• 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

because the understanding, respect and want for equal rights of your fellow americans (especial from a politician) should come before a family member needs them.

Its sad that it took a personal experience like that to turn on the common sense logic that ALL americans deserve equal rights. But like I said better late than never. The ability to learn is better than pure ignorance and denial.

He found out in 2011 that his son was gay. In 2013 he publicly came out in support of gay marriage. Gay marriage hasn't been a front and center issue for the last 40 years. It's relatively new, so much so that even President Obama didn't change his stance on it until 2012.

It isn't sad at all. It's actually very understandable. The issue of gay marriage became very real to him because of his son. That isn't sad. It's called being human and a father.
 
1.)He found out in 2011 that his son was gay. In 2013 he publicly came out in support of gay marriage. Gay marriage hasn't been a front and center issue for the last 40 years. It's relatively new, so much so that even President Obama didn't change his stance on it until 2012.

2.)It isn't sad at all. It's actually very understandable. The issue of gay marriage became very real to him because of his son. That isn't sad. It's called being human and a father.

1.) none of that changes that i find it sad. Even your own words are sad to me "Gay marriage hasn't been a front and center issue for the last 40 years." I find it sad that a person would even think that it matters if it was a "front and center issue"

womans rights, minority rights, interracial marriage was always a "front and center issue either, its still find it sad that people were ignortant and orbigoted enough to not care about it or want the right thing done

2.) nope i disagree its still sad thats what it took.
Im against rape and i dont need a daughter to get rape to realize it because that would be sad. Also theres nothing about being against rape after my daughter is rape that makes me being human or a father. It would shows how selfish and ignorant i was but at least i can learn from my mistakes which is good.

Im glad he came around but i still find it sad thats what it took. But that result is better than the despicable people who abuse thier kids and or disown then when they come out.
 
So anyone that isn't for gay marriage is a bigot? Is that your contention?

not for it? no that doesnt make one a bigot alone, feelings are fine

anyone who actively tries to stop it, yes they are bigots
 
He found out in 2011 that his son was gay. In 2013 he publicly came out in support of gay marriage. Gay marriage hasn't been a front and center issue for the last 40 years. It's relatively new, so much so that even President Obama didn't change his stance on it until 2012.

It isn't sad at all. It's actually very understandable. The issue of gay marriage became very real to him because of his son. That isn't sad. It's called being human and a father.

It's sad because it took a couple of years for the father to come around to support it. When my brother told me he was gay I accepted him for who he was right away. Some gay people wish all their families would accept them that way.
 
This is like being angry that a person changes their mind about cigarette regulations after a relative develops lung cancer. Or being angry that a person changes their mind on modern medicine after it is used to save the life of a relative. Not everyone sees all of their beliefs as unshakable pillars that are above change.


Or that a Liberal changes their mind about support for Obamacare after seeing how it was thrust upon the Country on a foundation of lies and deceit ... okay ... Liberals haven't done that yet but now after they see how Obama was personally involved I bet they might ...okay, there's no history of such a Liberal conversion yet but maybe some day.

And before you say it's off topic, it's an analogy that's no more off topic than what you offered.


Besides, your analogies actually made cp's point whether or not you realize it.
 
Yup. He thought of it from a new perspective. And what was that perspective?



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



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.

It doesn't mean his original position wasn't based on principles, it just means his principles were previously based on ignorance. Just this thing happened with my uncle when my cousin came out as a lesbian some years ago. He found it tough to take at first, but then came to realise, by learning that gay people can be anyone no matter how close and how much you love them, that he had been wrong to be fearful. Last year he proudly gave her away to her civil partner, his homophobia cured. Now I'm trying to think of something that will cure his racism!
 
not for it? no that doesnt make one a bigot alone, feelings are fine

anyone who actively tries to stop it, yes they are bigots
How about votes against it in an election, state or federal.
 
How about votes against it in an election, state or federal.

that would be actively trying to stop others from having equal rights based on thier sexual orientation. By definition that makes one a bigot. I have no control over the meanings of words :shrug:

If one changes thier views later they can say they are no longer a bigot or that they used to do bigoted things but again I have no control over the meaning of words.
 
It's sad because it took a couple of years for the father to come around to support it. When my brother told me he was gay I accepted him for who he was right away. Some gay people wish all their families would accept them that way.

I don't doubt that at all. I expect my family to accept me as I am, and I plan to do the same thing for my children. But I also know people who have beliefs that they hold strongly don't change on a dime all the time.

My husband was a prolific hunter, as his father loved hunting. I personally abhor it. It took my husband the better part of 5 years to realize how much it upset me when he hunted and how much I did NOT want our sons to do it. That isn't sad that it took him so long to change his way of thinking. It's called an evolution and weighing the importance of an issue as it impacts someone you care about. What happened to Portman should be lauded, not belittled and called "sad". He changed his mind. He knows how he was wrong. He saw the damage first hand.
 
I don't doubt that at all. I expect my family to accept me as I am, and I plan to do the same thing for my children. But I also know people who have beliefs that they hold strongly don't change on a dime all the time.

My husband was a prolific hunter, as his father loved hunting. I personally abhor it. It took my husband the better part of 5 years to realize how much it upset me when he hunted and how much I did NOT want our sons to do it. That isn't sad that it took him so long to change his way of thinking. It's called an evolution and weighing the importance of an issue as it impacts someone you care about. What happened to Portman should be lauded, not belittled and called "sad". He changed his mind. He knows how he was wrong. He saw the damage first hand.

Well that is your opinion and your free to it. Mine, I think it is sad it takes people so long to realize that being gay is who the person is. Just my opinion as well.
 
1.) none of that changes that i find it sad. Even your own words are sad to me "Gay marriage hasn't been a front and center issue for the last 40 years." I find it sad that a person would even think that it matters if it was a "front and center issue"

womans rights, minority rights, interracial marriage was always a "front and center issue either, its still find it sad that people were ignortant and orbigoted enough to not care about it or want the right thing done

2.) nope i disagree its still sad thats what it took.
Im against rape and i dont need a daughter to get rape to realize it because that would be sad. Also theres nothing about being against rape after my daughter is rape that makes me being human or a father. It would shows how selfish and ignorant i was but at least i can learn from my mistakes which is good.

Im glad he came around but i still find it sad thats what it took. But that result is better than the despicable people who abuse thier kids and or disown then when they come out.

1) It isn't Rob Portman's fault that this issue didn't take off 40 years ago
2) I have no idea why you're comparing rape to SSM
 
1) It isn't Rob Portman's fault that this issue didn't take off 40 years ago
2) I have no idea why you're comparing rape to SSM

1.) i agree good thing I didn't blame him for that but it is his fault that it had to be a front and center issue for him not to understand the basic concept of equal rights and it to be "real" to him.
2.) well good thing i didn't compare SSM to rape either lol
what I did do is make an analogy based on YOUR logic that claimed " The issue of gay marriage became very real to him because of his son."
and i said my daughter wouldnt need raped for the issue of rape to be real to me, if you like you can change rape to murdered, assaulted or denied rights

it wasnt a comparison of rape it was showing how silly the idea is that something must happen directly to a person fo near a person for them to think its real. Thats bunk.

SHould i not care about women's rights, rights of other religions besides my own, gay rights etc etc until they directly effect me? are they not "real" until they do?

thats what i was pointing out and as a politician thats even more sad than an avg person. They of all people should have a mind set for the people and not just themselves.
 
1.) i agree good thing I didn't blame him for that but it is his fault that it had to be a front and center issue for him not to understand the basic concept of equal rights and it to be "real" to him.
2.) well good thing i didn't compare SSM to rape either lol
what I did do is make an analogy based on YOUR logic that claimed " The issue of gay marriage became very real to him because of his son."
and i said my daughter wouldnt need raped for the issue of rape to be real to me, if you like you can change rape to murdered, assaulted or denied rights

it wasnt a comparison of rape it was showing how silly the idea is that something must happen directly to a person fo near a person for them to think its real. Thats bunk.

SHould i not care about women's rights, rights of other religions besides my own, gay rights etc etc until they directly effect me? are they not "real" until they do?

thats what i was pointing out and as a politician thats even more sad than an avg person. They of all people should have a mind set for the people and not just themselves.

We're taught at a young age not to break the law and rape people. Portman wasn't taught at a young age to let people marry whomever they choose. I wasn't either.

Women's rights, etc. don't have anything to do with the discussion about Portman.

I changed my opinion on the definition of marriage when my husband's boss got married to his partner almost 4 years ago. Until then, I also thought marriage was between a man and a woman. It wasn't a topic I spent days and hours dwelling over. I'm probably no different than most Americans my age.
 
1.)We're taught at a young age not to break the law and rape people. Portman wasn't taught at a young age to let people marry whomever they choose. I wasn't either.
2.)Women's rights, etc. don't have anything to do with the discussion about Portman.

3.) I changed my opinion on the definition of marriage when my husband's boss got married to his partner almost 4 years ago. Until then, I also thought marriage was between a man and a woman. It wasn't a topic I spent days and hours dwelling over. I'm probably no different than most Americans my age.

1.) weird what country did you two grow up in?? I learned about equal rights very young and it continued all the way through post high school

also being taught to hate blacks isnt an excuse a to do it and doesnt make it any less sad that it would take a black man saving a persons life for it to "get real"

theres no amount of spin you can put on it that wont make the selfish and ignorant denying of equal rights sad to me
2.) of course they do they are examples of equal rights and other things that a person dont need to have close to the to find "real" this is the mistake you keep making but reality doesnt change for you

3.) good for you! im glad you are a better american than some, i still find it sad that what it took. Its sad that there are people in this country in 2014 no less that need a close experience to them to appreciate and respect equal rights. It is good you learned better but it doesnt change the part i find sad.

also you never answered the questions
SHould i not care about women's rights, rights of other religions besides my own, gay rights etc etc until they directly effect me? are they not "real" until they do?
 
How about votes against it in an election, state or federal.

Yes. Voting against someone else's rights based on nothing other than "I don't like it" qualifies.
 
What conservative issues have you voted against?

This isn't about the politics of the sides. It is about whether you are trying to prevent someone from doing something based on personal dislike of those people or without a legitimate state interest being furthered.
 
This isn't about the politics of the sides. It is about whether you are trying to prevent someone from doing something based on personal dislike of those people or without a legitimate state interest being furthered.

Oh, but it is a political issue.
 
1.) weird what country did you two grow up in?? I learned about equal rights very young and it continued all the way through post high school

also being taught to hate blacks isnt an excuse a to do it and doesnt make it any less sad that it would take a black man saving a persons life for it to "get real"

theres no amount of spin you can put on it that wont make the selfish and ignorant denying of equal rights sad to me
2.) of course they do they are examples of equal rights and other things that a person dont need to have close to the to find "real" this is the mistake you keep making but reality doesnt change for you

3.) good for you! im glad you are a better american than some, i still find it sad that what it took. Its sad that there are people in this country in 2014 no less that need a close experience to them to appreciate and respect equal rights. It is good you learned better but it doesnt change the part i find sad.

also you never answered the questions
SHould i not care about women's rights, rights of other religions besides my own, gay rights etc etc until they directly effect me? are they not "real" until they do?

I grew up in the USA. New Jersey to be exact. No, they didn't teach us about gay marriage in school. I'm 52 years old. I don't know where they were teaching about gay marriage in public schools during the 1970s. I was also never taught to hate blacks so I don't know why you're mentioning that.

You're asking me if you should care about women's rights, religious rights, etc.? That's up to you. I'm not sure why you're asking me that.
 
Similarly, the government can either completely ban gun ownership, or they cannot make any restriction on any weapon ownership, thus rendering privately-owned nuclear weapons legal. The world really is just black and white!!

:shrug: sort of. We do, in fact, recognize that government has a right to regulate and restrict the ownership of weapons (example: Felons are not allowed to own nuclear-armed ballistic missiles), and so the debate becomes about where to place those restrictions. Similarly, wrt marriage, you will not find much of a movement to stop the USG from being able to restrict to whom it hands marriage licenses at all; instead you get people who are arguing that we should change where restrictions are located. The problem is that they don't seem to have much of a grasp of their own position, and so they often argue with language suggesting the former (eg: "government shouldn't tell people who they can and can't marry"), rather than their actual position, which is the latter.
 
1.)I grew up in the USA. New Jersey to be exact.
2.) No, they didn't teach us about gay marriage in school. I'm 52 years old.
3.) I don't know where they were teaching about gay marriage in public schools during the 1970s.
4.) I was also never taught to hate blacks so I don't know why you're mentioning that.
5.)You're asking me if you should care about women's rights, religious rights, etc.? That's up to you. I'm not sure why you're asking me that.

1.) then its weird you didnt learn about equal rights
2.) didnt ask you if they taught you about gay rights in school please stick to think that were actually said
3.) they were definitely teaching equal rights in the 70w you must not have been paying attention
4.) another thing i never said i used it as an example to show teaching isnt an excuse
5.) because it destroys your theory about saying only when something is close to a person should they think it is real.

like i said its sad that it took something personal for him to respect the equal rights of others not related to him but im glad he did it later than never
 
1.) then its weird you didnt learn about equal rights
2.) didnt ask you if they taught you about gay rights in school please stick to think that were actually said
3.) they were definitely teaching equal rights in the 70w you must not have been paying attention
4.) another thing i never said i used it as an example to show teaching isnt an excuse
5.) because it destroys your theory about saying only when something is close to a person should they think it is real.

like i said its sad that it took something personal for him to respect the equal rights of others not related to him but im glad he did it later than never

1) In what school district in the 1970s did they teach about gay marriage?
2) You asked me what country I grew up in, as if it had some meaning
3) Again, in what school district did they teach about gay marriage in the 1970s?
4) If teaching about hating blacks was irrelevant, why did you bring it up
5) I don't have any theory and never said I did; I was talking about Rob Portman and using his own words
 
Yes. Voting against someone else's rights based on nothing other than "I don't like it" qualifies.

That's interesting. I didn't know you were a mass-mind reader.
 
Back
Top Bottom