"Severe Conservative" (His Words) Mr. Romney Also Severely Anti-Gay

[Jingthing]

There is no doubt that President Obama has been the best president in American history on gay civil rights issues. Has he been perfect? Not even close. It's all relative.

But compare to his opponent -- Mr. Romney.

Even considering his violent assault of a suspected gay classmate when he was 18, his superficial demeanor today is of a mild mannered, milquetoast kind of man. Not threatening ... you MIGHT think.

We knew Romney was anti same sex marriage and in favor of a constitutional amendment banning it.

Obama recently condemned the horrific anti-gay state constitutional amendment in North Carolina that banned recognition of BOTH same sex marriage AND same sex civil unions. Romney craftily has avoided any comment.

Now here is some info that I think is going to be real news. Romney directly, using his OWN MONEY supporting "cure gay" groups. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there has ever been an American president who has gone that far down the anti-gay rat hole.

http://www.affirmati.../2012_012.shtml

Disclosure of tax filings this week for the Tyler Charitable Foundation reveals that Mormon presidential hopeful Mitt Romney donated $10,000 in 2010 to the Massachusetts Family Institute. The MFI backs "ex-gay" organizations such as Exodus International and other anti-gay organizations which promote the use of so-called "therapy" as a supposed cure for homosexuality.

http://andrewsulliva...ity-muddle.html

Romney has also donated to groups that advocate "psychological cures" of gay people, and his church is arguably the most effective and well-financed religious organization dedicated to keeping gay citizens out of civil marriage, with an eliminationist organization called Evergreen which tries to cure you. That's way worse than even the Catholic hierarchy. According to this survivor of the therapy, a third of the enrollees commit suicide:

Does Romney have a right to give money and support groups such as these that gay Americans consider odious? Of course he does! But where are the reports in mainstream press about this, where is the hard questioning of him publicly about his actions and positions on CURING gays?

Edited May 28, 2012 by Jingthing

[endure]

Oh joy! Another US political thread bemoaning the fact that the USA remains in the dark ages because they have a CONSTITUTION and a SUPREME COURT. Who cares? Give us a call when the USA grows up.

[Jingthing]

Oh joy! Another US political thread bemoaning the fact that the USA remains in the dark ages because they have a CONSTITUTION and a SUPREME COURT. Who cares? Give us a call when the USA grows up.

1. This thread is about President Obama's challenger, Mr. Romney, and the new information which almost nobody knows about yet, that he has contributed his own money to organizations practicing "cure the gays" therapies, which are widely regarded by gay people and mainstream psychiatrists as extremely damaging to gay people.

2. The thread is not about the governmental structure of the United States. However, your simplistic assertion that the U.S. is behind because of the constitution and the supreme court is a gross distortion. But never mind, because that is NOT the topic.

3. Just because your own country may be more advanced than the U.S. on these (and other) matters doesn't mean it is polite to GLOAT about it. As an American, I know we are way ahead of the Sudan on these matters. Gloating about it is the last thing to do about that. BTW, if Mr. Romney is elected, none of us alive may ever receive the "call" cheekily requested.

4. Not interested? Okie dokie. But please don't characterize the topic as something it is not.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

..... We knew Romney was anti same sex marriage and in favor of a constitutional amendment banning it. .....

I knew the former but was unaware of the latter, JT, although having checked it you are evidently correct (although technically the proposed amendment is not to ban gay marriage per se but to define marriage as being between one man and one woman). Two questions for you:

If the process for amending the constitution is as lengthy and involved as you have frequently said it is (which I dispute) how is it that there is a possibility that he could have such an amendment passed while any amendment permitting gay marriage is such a non-starter?

Rather more importantly, if proposing and passing such an amendment is so difficult (two thirds super-majority vote in both Houses of Congress to propose the amendment, with approval by three quarters of state legislatures needed to ratify it), then surely the possibility of the almost certain failure of such a proposal must be a good thing, as its failure would clarify the debate over the meaning of the constitution beyond any doubt?

.....

3. Just because your own country may be more advanced than the U.S. on these (and other) matters doesn't mean it is polite to GLOAT about it. As an American, I know we are way ahead of the Sudan on these matters. Gloating about it is the last thing to do about that. BTW, if Mr. Romney is elected, none of us alive may ever receive the "call" cheekily requested. ....

JT, I credit you with sufficient intelligence that when you criticise another country's record on gay rights, as you frequently do whether it is the Sudan, Iran, or any other country, that you are not necessarily 'gloating" about your own country's superiority (real or imagined).

I also credit you with having some personal knowledge of or at least done some research into those countries you repeatedly criticise.

You, however, take any such criticism of your own country by non- Americans as "gloating" and frequently complain that only Americans are in any position to comment with any knowledge on the position in their own country and that things have to be done there in "the American way". I don't want to divert your thread into "something it is not" but maybe if you were to apply the same principles to yourself as you would like others to do to you and your country then you would have rather more credibility.

Maybe not, of course, and I may be wrong on all counts ....

[Jingthing]

Please keep on topic. The topic is: Romney giving money to religious organizations trying to "cure" homosexuality. This I feel is a legitimate political issue. If he gives money, its fair to conclude he is in favor of this "therapy", thinks it works, and views homosexuality as a "disease" requiring a cure. I think the American voters need to know this about Romney because at this point in history, these views are far right of the American mainstream.

If nobody here is interested in the topic, so be it. But please don't attempt to hijack it into an area that has indeed been done to death here. Thank you.

I do apologize in by giving background on Romney to introduce what I do feel SHOULD become a very public political issue (but probably won't because the press and probably the Obama campaign is afraid to touch on anything that might be seen as an "attack" on Romney's rather non-mainstream religious dogmas), the support of "cure" therapies, that I mentioned some other well known stuff about Romney's views on same sex marriage, etc. I see endure took that and ran with it in a provocative way, even though I did think it was clear enough the intention was to focus on the cure therapy issue. So now I hope there is no chance anyone will be confused.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

How many people reading this will vote ? And how many of those will change their mind after reading this ? ..... It's not a retorical question I am actually curious as to how many people in a gay forum \ thread were going to vote for Romney but now will decide not to.

[Jingthing]

How many people reading this will vote ? And how many of those will change their mind after reading this ? ..... It's not a retorical question I am actually curious as to how many people in a gay forum \ thread were going to vote for Romney but now will decide not to.

None. As is well known about 90 percent of gay American voters that do vote, vote for democratic presidents. I doubt even this issue would turn many gay republican types.

The reason I think it is potentially a bigger thing is if a reporter gets brave enough to DIRECTLY ask Romney some hard questions about this "cure" issue in a public interview setting, or better yet, the issue comes up in a national debate. I think at this point only a tiny percentage of potential voters know about this. The way it could be bigger is if Romney is basically forced into commenting on it publicly. That could have influence of "swing voters" more conservative fiscally, but more mainstream socially.

If this issue does NOT seem to have any chance of being thrust into the national consciousness, I would like to see some gay activists try hard to force it there. It sounds like leftist media personality Rachel Maddow is already working on this, and good for her! Of course the Romney campaign is going to try to avoid commenting on this like the plague. But people may make a difference. Perhaps public protests at Romney campaign events. Not disruptive, just signs telling people what Romney supports. Romney's actions here are so far out of the mainstream that I think it has potential to be powerful. This came up in the Bachmann campaign. Her husband (who is hilariously effeminate) runs a business trying to "cure" gays. Of course this is one thing that made Bachmann too far right wing to be considered electable. And this was her husband, not her.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

How many reporters reading ths will be asking Romney questions ? Once again not a retorical question .... I am asking people if they are reporters in that position, not asking people who are not to guestimate how many they think are out their or not.

[Jingthing]

How many reporters reading ths will be asking Romney questions ? Once again not a retorical question .... I am asking people if they are reporters in that position, not asking people who are not to guestimate how many they think are out their or not.

This forum is read internationally. Statistics show lots of the IPs of readers are in the US. This is just a discussion forum. If you mean to suggest that posts on forums are not the same as active political activism, who could disagree. So what's your point? We shouldn't talk about stuff if there isn't a clear effective result in mind just from talking about stuff?

Anyway, what do you think about religiously based cure the gays therapies? Are you comfortable with a politician showing open support, even personal money, towards such controversial programs which are condemned by modern psychiatry?

Edited May 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[justcruisin]

Is this a Fox channel?l...I actually thought this forum was related to Thailand for a brief moment.

Keep up the good work George, I still love you

[MrRealDeal]

,,,,,,I wasn't making a point I was asking a question of all the international viewers , I am not assuming their are no reporters, or assuming that this post won't change anyones mind. Your post might cause many of those international viewers to post this question online during a debate for example ..... I wasn't making a point or any assumptions I was simply asking questions to help promote your topic and perhaps get someone to pose this question in any of a number of possible ways in the media which is what you seemed to want in the first place.

I am not here to decide for people what criteria they should use to decide when to speak, or would I critisize someone who decided for themselves that either was their personal choice.

[endure]

3. Just because your own country may be more advanced than the U.S. on these (and other) matters doesn't mean it is polite to GLOAT about it.

I'm not GLOATING. I'm just tired of seeing your endless US political threads about something which affects no-one who posts in this gay forum - not even you!

There's a thread going on in Bedlam about US politics and the forthcoming election. Can't you go and post in that? At least you'll be talking to people who are interested.

[LeCharivari]

Please keep on topic. The topic is: Romney giving money to religious organizations trying to "cure" homosexuality. ....

So now I hope there is no chance anyone will be confused.

Hope springs eternal, JT, as does your endless ability to avoid any questions that you can't answer.

The "topic", whether you now like it or not, was what you wrote in the OP. That DID NOT include the question "Anyway, what do you think about religiously based cure the gays therapies?" which you asked later, but it DID include the issues I raised.

If you " think the American voters need to know this about Romney because at this point in history, these views are far right of the American mainstream" and that this is a "legitimate political issue" then why not use your boundless posting energy to inform "the American voters" about your ""legitimate political issue"? However you frame it, your posts on gay US issues are increasingly POLITICAL ISSUES, and less "Topics of a gay-related nature". I am not going to suggest you post them elsewhere, but if you post them here then expect them to be questioned and if you can't answer those questions that's your problem.

[Jingthing]

Again, the intended topic is about religiously based conversion therapies which promote gays to hate themselves, and potential president Mr. Romney's support of same. I have no problem if there is no interest in the topic, but won't be baited off of it.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

3. Just because your own country may be more advanced than the U.S. on these (and other) matters doesn't mean it is polite to GLOAT about it.

I'm not GLOATING. I'm just tired of seeing your endless US political threads about something which affects no-one who posts in this gay forum - not even you!

There's a thread going on in Bedlam about US politics and the forthcoming election. Can't you go and post in that? At least you'll be talking to people who are interested.

Your objection noted. Since you also don't seem interested in discussing the actual topic of this thread, related to conversion therapies, maybe instead of telling me where to post, you should consider not posting in a thread you aren't the slightest bit interested in. After all, may I remind you, you are not a MOD anymore. I start many threads in many forums. Most don't attract much interest. Some attract a lot of interest. I can't always predict which ones will click, and neither can you. The ones that are duds can just fade away. No need really to make a federal case about it. I reckon this one is a dud as its just attracting so much off topic noise. Sorry about that. Edited May 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

,,,,,,I wasn't making a point I was asking a question of all the international viewers , I am not assuming their are no reporters, or assuming that this post won't change anyones mind. Your post might cause many of those international viewers to post this question online during a debate for example ..... I wasn't making a point or any assumptions I was simply asking questions to help promote your topic and perhaps get someone to pose this question in any of a number of possible ways in the media which is what you seemed to want in the first place.

I am not here to decide for people what criteria they should use to decide when to speak, or would I critisize someone who decided for themselves that either was their personal choice.

OK, that's cool. I doubt this thread will directly result in Romney being "outed" for this outrageously anti-gay support of harmful religiously based conversion therapies. But one never knows! The more people talking about on forums, in the media, people to people, and it might just grow into something that Romney just can't avoid addressing. Because if he is forced to openly address it, it can't be good for him.

[endure]

3. Just because your own country may be more advanced than the U.S. on these (and other) matters doesn't mean it is polite to GLOAT about it.

I'm not GLOATING. I'm just tired of seeing your endless US political threads about something which affects no-one who posts in this gay forum - not even you!

There's a thread going on in Bedlam about US politics and the forthcoming election. Can't you go and post in that? At least you'll be talking to people who are interested.

Your objection noted. Since you also don't seem interested in discussing the actual topic of this thread, related to conversion therapies, maybe instead of telling me where to post, you should consider not posting in a thread you aren't the slightest bit interested in. After all, may I remind you, you are not a MOD anymore. I start many threads in many forums. Most don't attract much interest. Some attract a lot of interest. I can't always predict which ones will click, and neither can you. The ones that are duds can just fade away. No need really to make a federal case about it. I reckon this one is a dud as its just attracting so much off topic noise. Sorry about that.

The actual topic of this thread is Mitt Romney and the real theme of this thread is US politics. As I said there's a US election thread running in Bedlam. Can't you simply have the good manners to post in that where you're guaranteed an audience?

[Jingthing]

Keep telling yourself you know what the thread is about more than me, the OP! Again, you're not a mod. If you think this topic doesn't fit on the gay forum, report it, or don't read it.

If there was any "confusion" about the topic from OP in which I provided TWO LINKS related to the gay conversion issue, I later clarified the matter even more explicitly.

BTW, it remains my understanding that this forum is open to ANY gay related topic ... globally.

If for an example, the leader of Nigeria wants to change the laws to make homosexuality a capital offense, we can discuss that here, if we want. If a thread about oppression of gays in Nigeria doesn't interest you, wouldn't the polite thing to do be to just ignore it?

Edited May 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

I would join in but honestly I have no base of knowledge to make an informed opinion about it, (the "therapy places) and if my opinion was different than yours after reading up on it, and I posted it wouldn't I just get banned again ? But it is fair game to point it out to voters.

[Jingthing]

I would join in but honestly I have no base of knowledge to make an informed opinion about it, (the "therapy places) and if my opinion was different than yours after reading up on it, and I posted it wouldn't I just get banned again ? But it is fair game to point it out to voters.

That's a can of worms, but really, on the gay forum, there would be an assumption of opposition to groups preaching that it is not OK to be gay. Gays in many countries have a minority group identity. If you started a group in England promoting that Pakistani people deny their Pakistani ethnic background, I can assure you, that wouldn't be a cool thing to support on a Pakistani forum. No don't freak out, I'm not saying race/ethnicity is exactly the same thing as sexual orientation.

BTW, you win the prize for the one responder here at least skirting the topic of the thread. Congrats!

Edited May 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

Honestly Mr Jing I am not especially stupid but am really trying to figure out how to discuss instead of debate and how to respond to topics about Jesus or homophoiba after being told and getting banned that I am not allowed to say anything in opposition to a question about it ...... I guess i'm not even sure why one would ask a question if the people you are asking can only answer in one way. I guess IMO if all people can do is agree and say yes Romney is a homophobe and the therapy is bad it's just not a very interesting topic.

[Jingthing]

Don't make this a topic about moderation. If you have a question about moderation, PM a moderator, OK?

Is Romney a homophobe? That's a good and related question. It probably depends on how you define homophobe. I do feel there is strong evidence he is a deeply religious man of the Mormon faith. The Mormon faith in its doctrines, policies, actions, and political activism works against gay civil rights and yes as indicated in the link, supports conversion therapies. The Mormon faith is not the only "Christian" type sect that supports religiously based conversion therapy. However, Romney as a religious Mormon, a former Mormon Bishop, who has personally donated his own money to organizations promoting conversion therapy represents this very explicitly. All everyday Mormons are supposed to tithe 10 percent of their income to the church, and some of their income goes toward anti-gay activities, but they are just being religious people and you can't assume their "heart" is behind everything the money is used for. But with Romney and the donation, I do wonder, is this a smoking gun of homophobia for Romney? I'm asking. I don't know the answer. That's why I think this donation story is POTENTIALLY a big deal, IF by some chance it achieves resonance and makes it into American national consciousness. I do think it may be significant that Rachel Maddow seems to see this as I do, this could be a big deal, but somehow someway Romney needs to be CONFRONTED about it in a public setting. It is indeed culturally "un-American" to attack faithful people of any religion for being religious. However, when it comes to personally donating and presumably explicitly supporting something as controversial as conversion therapy, that has proven to be totally acceptable to discuss (and definitively a political NEGATIVE with the general public), and the perfect example is that there was a lot of press about Michelle Bachmann's husbands conversion therapy for profit BUSINESS.

http://www.affirmation.org/news_2011/2011_061.shtml

Here is another example of this kind of thing to demonstrate it really is a legitimate potential issue:

Supposing someone running for president was a devout Southern Baptist and as such was deeply opposed to women's right to choose in regards to abortion and was explicitly for overturning the supreme court decision Roe vs. Wade so that abortion would become illegal again. That is what it is. Fairly common for a conservative republican these days.

But, supposing this same candidate was found to have donated money to organizations dedicated to personally harassing clinics performing abortions? Note I didn't say bombing the clinics, some people in America support that too.

It seems obvious if the facts got out about that explicit donation, the press would be on that candidates case to pressure her into making a clear policy statement: are you really in favor of abortion doctors being harassed?

So if it turns out to be hands off Romney on this gay conversion issue (and it may be), why is that? I think the answer is fear of being seen as anti-Mormon, but that doesn't seem fair to me.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

Well I can agree with that ..... On a side note and I am really curious about this ... Do you think people who go to this therapy could be called homophobic homosexuals ? Seems to me that they are , but the whole concept is a little strange as well. Well whats funny about the Bachman thing was that it was mostly about the fact she is so against government handouts and they took some 100K, more so than a topic about the Bisness itself , that part was lost in the overall story about the taking of the gov handout. So I would disagree that the press was about the therapy part , it was about the gov handout part and the type of bisness that took the handout was a sidenote.

I think you overestimate peoples reaction to a donation to groups that do wacky things and think the first part of your thoughts is more in line with swing voters.

Bottom line is an economic crash Obama is out if not he most likely gets 4 more years.

Thier are a lot of possible reasons aside from anti mormonism , the why depends on who you ask I suppose ..... Once again I think you overestimate this issue ..... the average person brushes it off as wacky right wing people doing wacky right wing things that don't effect them. And they are more concerned about the things that they will do to help them or not. It's just to nutty a topic for the average swing voter to pay much attention to.

Edited May 29, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[Jingthing]

The topic is the conversion therapy donation issue NOT the economy!

I disagree with you on the Bachmann story. It was not only about the business side; it was also about the type of business. That type of business, "curing" gays, is VERY controversial. Bachmann tried very hard to avoid any and all questions about the matter and she could do because it was her husband, not her. Trust me if people start bugging Romney about his conversion donations, he will go all out to try to avoid responding in any way and may succeed if he can get away with it. My prediction is his campaign will try to suggest such questions are about his Mormon faith and that is clearly off limits, so thus, it is pretty likely the press will be scared of this issue in the first place!

http://lgbtpov.front...loor-this-week/

Yes of course internalized homophobia is very common, and is related to suicides and unhappiness in gay people.

Just google it and get back to us (or not).

Edited May 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

Well as far as the topic ... I guess my last comment is to reiterate what I said .... It's just to bizzare and out of the mainstream for very many swing voters to take it seriously enough to care. It's unfortunatly not really news that far right people think this way and most people look at it like that. No one is really suprised if a right wing self proclaimed Christian donates to groups who are involved in things like this. I wouldn't call it a non issue I would just say it desn't even come close enough to a deciding factor to make a mention of it no matter how hard the media tried to pound it.

Do you think anyone who was going to vote for Bachman cared about the therapy or the hipocracy ? The story was not that a far right homophobe thinks coversion is a good idea , thats not news , the story was about the hipocracy of being against gov earmarks and taking them at the same time. And I am stating fact about that btw , if you feel differently it's just because you are so concerned with conversion, that, that part of the story popped out at you and made you mistakenly think it was the main topic.

I agree that people under 18 should not be allowed to be subjected to these places under ANY circumstances. And people over 18 should perhaps need some sort of evaluation from an independant Psycatrist before being allowed as well.

[Jingthing]

A competent psychiatrist generally wouldn't suggest this dangerous therapy because homosexuality is not a mental illness.

It may be a bigger issue than you think with the public:

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDWV_h3j6mE[/media]

http://www.thenation...-ex-gay-therapy

This is about psychologists rather than psychiatrists:

Most professional psychologists view reparative therapy skeptically, to say the least. In 2007 the American Psychological Association assembled a task force to study the effectiveness of this approach. After spending two years sifting through the available research—it evaluated eighty-three studies dating back to 1960—the group concluded that there was scant evidence that sexual orientation could be changed. What’s more, it found that attempting to do so could cause depression and suicidal tendencies among patients. Based on these findings, in 2009 the APA voted to repudiate reparative therapy by a margin of 125 to 4.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

We can't really tell how much people do or don't care, and we defenitly agree it's crazy dangerous and illadvised. I would point out that Backman was voted into office by a majority of people and Jerry Fallwell another well know person who does this garbage isn't lacking for people to come to his "University". That's a couple of reasons I say that it's just not a big concern to people even though perhaps it should be. I don't think on the average persons list of things to consider when voting it would even get mentioned, and I highly doubt it would rate over the economy, jobs, education. military, social security, imigration, abortion , taxes , debt , and common everyday issues like that.

I would also point out it seems only you and I care much about it here , today at least.

I apprechate the links and I said an evaluation because they would of course say no not because I thought they would recomend it as a good idea ! lol ..... my guess is they would say lets figure out why you have a problem with something you likely can not change and once we solve that if you still want to go .... and you won't .... we can consider it then.

I guess we agree on the topic at least, small off topic points aside.

It turned out to be a more interesting topic than I thought at first !

Edited May 30, 2012 by MrRealDeal

[Jingthing]

Jerry Falwell is long dead. His fundamentalist based university does live.

Mr. Romney isn't running for congress in one district.

I never said his outing as a supporter of gay conversion therapy would or would not cost him to election as president.

I am saying if widely revealed, there is no doubt it is a political negative.

[Jingthing]

...

It turned out to be a more interesting topic than I thought at first !

Thanks but as only two of us seem to feel that way, the jury is still out.

[JemJem]

How many reporters reading ths will be asking Romney questions ? Once again not a retorical question .... I am asking people if they are reporters in that position, not asking people who are not to guestimate how many they think are out their or not.

This forum is read internationally. Statistics show lots of the IPs of readers are in the US. This is just a discussion forum. If you mean to suggest that posts on forums are not the same as active political activism, who could disagree. So what's your point? We shouldn't talk about stuff if there isn't a clear effective result in mind just from talking about stuff?

Anyway, what do you think about religiously based cure the gays therapies? Are you comfortable with a politician showing open support, even personal money, towards such controversial programs which are condemned by modern psychiatry?

Do you think it's time for such 'therapies' (!) to be banned ?!

If it is found out that (and, I think there is evidence this way, right ?) they cause psychological problems to people, of course, they should be banned.