriage and not be some kind of gay hating, intolerant shithead. Look, I mean its better to have a married or civilly unioned gay couple adopt a child than an unmarried hetero couple or single parent. Does that make me intolerant towards unmarried or singles? Is that vile towards that group?

  5. Nicole

    WHAT?! WHAT?! Ok I am going to try and be organized and not just an angry over-emotional female. First, saying that kids turn out better with a male and female parent is actually not supported in the scientific literature on this topic- there’s no difference in outcome. Second, saying it’s better to have a man and a woman as parents assumes some sort of inherent gender role assignment to each (mommy bakes, cooks, cleans, and tells you about your girl parts, whereas daddy works, fixes broken things, and tells you about your boy parts). Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? What if dad works and mom has to take the boy to buy a jockstrap? Is that bad?

  6. Ananth

    No there aren’t gender roles in the sense that mommy stays home and daddy works. I never made any insinuation of the kind. And I don’t think anywhere that I made an argument that kids turn out better. I would imagine that what little data that is out there would not be enough to draw any sort of conclusion, one way or the other.

    But there is something about having them around, that having a female and male parental figure around is something to be desired. As much as you may want, a woman is not a father figure and a man is not a mother. I guess I am just not enlightened enough for thinking that sexes weren’t interchangeable….

  7. Tom

    Watch out Ananth. She just had a birthday and she’s feelin’ surly and wise.

    While I do agree there is value in a male and female role model, I don’t agree that a ‘surrogate’ (Ananth’s term) role model is so vastly inferior to a biological role model as to negate the potential love and protection of this family model.

    It’s one thing to say there’s value in that, it is quite another to say, there is value in that and no deviation from that will produce good children. I feel like Mitt is trying to imply the latter.

  8. Ananth

    First of all I didn’t say biological. And I said, all things being equal, it would be better to place a child in a home with a mother and father. Thats all. And that is all you can take from his statement. Does he say that gays cannot raise good children, or would raise inferior children?

    This the problem I have with all this kind of stuff. Someone says something, and rather than discuss what the person is saying, deeper more nefarious implications are brought up.

    If someone says the want illegal immigration controlled, automatically they are branded as hating brown people. It’s not the case. They hate illegal immigration. But now there is no point in discussing it with them, because they have been branded racists. The same thing here. If you at all think it may be better to prefer a married male/female couple all things being equal, somehow you are a vile homophobic person whose opinion is not worth discussing. If you think that the causes of global warming are still not quite proven ,or the proposed remedies are not the best use of resources you are akin to holocaust denier, and not worth debating. If you think we should calm down the rhetoric about attacking Iran, your are cheese eating surrender monkey who wants the terrorists to win, or an anti-semite who wants Israel destroyed. It annoys me.

  9. Steve

    I feel like Mitt is trying to imply the latter.

    Indeed, Mitt’s electoral success depends on implying the latter, when he’s not stating it outright.

  10. Steve

    Just because you’re either unwilling or unable to grasp the implications of what you’re saying, that doesn’t mean they aren’t there. You said it’s better to have a heterosexual, differently gendered couple as parents. Mitt went a bridge farther than that said the situation is better even if they aren’t necessarily living heterosexuals. So I ask you: better how? And how do you know?

    If someone says the want illegal immigration controlled, automatically they are branded as hating brown people. It’s not the case. They hate illegal immigration. But now there is no point in discussing it with them, because they have been branded racists.

    No. If a Republican politician, professional “strategist,” or pundit on TV says this, they are branded as pandering to the racist fuckwit constituency of Republican voters. They may also, themselves, be racist fuckwits. I’d say Lou Dobbs, for instance, believes in what he’s saying.

    If you at all think it may be better to prefer a married male/female couple all things being equal, somehow you are a vile homophobic person whose opinion is not worth discussing.

    No. If you are a Republican presidential candidate who needs the vile homophobic vote to secure the nomination, and you say it’s better to prefer a married amale/female couple, in all situations and with all other things being equal or not it doesn’t matter, then you are a panderer to vile homophobia. You may also, yourself be a vile homophobe. Mitt Romney probably isn’t, himself, a vile homophobe, but his policies will be vilely homophobic because he’s a Republican and that’s Republicans have to do to appease a powerful constituency and get them out on Election Day.

    If you think that the causes of global warming are still not quite proven ,or the proposed remedies are not the best use of resources you are akin to holocaust denier, and not worth debating.

    No, I’d say you’re more like an Intelligent Design creationist than a Holocaust denier. Less racism, more pseudoscientific “baffle ’em with bullshit” misdirection.

    If you think we should calm down the rhetoric about attacking Iran, your are cheese eating surrender monkey who wants the terrorists to win, or an anti-semite who wants Israel destroyed.

    No, this just means you’re sane.

  11. Ananth

    So any republican addressing an issue that may also have some percentage of vile shit eatingness supporting that position is also vile?

    So Dick Durbin saying Gitmo is like the gulag or pol pot was because
    1) Pandering to the tree hugging hippie left
    2) Himself a tree hugging hippie
    3) May actually believe it
    4) he is right…

    Is there is no fuckwad consistency to the left either? the anti-capitalist, tree hugging quasi communist, hugo chavez is a nice guy is all fine then?

    It’s funny you think people who are skeptics of global warming causes and remedies are akin to intelligent design and psuedoscientific misdirection. if anything, it the anthropomorphic global warming crowd that has a nearly religious belief in the cause, and who are using pseudo science to prove their point.. can any one say the hockey stick diagram or the medial age warming period?

    Finally you are the one saying that it’s better to have a dead hetero parent than two living gay parents. It started out with the context of having two parents and then saying that, the influence of that parent is there even in the case of the parent passing early. But, by your logic, I can take what you are saying to mean that widower parents would be better off giving their children away for adoption to a gay couple.

  12. Ananth

    Oh, and perhaps the use of word better was imprecise. I mean preferable, because I stated before I don’t believe that genders are completely interchangeable. Obviously this is not universal, but in general.

  13. Steve

    It’s funny you think people who are skeptics of global warming causes and remedies are akin to intelligent design and psuedoscientific misdirection. if anything, it the anthropomorphic global warming crowd that has a nearly religious belief in the cause, and who are using pseudo science to prove their point.. can any one say the hockey stick diagram or the medial age warming period?

    It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science, of course, involved observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form the simple to the complex. No living scientists was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the Big Bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientists was there–no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today.

    All the evidence a scientists has exists only in the present. All the fossils, the living animals and plants, the world, the universe–in fact, everything, exists now–in the present. The average person (including most students) is not taught that scientists have only the present and cannot deal directly with the past. Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (that is, fossils, animals and plants, etc.) originated. (Webster’s Dictionary defines religion as follows: “… cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Surely, this is an apt description of evolution.) Evolution is a belief system–a religion!

    That’s two, two methods of argumentation similar to those used by creationists, ha ha ha! *thunder crashes*

  14. Ananth

    WTF? That has nothing to do with what I said. What the fuck do I care what a creationist puts on his website? You were the one the equating global warming agnostics as it were with creationists in the first place. And besides that, the statement is just wrong. A scientist who believes in evolution does not exclude the possibility of other better explanations. If anything, they embrace new ideas and work to prove or disprove them. Creationism is not a new idea, therefore it is no longer discussed. If a new theory came about, that would be a different thing. Is that how all scientific arguments are to be settled now? You don’t draw the same conclusions as I do based the same evidence therefore you are akin to creationist? Once again the left is showing their intellectual magnanimity… I don’t have any interest in being right or wrong about global warming, I am just saying the evidence is hardly as conclusive as some would like you to believe. And the fact of the matter is that when other possible explaniations to global warming are presented, for example solar activity, they are not even looked into and and often dismissed out of hand. By your logic, an agnostic, who says an atheisist hasn’t disproven the existence of god is on par with a bible thumper…

  15. Steve

    You compared acceptance of the scientific consensus to dogmatic adherence to religion. It leapt out at me, since you were (inadvertently) busting out with an old creationist arguing tactic to rebut my assertion that global warming “skepticism” is roughly akin to intelligent design creationism, both in methodology and tone. Granted, the “evolution is a religion” trope is usually used by your more fundamentalist creationists, rather than the proponents of the new ID flava, but I still thought it was funny enough to use to set up a Sesame Street joke.

    Honest to god, mention Lomborg’s name to a climatologist and watch her roll her eyes. There are most definitely still questions on all sorts of aspects of climate change and what the best way to deal with it is. What is not in question, not with anyone except Tech Central Station hacks and people who mistake contrarianism for skepticism, is that the climate is affected by all sorts of changes man has made to the surface, ocean, and atmosphere of the planet, and that those changes are profound and moving rapidly. Really. I wouldn’t lie to you.

    And Mitt Romney’s an asshole.

  16. Ananth

    Fine Romney’s an asshole. I think it’s funny that Climatologist roll there eyes at Lomborg since he is in no way a global warming apologist or denier. What he is is an economist and is looking at what the best over use of resources to combat the effects of global warming would be. I do find it an odd position to take that in fact the current climate is the most optimum climate, and that any variation will necessarily be disastrous… Also don’t get me started about climatologists… We can’t even predict what the weather will be like tomorrow much less 100 years from now, after all how’d this years hurricane season turn out again :)

    ANd again for the record, my position on climate change is, and has always been, that at the very least, man has not been helping, and that reasonable steps should be taken. However, you’ll pry my XBox 360 and computer out of my cold dead hands….

  17. Eric

    Ananth, I agree that people on both side of the aisle tend to try and make the issues black and white and misrepresent arguments to make them easier to refute and vent about. Steve does this a lot actually. But, in this case that’s all I agree with you on…

    “No there aren’t gender roles in the sense that mommy stays home and daddy works. I never made any insinuation of the kind.”

    Maybe not as strongly as Nicole states, but I do think that belief is espoused by you two paragraphs later:

    “But there is something about having them around, that having a female and male parental figure around is something to be desired.”

    This implies that men and women bring different things to the table which are equally necessary for healthy development. Doesn’t seem unreasonable, but would Mitt agree if it was a single mom and her flamboyantly gay live-in male friend? A loving relationship is seen as the optimal environment and it just so happens that most of us aspire to male/female relationships. There are plenty of examples where this dynamic failed horribly and others (single mom raises tough guy sports star) that succeeded, but no one aspires to those and so they’re ignored.

    All that aside, there’s a huge difference between, I think this is a better family dynamic, and I’m going to legally restrict your family dynamic and openly fraternize and cater to people who think that not only the dynamic, but all the participants, are vile and abominations against God. Does anyone honestly think this is about whether a child can be loved and well-cared for by partners of the same sex? The idea freaks people out and so they make flimsy arguments using religion and the Leave it to Beaver American Dream myth to make it seem like homosexuals are deficient if not worse. The widespread homophobia of this country and time period makes others smile and nod when there’s not even a real argument being put forward.

    One need only look so far as Full House to learn all one needs to know. I think Danny, Jesse, and Joey did just fine. If people could think of it that way and not get all creeped out by the thought of two dudes making out we’d be doing a little better.

  18. Ananth

    Eric, i agree that Mitt wouldn’t agree with flamboyant gay live in friend, but that’s not really an apples to apples comparison, since a live in friend is not the same thing as a parent at all. And I agree completely that ultimately it’s more important that children be raised in loving homes than leave it to beaver style nuclear families and restricting the legal options of loving couple.

    Also, there is a difference between gender roles and gender. Again, I don’t think genders are completely interchangeable. And obviously, biologically they are not at all, which has to mean something. Of course there are examples that fail, and there are examples that succeed, but really that’s not the point. I am looking at this, and speaking for myself, i fall into my affirmative action position. All things being equal, you take the gender make up of the couple into account. It’s breaks a tie. It doesn’t put them ahead or behind a gay couple.

    And again, speaking for myself, I really could care less about two dudes kissing, and every man loves lesbians.

    As for your full house analogy, i submit to you that there were a lot of episodes revolving around the idea that Michelle wanting a mommy, or no one to go to Stephanie’s Honey Bee mother daughter event because Joey looks ridiculous in the honey bee outfit. Plus Full House sucked.

  19. Eric

    Yeah, I thought about how Aunt Becky was called in for the “female issues” episodes. I don’t disagree with you it would be harder on the child, I just wonder how much of that is societal. I understand the gay friend isn’t the same as dad, but I think you could make the argument that if the person loves the child and the mom, and takes care of the child the way a father or stepfather would, Mitt and others would still have problems for less easily identifiable reasons.

    My biggest issue is that even when the rhetoric is soft (not saying it is here) the actions and behind the scenes dealings amount to a pretty harsh restriction on those individuals’ (and couples’) rights

  20. Ananth

    Yeah, when people say things like how that is societal I don’t know what that really means and I don’t see how you would really get rid of that stuff unless we got rid all terms that were gender in nature, so unless words like Mommy and Daddy are removed from the lexicon you are always going to have children in circumstances wishes for a mom or dad (single parent gay parent whatever).

  21. Eric

    Not get rid of gender-related terms, but rethink what they mean. Is Mommy more than female parent? Are there certain parental instincts that each sex possess exclusively? I really don’t know. Nicole? But Dr. Spock, the parents’ parents, and the internet all help others get by.

    Also, to clarify what I meant by societal, I feel the biggest detriment to being raised by a homosexual couple is how others would treat that child. One would be teased mercilessly and probably be denied certain benefits given to the standard family dynamic. Many of the arguments against gay marriage were verbatim used 40 years ago against interracial marriage. Not apples and apples admittedly when a child’s involved, but the similarities in the arguments makes me wonder where it’s really coming from. People not liking it isn’t a good enough reason. I don’t think there are any persuasive arguments showing me the harm that would be done to the child; so why is the government getting involved and even taking it a step further by trying to define marriage?

    And to return to the original point, yes, Mitt is in no uncertain terms saying that the memory of a dead mother does more for a child than having two fathers. I think that’s ridiculous unless you tell me what one provides that the other can’t.

Comments are closed.