• 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!

GOP senator reverses gay-marriage stance after son comes out

Perotista said:
The several states or a single state is a political entity although a lot of people want to do away with the states and have only the fed.
Click to expand...

Several states. Image X state decides to not recognize an interracial marriage or a marriage overseas?
 
If I had to wager who has the best chance of getting the GOP nomination in 2016 this far out, it would have been Portman even before this.
 
I think politicians who don't come to these conclusions until someone close to them comes out lack empathy.
 
Sarcogito said:
I think politicians who don't come to these conclusions until someone close to them comes out lack empathy.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Politicians are like anyone. They are trying to sustain their livelihood and in their case that means selling an image of themselves to voters that emphasizes a particular set of policies and values. It is easy for them to find reasons to justify just about any particular set of beliefs as long as they have no personal stake in the matter. It isn't that they can't care, but rather they have no incentive to care.
 
CriticalThought said:
Not at all. Politicians are like anyone. They are trying to sustain their livelihood and in their case that means selling an image of themselves to voters that emphasizes a particular set of policies and values. It is easy for them to find reasons to justify just about any particular set of beliefs as long as they have no personal stake in the matter. It isn't that they can't care, but rather they have no incentive to care.
Click to expand...

What livelihood? One term and they get a pension. I'd suggest it is ego more than anything else.
 
What crack's me up most about this thread is that people seem to be more concerned with him being called a RHINO by members here than scoring another win for SSM. What a bunch of numbskulls. I mean I am a conservative and a Christian, and I support SSM so WTF.
 
Black Manta said:
What crack's me up most about this thread is that people seem to be more concerned with him being called a RHINO by members here than scoring another win for SSM. What a bunch of numbskulls. I mean I am a conservative and a Christian, and I support SSM so WTF.
Click to expand...

How was it a win for SSM? There is plenty of SSM opposition ready to take his place. It is just a politician who changed his stance for personal reasons. He made an excellent case that will likely be the blueprint for the GOP's eventual transition to tolerance of same sex marriage but that has been made time and time again by GOP Millennials who value the conservative values inherent in SSM and who would like to see this treated as a states issue rather than a federal issue.
 
I find his change of heart appalling. I didn't care for him before and now I really don't like him. Why is it that now (2yrs ago) that he has a gay son, now all of a sudden he's for gay marriage. Why couldn't he have said that when he was a potential VP candidate? Because he felt it would automaticly eliminate his chance of becoming VP. Personally I have no problem with gay marriage....to each his own. Who cares who is with who....as long as you love and care for each other. My question is this. Does every anti-gay politician have to have a gay family member come out in order for them to become rational politician? If that's the case every politician in DC should have an immediate family member join the military. And let's see have soon these wars would end. Pretty quick I'd imagine.
 
CriticalThought said:
How was it a win for SSM? There is plenty of SSM opposition ready to take his place. It is just a politician who changed his stance for personal reasons.
Click to expand...

Little steps are better than nothing.

CriticalThought said:
He made an excellent case that will likely be the blueprint for the GOP's eventual transition to tolerance of same sex marriage but that has been made time and time again by GOP Millennials who value the conservative values inherent in SSM and who would like to see this treated as a states issue rather than a federal issue.
Click to expand...

Yes he did. This however changes nothing I said, nor does it even apply?
 
Fiddytree said:
What a luxury it would be to dismiss a potential ally! Spare us the silly idealism.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, it's a little frustrating when some people require every single little tragedy to happen to them or their own personally before they can give a sweet goddamn about anyone else. It shows a lack of empathy and imagination, and reveals they are the least qualified to hold a job that affects other human beings.

So I'll accept the convenient alliance because it's better than nothing, but pardon me if I also choose to roll my eyes 360 degrees.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I heard the interview and I have to say irrespective of his decision to now support gay marriage, Mr. Portman proved himself unfit to be President or Vice-President for the way he made his decision. He claimed that his change in view is based on his son being gay and wanting his son to have the ability to marry whom he wants. That's fine, but you don't make a decision on principles based on an emotional reaction to your child's needs or wants. Make the decision because you believe all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the same rights, not because you want something special for your son.
Click to expand...

Agreed with this.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
But you're doing nothing but making a big assumption. He MAY'VE changed his view based on family needs OR a change in the situation in his life forced his mind to reevaluate the entire idea and notion which ended with a different view point.

I also love the sanctimony on this thread, as if everyone here hasn't had some moment in their life where something happened to you or people around you and that caused you to reevaluate some view/thought/action/idea/etc. Bitching about that is bitching about the human experience and how people function. New experiences present new information and cause the brain to look at whatever is before them in a different way and react to it going forward using that new information.
Click to expand...

I'm not making any assumptions - I simply took the man at his word, based on his statements.

I don't disagree with your sentiments - it's a major reason why I'm no longer a practicing Catholic. However, it is still my view that, as Senator Portman stated himself, he changed his position on gay marriage after his son disclosed he is gay. As such, that makes him, in my view, unfit to be President or Vice-President. A person in the highest leadership positions does not make decisions affecting hundreds of millions of people based on the dynamic of his or her family life. I'm sure his son isn't the first person who told Portman he was gay and expressed a desire for equality in marriage. Is Portman's son "special" in a public policy sense or just special because he's Portman's son? Does Portman's son have other "special" public policy positions that dad will acquire based on his relationship?

I suppose, to follow your logic, if Portman was President and a relative of his, perhaps his son, was kidnapped by terrorists, it would be okay to change the US position on negotiating with terrorists and maybe release all Islamic prisoners. After all, he's just "reevaluating" his "view/thought/actions/ideas" based on his personal experiences.

Perhaps to you it may sound callous - if so, you're not fit to be President either - when you run for the highest public office, personal family dynamics do not rule public policy.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Unfortunately humans are emotional creatures, not machines that operate soley on logic and have no emotion or feelings of empathy.
Click to expand...

Agreed - It takes a very special personality and strength of character to be President of the United States and take the country's interests above those of your personal or family's interests.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I suppose, to follow your logic, if Portman was President and a relative of his, perhaps his son, was kidnapped by terrorists, it would be okay to change the US position on negotiating with terrorists and maybe release all Islamic prisoners. After all, he's just "reevaluating" his "view/thought/actions/ideas" based on his personal experiences.
Click to expand...

There is a bit of a difference between a kidnapping and national security to a social issue of prejudice. If that is outside of your point of view it is a good thing you are canadian because we don't need yet another person who uses loyalty to the status quo no matter how wrong it is to govern their election choices. Knowledge and experience should change your mind when you find out you were wrong. If you do find out you are wrong and still follow the same stupid path, then you are a moron.
CanadaJohn said:
Perhaps to you it may sound callous - if so, you're not fit to be President either - when you run for the highest public office, personal family dynamics do not rule public policy.
Click to expand...

Actually, you may have missed the republican party in the US. they claim family values are a huge part of their prejudicial and hatred ideals that guide every aspect of their time in office. Or at least that is what they claim when running for office almost every time they speak. I know secretly it is all money, but they do offer up a great pretense for supposed family values. You might want to pay attention to who you are speaking about in the future. Someone might think claiming the party that touts itself as the family values party does not treat their family special might ignore how they have spent lots of time keeping their family out of the wars they start.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Agreed - It takes a very special personality and strength of character to be President of the United States and take the country's interests above those of your personal or family's interests.
Click to expand...

it also takes a very special type of person to ignore the reality that gay people are part of the country when they make claims that discriminating against them should never be questioned because of the interest to the people of the country.
 
I'm not surprised. Life views are often changed under these circumstances.
 
Fiddytree said:
I was disappointed that some people thought that it was too little too late. When minority issues directly impact people, yes, it changes people's opinions, as it should. We should not dismiss their change because of this. If we did that, you could not believe the number of changes for many minorities would not move forward. Do I believe for an instant Sarah Palin cared a lick about the disabled before her son? I doubt it. Many people I know didn't care before it personally affected them. Now that it has impacted them directly and they changed, that's good. They are politically useful at the very least. Embrace Portman, turn him toward you. Worry about your "been there first" whining later.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your post here. It really sums up human nature. Whenever you see a celeb endorce a charity it is usually because they have a close family member affected by it and that makes sense. As in the case of Palin, it wouldn't surprize me before her disabled son was born that she probably used the word "retard" in joking with friends. But now she will go off the deep end if someone uses the term.

I guess as humans we are allowed to change our views from time to time. Some will call you a flip flopper and others will call you open minded. You will never make everyone happy.
 
tererun said:
There is a bit of a difference between a kidnapping and national security to a social issue of prejudice. If that is outside of your point of view it is a good thing you are canadian because we don't need yet another person who uses loyalty to the status quo no matter how wrong it is to govern their election choices. Knowledge and experience should change your mind when you find out you were wrong. If you do find out you are wrong and still follow the same stupid path, then you are a moron.


Actually, you may have missed the republican party in the US. they claim family values are a huge part of their prejudicial and hatred ideals that guide every aspect of their time in office. Or at least that is what they claim when running for office almost every time they speak. I know secretly it is all money, but they do offer up a great pretense for supposed family values. You might want to pay attention to who you are speaking about in the future. Someone might think claiming the party that touts itself as the family values party does not treat their family special might ignore how they have spent lots of time keeping their family out of the wars they start.
Click to expand...

I see you've reverted to form, as most good liberals do, and started throwing the personal insults around - "if you don't agree with me, you're a moron" - that always adds a great level of value to an adult conversation - congrats!

Secondly, not sure where you got the idea I'm a shill for the Republican Party - since I'm Canadian, as you pointed out in another of your typical liberal ploys - the xenophobic dismissal - I'm not eligible to be a member of that party, even if I chose to do so - I actually consider myself a conservative so wouldn't be a Republican even if I could so save your rant against Republicans for someone who cares.

Finally, in your zeal to criticize and dismiss my comments, you failed to comprehend what I said - I didn't once criticize Senator Portman's change of heart - I actually feel he was wrong in his position prior to his change of heart, since I don't believe the government needs to have any say in the personal, private lives of its citizens. What I did say was that I believe it is wrong for a person to make a significant public policy decision solely on the basis of family circumstances.
 
tererun said:
it also takes a very special type of person to ignore the reality that gay people are part of the country when they make claims that discriminating against them should never be questioned because of the interest to the people of the country.
Click to expand...

And it takes a special kind of child to go off on a tantrum without any idea what they're talking about.
 
CanadaJohn said:
And it takes a special kind of child to go off on a tantrum without any idea what they're talking about.
Click to expand...

I still haven't figured out what point Telerun was trying to make. Confusing post. Maybe I need more coffee....:shrug:
 
VanceMack said:
Absolutely. When it is someone ELSES kid...well...he believes what he believes. When it becomes HIS kid...well...now...let me examine that...huh...OK...I changed my mind.
I mean...come on...at least Obama changed his mind to earn campaign cash and votes.

I have no problem with someone taking a good hard look at their belief system..challenging said belief system, and even changing their mind. Thats a good thing. My opinion on abortion and the death penalty has changed after debate and some consideration. But this is tantamount to a death bed confession.
Click to expand...

It's a strange day when I agree with Vance. The man never gave a crap about equal rights before. Worse, he actively worked against it, and only now that it affects his life does he turn around. I'll give him a little credit for being capable of changing his mind, but I'm not about to sing the praises of a man with his voting record. Maybe he'll redeem himself by actively working towards equality. As a Republican in Ohio, doing so wouldn't necessarily be a political death sentence.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm not making any assumptions - I simply took the man at his word, based on his statements.

I don't disagree with your sentiments - it's a major reason why I'm no longer a practicing Catholic. However, it is still my view that, as Senator Portman stated himself, he changed his position on gay marriage after his son disclosed he is gay. As such, that makes him, in my view, unfit to be President or Vice-President. A person in the highest leadership positions does not make decisions affecting hundreds of millions of people based on the dynamic of his or her family life. I'm sure his son isn't the first person who told Portman he was gay and expressed a desire for equality in marriage. Is Portman's son "special" in a public policy sense or just special because he's Portman's son? Does Portman's son have other "special" public policy positions that dad will acquire based on his relationship?

I suppose, to follow your logic, if Portman was President and a relative of his, perhaps his son, was kidnapped by terrorists, it would be okay to change the US position on negotiating with terrorists and maybe release all Islamic prisoners. After all, he's just "reevaluating" his "view/thought/actions/ideas" based on his personal experiences.

Perhaps to you it may sound callous - if so, you're not fit to be President either - when you run for the highest public office, personal family dynamics do not rule public policy.
Click to expand...

I suggest less Sturm und Drang is in order. The question is not some great policy decision but whether one Senator supports gay marriage. Senator Portman is entitled to the benefit of the doubt whether he would, if he were POTUS, approach a great public policy decision differently. On questions like gay rights and abortion many people form their personal opinions based on real life experiences and relationships, and I'm not sure that's not healthier than slavish adherence to abstract principle.:cool:
 
polgara said:
I still haven't figured out what point Telerun was trying to make. Confusing post. Maybe I need more coffee....:shrug:
Click to expand...

Good morning Lady P - should I send over a couple of the cherry/strawberry tarts I just finished baking?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good morning Lady P - should I send over a couple of the cherry/strawberry tarts I just finished baking?
Click to expand...

Good morning to you, CJ.

:yes: .... You never have to ask when it comes to sweets!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom