That's a really poor argument... He's clearly not going to prevent single people from raising children so he can't purport the "right to have a mother and father". There goes his logic out the window.
when i see depressing creatures,
with unprepossessing features,
i remind them on their own behalf
to - think - of
celebrated heads of state,
or specially great communicators!
did they have brains or knowledge?
don't make me laugh!
they were POPULAR!
please! it's all about popular.
it's not about aptitude,
it's the way you're viewed,
so it's very shrewd to be,
very very popular like ME!
--from the song Popular in the musical Wicked.
Granted, Romney isn't really what I'd call popular, but he's the faux choice offered so most conservatives are gonna run with him no matter how many times he sticks his foot in his mouth (which he's done so many times I lost count and even a friend from Australia emailed me to ask if Romney was being serious about something he said), thus proving that once again it's not about aptitude but the way you're viewed (his connection to Bain no doubt helps tremendously on that given that they own most right wing spokes critters like Rush Limbaugh). And he shows he understands that given how he seems to meticulously plan the image he conveys (down to the vehicles he arrives in to what he's wearing that day and even where every strand of hair is).
For that matter, look how important celebrity endorsements are...heck, many politicians were celebrities themselves before winning elections (and that's true of the conservatives as well as the Democrats).
Romney won't win. He has alienated too many minorities he should not have ignored, and they are stacked against him. If I had to guess, the Republicans threw this election away so they can have four more years to brew a "super-candidate", stronger, faster, and richer than all of the gaffe-prone candidates before him, and will guarantee their taking the House again.
I overheard some elderly talking not too long ago. One man said only FOX told the truth, etc, but all the others (women, if it matters) weren't buying it, and I heard one say heatedly that she paid into SS her entire life so it wasn't a hand out (my guess is AARP published his statements far and wide).
Of course that's just one group so I don't know how common it is. But normally the Republicans often win because it's mostly boomers who vote (Obama got many younger people excited enough to vote, but I don't think he'll have that this time), and this suggests the possibility that Romney has alienated a valuable voter pool.
Oh my goodness, we are violating human rights and the child will forever be damaged if they don't have mother and father on their birth certificate! (sarcasm intended) So, give people the opportunity to put what they want on their child's birth certificate. In a day of amazing technology that shouldn't be hard. If it is a heterosexual couple, allow mother and father on the birth certificate. If they are two moms or two dads, allow mother and mother or father and father. You know, I think it's more important how you love the child and how you raise them that matters. Think of how many dads are written on birth certificates that have bailed out on their families or don't bother to spend time with their own kids. Surely, a child will survive if their birth certificate is not traditional.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
![[Image: 197308_363047660455541_777422058_n.jpg]](http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb382/Dv8designs1964/197308_363047660455541_777422058_n.jpg)
