• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay marriage issue now linked to Ohio senator

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,299
Reaction score
26,919
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gay marriage issue now linked to Ohio senator

Nationally, it's not clear whether Portman's support for gay marriage would be an obstacle for his presidential ambitions.
A Gallup poll this year found support for legal recognition of same-sex marriages at a record high, with 55 percent in favor of it. Republicans remain broadly opposed, with just 30 percent favoring legal recognition for marriages between same-sex couples, but support has increased greatly over the last few decades. At the same time, Gallup's data show that 78 percent of Americans under the age of 30 support legal gay marriages, suggesting that support will continue to grow.

I like him. He's pro-gay marriage and isn't afraid to show it. Can't say the same for a lot of other liberal Republicans...
 
Gay marriage issue now linked to Ohio senator



I like him. He's pro-gay marriage and isn't afraid to show it. Can't say the same for a lot of other liberal Republicans...

If you want him to have a chance, for God's sake don't call him a liberal Republican. He is more of a Goldwater Republican (like me), which is not liberal, but rather pragmatic and reasonable, but still conservative where it matters and in what the party was formed to represent. We fought against slavery for goodness sake - we should be fighting against social slavery in the form of creating second class citizens now.
 
I like him too. Lots of people do.

I don't know that I'd call him a "Liberal Republican" though. He's almost Libertarian.

Considering Libertarians espouse the nonsense that government should get out of marriage, as where liberals argue for legal recognition of it, I'd say he's a liberal Republican.
 
His career is over.

In Ohio yes, it is. Because the bigots would rather let a liberal Dem get into office that will ruin the country instead of a Senator that supports SSM.

Yes, we know what the bigots would rather have.
 
In Ohio yes, it is. Because the bigots would rather let a liberal Dem get into office that will ruin the country instead of a Senator that supports SSM.

Yes, we know what the bigots would rather have.
So anyone that isn't for gay marriage is a bigot? Is that your contention?
 
So anyone that isn't for gay marriage is a bigot? Is that your contention?

The bigots are the ones with the irrational fears of gays (those that think gays are out to "convert" the population to homosexuality) as well as those that are perfectly ok with other things that are sins being legal and not fighting to make them illegal.
 
The bigots are the ones with the irrational fears of gays (those that think gays are out to "convert" the population to homosexuality) as well as those that are perfectly ok with other things that are sins being legal and not fighting to make them illegal.

How vague.
 
Gay marriage issue now linked to Ohio senator



I like him. He's pro-gay marriage and isn't afraid to show it. Can't say the same for a lot of other liberal Republicans...

Being pro gay marriage I would think would hurt Portman in the primaries if he decided to run. I do not think he could ever be nominated by the GOP. Now I have never heard of Portman having presidential ambitions before either. That is new to me.

There are a lot of fiscal conservatives out there unaligned with the Republicans because of their stances on social issues. I think one day the GOP will have to decide between the religious right and those unaligned fiscal conservatives.
 
Gay marriage issue now linked to Ohio senator

I like him. He's pro-gay marriage and isn't afraid to show it. Can't say the same for a lot of other liberal Republicans...

He's pro gay marriage because his son came out and he wanted to validate him - prior to that, he was against it.

Meaning that he chooses his stance not on principle, but rather on what is most convenient to him. If you honestly think that access to SSM is a "right", you may want to consider how lightly he values it.
 
Being pro gay marriage I would think would hurt Portman in the primaries if he decided to run. I do not think he could ever be nominated by the GOP. Now I have never heard of Portman having presidential ambitions before either. That is new to me.

TD claims to be a buddy of his (and may very well be), who thinks that he does, and was pushing for him last time around as Romney's VP pick.

There are a lot of fiscal conservatives out there unaligned with the Republicans because of their stances on social issues. I think one day the GOP will have to decide between the religious right and those unaligned fiscal conservatives.

Yeah. We tried the "let's pick a moderate Republican candidate who isn't strong on social conservatism but who is good on fiscal issues" in 2008 and 2012. It turns out, when you don't do a good job of turning out your base, you loose elections.
 
If you honestly think that access to SSM is a "right", you may want to consider how lightly he values it.

Yes, because we all know only heterosexuals value marriage. :roll:

That is why there is almost a 50% divorce rate.
 
Considering Libertarians espouse the nonsense that government should get out of marriage, as where liberals argue for legal recognition of it, I'd say he's a liberal Republican.

Libertarians support gay marriage.

The Libertarian Party platform states that "Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws."

So no, you have it wrong. You may want to read up on how the Libertarians view SSM.
 
He's pro gay marriage because his son came out and he wanted to validate him - prior to that, he was against it.

Meaning that he chooses his stance not on principle, but rather on what is most convenient to him. If you honestly think that access to SSM is a "right", you may want to consider how lightly he values it.

That really is not necessarily true unless you have access to more information than I do. Sometimes it takes an issue affecting a family member to re-examine more closely what you think on an issue. AUtomatically assigning the worst possible motives to some one simply because you do not like their stance on an issue is kinda sad. It is much like assuming people opposed to SSM are bigots.
 
Considering Libertarians espouse the nonsense that government should get out of marriage, as where liberals argue for legal recognition of it, I'd say he's a liberal Republican.

While I would not want to insult any one by calling them a libertarian, and Portman certainly isn't(nor do I think he is a liberal republican, takes much more than one issue to make some one liberal), it is not so much libertarians arguing to get the government out of marriage as it is conservatives who see the writing on the wall and if they have to share their toys they will just break them instead. Notice that no one wanted the state out of marriage until they started having to share marraige with those icky gay people.
 
That really is not necessarily true unless you have access to more information than I do.

I have only what he said at the time, where he clearly drew the line straight from "my son is gay" to "therefore I have decided to support gay marriage".

Sometimes it takes an issue affecting a family member to re-examine more closely what you think on an issue. AUtomatically assigning the worst possible motives to some one simply because you do not like their stance on an issue is kinda sad. It is much like assuming people opposed to SSM are bigots.

:shrug: it might be so - but that is what he suggested at the time, and I see no particular reason (given that that is common) to assume otherwise.
 
Yes, because we all know only heterosexuals value marriage. :roll:

That is why there is almost a 50% divorce rate.

Oh hey look! A Strawman! Does it need a brain?
 
Yeah. We tried the "let's pick a moderate Republican candidate who isn't strong on social conservatism but who is good on fiscal issues" in 2008 and 2012. It turns out, when you don't do a good job of turning out your base, you loose elections.

I would have a very hard time really calling either McCain or Romney anything but socially conservative, and the reason they lost had exactly jack and **** to do with social issues.
 
Oh hey look! A Strawman! Does it need a brain?

Not a strawman, you claimed the Senator doesn't value marriage because he is for SSM.
 
I have only what he said at the time, where he clearly drew the line straight from "my son is gay" to "therefore I have decided to support gay marriage".



:shrug: it might be so - but that is what he suggested at the time, and I see no particular reason (given that that is common) to assume otherwise.

That is not what he said from what I can see. Here is the quote I found. Notice the part I bolded:

It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that's of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have -- to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years

Rethinking issues from different perspectives is a good thing, not a bad thing.
 
That is not what he said from what I can see. Here is the quote I found. Notice the part I bolded:

Yup. He thought of it from a new perspective. And what was that perspective?

It allowed me to think of this issue from a new perspective, and that's of a Dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have -- to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years

That of a dad who loves his son a lot. :shrug:

Rethinking issues from different perspectives is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Sure. But if you change your position on something like this not because of your principles but because it was something you wanted to do in order to validate and enable your child (which is a natural desire for a parent), then that means that it is likely that either A) your original position wasn't built on principles or B) your principles are weaker than your emotions.
 
Back
Top Bottom