Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Excon · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Cyrylek said:
But only with the opposite sex. Those who have no interest in the opposite sex cannot marry at all, in practical terms. Just like allowing women to vote meant "redefining of universal suffrage", accomodating these people requires "redefining of marriage".

Not marry at all? Not!
Then can and did marry.
And as it is available to them, it was not discriminatory. Doesn't matter if they chose to participate in it or not.

Creating conditions that allow two of the same sex to marry is creating a new right as it did not exist.
Nothing can change that fact.

Cyrylek said:
What would you say about a law that states: everbody has the right to join chess clubs, whether they play chess or not, but not macramé clubs - because it doesn't fit our current definition of "club" (And macramé is so gay)?

Founders of clubs have the right of association, which to me includes the right not associate.
Their club, their rules their choice. I care not.

And as marriage is a contract that allows a union between those of the opposite sex, it does not discriminate.
Adding to it same sex is changing the foundation of the contract and is creating that which did not exist before.
It deserves it's own contract.

AGENT J · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Excon said:
Not marry at all? Not!
Then can and did marry.
And as it is available to them, it was not discriminatory. Doesn't matter if they chose to participate in it or not.

Creating conditions that allow two of the same sex to marry is creating a new right as it did not exist.
Nothing can change that fact.

Founders of clubs have the right of association, which to me includes the right not associate.
Their club, their rules their choice. I care not.

And as marriage is a contract that allows a union between those of the opposite sex, it does not discriminate.
Adding to it same sex is changing the foundation of the contract and is creating that which did not exist before.
It deserves it's own contract.

except you are wrong, slaves werent considered men before and woman werent equal either, making them was EQUAL rights LOL

once again your example factually fails

it factually discrimination.

man can marry woman right?
woman cant marry woman, right?

this is factually gender discrimination.

thanks for playing you factually lose

shrubnose · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Excon said:
It isn't an equal rights issue.It is creating a new right.

Not that long ago, most Americans agreed with you. At one time. I agreed with you. But times have changed, I've changed, and today you are in the minority with your ideas.

If you don't think so I suggest that you do a little research.

Most Americans support what you oppose, including the vast majority of young people.

Who do you think will be running the USA in the future?

Here's a hint: It won't be today's old people, they'll all be dead and buried.

"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

Excon · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Objective-J said:
thats what i thought you got nothing LMAO
you have been thoroughly exposed

That is hilarious. Exposed! iLOL

The argument is valid, and is not nothing. :doh iLOL

Objective-J said:
I have stated facts

Just as I have.
Where we differ is that you have also posted fallacies, where I have not.

Objective-J said:
and posted "nu-huh" thats brilliant LMAO

Yes you have. And no, that is not brilliant.
Funny you think it is.

Objective-J said:
fact is gay marriage already exist you cant change that

Fact is that they have wrongfully stolen a name, changed a definition and applied it to what they want.
Does not change that fact that it really isn't or that it was wrong to so.

Objective-J said:
its already been proven to be an equal rights issue

No it hasn't been "proven".
Nor could it be, as it obviously isn't.
Judicial activism doesn't change the facts.

Objective-J said:
let me know when you can defeat these facts with anything other than your hurt feelings and opinion

As I have no hurt feeling over the issue so clearly you know not of what you speak.
Opinion yes, as we all have them.

Objective-J said:
soon equal gay rights will be national, just the way it is an d it will be a great day because america will have again fixed and inequality, further protected equal rights and rid ourselves of some more discrimination.

Still wouldn't change the fact that it wasn't and equality, rights, or discrimination issue.

Objective-J said:
so lets recap, gay marriage already exsists and has before we were ever born so you are wrong trying to push your OPINION that it doesn't, if you disagree FACTUALLY prove otherwise, you will fail as usual
it is about equal gay rights and this has also been proven, if you disagree factually rove otherwise, i cant wait.

Already proven.
That is why you are dismissive. You can not counter that which has been provided.

shrubnose · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Cyrylek said:
In the narrowest technical sense, yes. But isn't it a bit like saying that women's right to vote isn't an equal rights issue?

Men always voted, women never did; "universal suffrage" meant the right of male citizens to vote, regardless of property, literacy, race or religion. Allowing women to do it as well was "redefining voting" and "creating a new right". But common sense tells you that it was, obviously, an issue of equality.

Unfortunately 'common sense' is not as common as it should be.

Anyone who thinks that the Catholic Church will win this battle will be mighty disappointed in the not-distant future.

shrubnose · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Excon said:
. Loving was shown to be discriminatory because it did not allow a male to join with a female.

Did you read this before you posted it?

Nap time. I'll check back later.

Excon · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

shrubnose said:
Not that long ago, most Americans agreed with you. At one time. I agreed with you. But times have changed, I've changed, and today you are in the minority with your ideas.

If you don't think so I suggest that you do a little research.

I know things have changed, just as I know where I stand. Does not mean that change is right.

shrubnose said:
Most Americans support what you oppose, including the vast majority of young people.

Of course. As a result of indoctrination.
Still doesn't make it right.
And it is an indoctrination that can be reversed over time with indoctrination in the opposite direction.

Which of course doesn't make it right either.
Only that which is.
But we are not off into that type of discussion.

shrubnose said:
Who do you think will be running the USA in the future?

Here's a hint: It won't be today's old people, they'll all be dead and buried.

iLOL
:doh
You say this like you are revealing some hidden secret. :doh
And they are going to have to deal with the problems that we have allowed to come to fruition.
Just as we are trying to deal with the problems of the decline of traditional family values, which this a part of, I am sure we will not solve that issue and neither will they.

shrubnose said:
Did you read this before you posted it?

Nap time. I'll check back later.

Did you have trouble understanding it? I am sorry I was to succinct for you to understand what was meant. It happens.
The issue in loving was found to be discriminatory. Is that better?

DVSentinel · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

No. Never going to change.

One of my sisters is a lesbian, it doesn't change my stance against homosexual marriage.

digsbe · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

I support the state's rights to allow for SSM/civil unions. My personal beliefs are that homosexual sex is an act of sinful perversion. I support the legal ability for homosexuals to get married, but my personal beliefs are that in the eyes of God (which is irrelevant to them, I respect that) they are not wed and are living in sin. That fundamental belief will not change unless my theology changes.

If I was against SSM and a family member came out as a homosexual that probably wouldn't change my opinion just like it wouldn't change my theology as it is now.

Gina · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

cpwill said:
I don't really know Rob Portman that well so I can't speak to him. I will say that my sister coming out (she came out to me first, actually) did not change my belief system, and I don't really understand why it would change anyone else's, unless your beliefs were dictated to you by emotion in the first place.

And if you changed your stance, it would be out of compassion.

What is your belief system regarding homosexuality? If you don't mind my asking?

Gina · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Black Manta said:
I was against gay marriage and still am as far as my religious beliefs go. It is a sin and I will never recognize it as anything real or tangible. I however do realize that equal treatment under our secular law is to important. The sin is between them and God, as it is for all as I am a sinner as well. So I support SSM even though I will never recognize it as being under God.

Well said. That is exactly the situation. We are a nation of secular laws and "sin" has no bearing on the law, in and of itself as sin.

Thank you.

OhIsee.Then · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Gina said:
In light of Rob Portman's change of heart regarding gay marriage, if your son/daughter/brother/sister came to you and told you they were gay, would you, could you see yourself changing your stance?

Why not a choice, option, for those that are in this situation: If a gay member of our family came out to us we wouldn't change our position since we'd still be for gay marriage?

zstep18 · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

shrubnose said:
If there were two gay people in the USA would you want to deny them the same rights that you have?

Why?

I'm confused. I said that those who are gay who supposedly don't support SSM are an extreme minority. What does that have to do with denying them the same rights that I have?

Rainman05 · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

You know you're bad at making poll threads when the most popular option is squirrel.

DA60 · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

shrubnose said:
How many Catholic priests, bishops, cardinals with doctorates in theology and other fields do you think are below average in intelligence?

Just curious.

1) I typed 'and/or'; not 'and'.

and 2) to answer your question - most of them I would guess. The ones I have met do not seem that bright.

I have said it before - anyone who strongly believes in a major religion is either ignorant and/or naive and/or desperate.

The same goes for anyone that blindly believes in something tothe point that it alters their life when there is zero, unbiased, factual proof that it exists.

winston53660 · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Rainman05 said:
You know you're bad at making poll threads when the most popular option is squirrel.

.............

Gina · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

OhIsee.Then said:
Why not a choice, option, for those that are in this situation: If a gay member of our family came out to us we wouldn't change our position since we'd still be for gay marriage?

A choice I hadn't considered, just because of the way I phrased the question.

Gina · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Rainman05 said:
You know you're bad at making poll threads when the most popular option is squirrel.

I figure I'd give all the pro-SSM people a chance to vote too. :2razz:

Nice to see there are so many on DP.

cpwill · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Gina said:
And if you changed your stance, it would be out of compassion.

I hope not. That would mean that I do not have compassion for others already, or that I allowed a particularly strong emotional reaction (such as Portman did) to dictate my beliefs. If I change my beliefs on SSM, I hope it is because I have wise reason to do so, not merely the emotional pull of wishing to validate whatever my children do.

What is your belief system regarding homosexuality? If you don't mind my asking?

In this poll, I would be one of the people who have family members (and friends) who are homosexual who don't see a conflict between our love for those persons and our belief that Jesus was correct when he defined marriage in the context of a man and a woman.

cpwill · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Gina said:
Well said. That is exactly the situation. We are a nation of secular laws and "sin" has no bearing on the law, in and of itself as sin.

Thank you.

Well that is not necessarily so. "Law" is to a large extent publicly enforced morality (we say Thou Shalt Not Run Naked Through Elementary Schools because we think it is wrong). Sin as a prohibitive moral statement (thou shalt not) does indeed therefore have strong bearing on the law.

chromium · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

shrubnose said:
It shouldn't have to be that way, but for some people that's just the way that it is.

I'm certainly not going to attack Senator Portman because that's what it took to change his mind.

I give the man a little credit for accepting reality, some people will never get past that point.

He happens to be one GOPer that I had some respect for before this came out.

Seems like a fairly decent guy to me.

Yeah, I give them a little credit. It's better than nothing. What I meant to say was I'm not going out of my way to win them over or to celebrate when their response up until that point is typically paraphrased "I'm better than you." I had the same reaction of 'meh' when Obama got behind it. It's not 1990 anymore.

G.2 · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

I am ashamed to admit, but yes it would, and yes it did. I am ashamed not to say that I support it, but to admit I was once someone who fell into middle school group think and thought same sex marriage was just... I don't even know the word for it. I remember doing a mock vote for the 2004 election in school, and a kid got made fun of for voting for John Kerry, solely for the reason Kerry supported gay marriage. I wish I could go back and shake my sixth grade self for voting for George Bush for that reason, even if it was just a little mock election.

My sister came out when I was 14. It was my first ever real experience with someone I was close to coming out as gay, and it didn't change a thing about our relationship. She is still one of my best friends. And one day I would love to see her get married.

Gina · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

G.2 said:
I am ashamed to admit, but yes it would, and yes it did. I am ashamed not to say that I support it, but to admit I was once someone who fell into middle school group think and thought same sex marriage was just... I don't even know the word for it. I remember doing a mock vote for the 2004 election in school, and a kid got made fun of for voting for John Kerry, solely for the reason Kerry supported gay marriage. I wish I could go back and shake my sixth grade self for voting for George Bush for that reason, even if it was just a little mock election.

My sister came out when I was 14. It was my first ever real experience with someone I was close to coming out as gay, and it didn't change a thing about our relationship. She is still one of my best friends. And one day I would love to see her get married.

Don't be too hard on yourself. As one of my childhood friends told me when we were adults, "It's just stupid kid stuff you've obviously moved on from.

Very lovely about your sister.

Good to have you in her corner.

Gina · Mar 16, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

cpwill said:
Well that is not necessarily so. "Law" is to a large extent publicly enforced morality (we say Thou Shalt Not Run Naked Through Elementary Schools because we think it is wrong). Sin as a prohibitive moral statement (thou shalt not) does indeed therefore have strong bearing on the law.

It may be to a large extent but religious beliefs should not be cited as the reason SSM is not legalized.

cpwill · Mar 17, 2013

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Gina said:
It may be to a large extent but religious beliefs should not be cited as the reason SSM is not legalized.

One's morals are ones' morals regardless of their origin; and the American people have the right to vote as they do for any motivation they choose. His belief system is just as legitimate as yours (or mine) when it comes to informing his vote. It's one of those "the people are sovereign" things. That is why strict limits on government action are so very important - when you open up a field of activity for government action, you are opening it up for those who disagree with you just as much as those with whom you do not. When you increase the freedom of action of politicians you like.... you are increasing the freedom of action for those who follow them whom you may not like.

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Against SSM? If family member came out to you, would you change your mind?

No, never.

No, but possibly at some point.

Yes.

I have gay family member(s), I'm still against SSM

Squirrel

More options

Excon

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

shrubnose

Excon

shrubnose

shrubnose

Excon

DVSentinel

digsbe

Truth will set you free

Gina

Gina

OhIsee.Then

zstep18

Rainman05

DA60

winston53660

Gina

Gina

cpwill

cpwill

chromium

G.2

Gina

Gina

cpwill