• 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

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

1.) once again who said they did, this strawman is a complete failure you
2.) because the concept of equal rights is foreign to you that made me think you werent from here
3.) again your strawman fails, quote me saying they did if you cant your lie fails
4.) also didnt say it was irrelevant how many lies will you post i said it was an example of how a persons teachings is not an excuse like you made it lol
5.) wrong again we are talking about YOUR words, you said it wasnt sad because it was close to him and made him human and a father, that theory totally fails and has no support hence you dancing around what was actually posted

ike 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

do you have ANYTHING that supports your claims of:
"Gay marriage hasn't been a front and center issue for the last 40 years." so that makes it matter to equal rights

or

"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." also mattering to his lack of caring about equal rights?

anything?
 
It doesn't mean his original position wasn't based on principles, it just means his principles were previously based on ignorance
:shrug: it's possible, but that speaks right back to the exact same point I made. Either the guy was (from the SSM position) willing to deny you rights based on his feelings, or he decided to abandon his principles (later) in favor of his feelings.
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.
:shrug: if he's fearful that's weird. My little sister is (she claims) a lesbian (that hasn't stopped her from apparently being attracted to or occasionally dating men), and I don't recall fear anywhere in my reaction, nor do I recall that I had to abandon any of my principles in order to love her.
 
1.) once again who said they did, this strawman is a complete failure you
2.) because the concept of equal rights is foreign to you that made me think you werent from here
3.) again your strawman fails, quote me saying they did if you cant your lie fails
4.) also didnt say it was irrelevant how many lies will you post i said it was an example of how a persons teachings is not an excuse like you made it lol
5.) wrong again we are talking about YOUR words, you said it wasnt sad because it was close to him and made him human and a father, that theory totally fails and has no support hence you dancing around what was actually posted

ike 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

do you have ANYTHING that supports your claims of:
"Gay marriage hasn't been a front and center issue for the last 40 years." so that makes it matter to equal rights

or

"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." also mattering to his lack of caring about equal rights?

anything?

1) It isn't a strawman. You seem genuinely surprised that I wasn't taught about gay marriage in the 1970s. Can you tell me where gay marriage was being taught?
2) I'm as American as you are.
3) Can you name where gay marriage was being taught about in the 1970s or not? If you can't, then stop acting surprised that those of us who didn't learn about it in school had no reason to conjure it up until confronted by it in adulthood.
4) Who is lying? I never mentioned blacks in my posts. You did. I responded to your mention of blacks.
5) They weren't my words. I posted why Rob Portman said he evolved.

Do you have anything to support your claim that this country has been having a national conversation about same sex marriage for the last 40 years?

You keep mentioning "equal rights". I never said anything about equal rights. I'm talking specifically about SSM which is the subject of this thread. Rob Portman to the best of my knowledge didn't make his position on any other rights a public matter. Please stay on the topic of the thread.
 
:shrug: it's possible, but that speaks right back to the exact same point I made. Either the guy was (from the SSM position) willing to deny you rights based on his feelings, or he decided to abandon his principles (later) in favor of his feelings.:shrug: if he's fearful that's weird. My little sister is (she claims) a lesbian (that hasn't stopped her from apparently being attracted to or occasionally dating men), and I don't recall fear anywhere in my reaction, nor do I recall that I had to abandon any of my principles in order to love her.

You don't think principles come from feelings? Something feels right, it becomes a principle by which you live? I'm not saying all principles come from feelings, but surely it is/can be a factor? Why can't principles change in line with your feelings? Surely your feelings can be changed by new knowledge?

I don't understand why you think it's weird that he would be fearful, nor do I understand why you think the fact that you don't have to abandon any principles to love your gay sister has anything to do with his principles which are/were different. He comes from an earlier time, a more rural place than me, he presumed he would lead his only daughter up the aisle one day in the traditional (i.e. heterosexual) style, and to him gay people were perverts, deviants, mentally-ill etc. Then he discovers his only daughter is a lesbian. He doesn't mean to be a bigot, it's not ill-will, it's just ignorance. When it comes to gay people, he has become a lot less ignorant for having a gay daughter. I imagine something similar might be going on with the senator.
 
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.

The same idiotic labeling is part of what hurt Huntsman at the start of his campaign as well. Liberals look at one or two issues, agree with the politician on that, and just decide to label said political as a "liberal" or even a "moderate" or "sane" or whatever else...ignoring the multitude of actual conservative views that make up the vast majority of their actual view points.
 
1) It isn't a strawman. You seem genuinely surprised that I wasn't taught about gay marriage in the 1970s.
2.) Can you tell me where gay marriage was being taught?
3.) I'm as American as you are.
4) Can you name where gay marriage was being taught about in the 1970s or not? If you can't, then stop acting surprised that those of us who didn't learn about it in school had no reason to conjure it up until confronted by it in adulthood.
5.)Who is lying? I never mentioned blacks in my posts. You did. I responded to your mention of blacks.
6.) They weren't my words. I posted why Rob Portman said he evolved.
7.)Do you have anything to support your claim that this country has been having a national conversation about same sex marriage for the last 40 years?
8.)You keep mentioning "equal rights". I never said anything about equal rights. I'm talking specifically about SSM which is the subject of this thread. Rob Portman to the best of my knowledge didn't make his position on any other rights a public matter. Please stay on the topic of the thread.

1.) yes it is because i never mentioned you being taught about gay marriage lol not once and repeating that lie only makes you post fail further
2.) never said it was hence why its a strawman and it fails
3.) and yet dont understand equal rights
4.) thats what i though you cant quote me saying the lie you made up
5.) you posted a lie, multiples now
6.) and you made claims on top of his words you cant back up and that have been proven wrong
7.) can you quote me saying that? if you cant you post fails again
8.) correct it further shows you dont understand the issue, SSM is an equal rights issue thank you for proving my point and the facts.

again let me know when you have anything that supports your claim, even one accurate fact would be great . . thanks
 
The government didn't track births for a long time either, til around the 1900s, and we now have people who are having problems proving who they are because they don't have a birth certificate. Times change.

For sure, for the better on some things and for the worst on others. But nothing stays the same.
 
You don't think principles come from feelings? Something feels right, it becomes a principle by which you live?

No. What an awful way to construct principles. Feelings are easily malleable, driven by what you had for breakfast, and are inherently untrustworthy. Principles can be informed by moral judgements, sure, but shouldn't be based on what you feel - that can change on any given day. I once had an opportunity to murder a man who had killed a friend of mine, where I would have almost certainly gotten away with it. You better believe my feelings told me to do it. My principles stopped me, and it's a good thing that they did.

I don't understand why you think it's weird that he would be fearful

What is the threat? Are lesbians particularly likely to (for example) murder their parents?

nor do I understand why you think the fact that you don't have to abandon any principles to love your gay sister has anything to do with his principles which are/were different. He comes from an earlier time, a more rural place than me, he presumed he would lead his only daughter up the aisle one day in the traditional (i.e. heterosexual) style, and to him gay people were perverts, deviants, mentally-ill etc.

Sure, and while I think you are wrong in your description of time here, that's fine. I have a daughter, and have the same assumptions.

Then he discovers his only daughter is a lesbian. He doesn't mean to be a bigot, it's not ill-will, it's just ignorance. When it comes to gay people, he has become a lot less ignorant for having a gay daughter. I imagine something similar might be going on with the senator.

:shrug: I don't really get what you would learn. Oh my gosh, gay people are gay people?!? No way!!! (?) :confused:
 
No. What an awful way to construct principles. Feelings are easily malleable, driven by what you had for breakfast, and are inherently untrustworthy. Principles can be informed by moral judgements, sure, but shouldn't be based on what you feel - that can change on any given day. I once had an opportunity to murder a man who had killed a friend of mine, where I would have almost certainly gotten away with it. You better believe my feelings told me to do it. My principles stopped me, and it's a good thing that they did.

Not all feelings are that fleeting. That's no kind of rebuttal at all. Perhaps we are using different definitions, but if I held an opinion on something, and then something happened that made me change my mind, or I learned something that changed my perceptive, my feelings about that thing would change. Permanently, not just till later.

What is the threat? Are lesbians particularly likely to (for example) murder their parents?

No, the threat is to my uncle's comfortable notions about normality, about his standing in his community, about how he'll explain to the priest, about how he has always seen the world. Of course he doesn't think gay people are going to murder him, but he once thought that their - to him - increased presence, was a threat to order and the social fabric.

None of these threats have to be real for them to be real in his mind. A mind he has since changed, by the way, thanks to extra lessons at the University of Life!

Sure, and while I think you are wrong in your description of time here, that's fine. I have a daughter, and have the same assumptions.

And if she told you she was gay and those things wouldn't be happening, presumably you'd be cool with it? I think the time is important - homosexuality is far more accepted by my generation than by his.

:shrug: I don't really get what you would learn. Oh my gosh, gay people are gay people?!? No way!!! (?) :confused:

He learned that there is nothing wrong with being gay, that it's not dirty or shameful or something that other people's people are. His daughter is, and he had to learn to cope with that. Why do you find it so odd that a man would be ignorant of these things?
 
What conservative issues have you voted against?

None based purely on a moral disapproval of their personal choices.

I can vote against conservative politicians because their legislative decisions affect me.

Two dudes getting married does not affect me.
 
1.) yes it is because i never mentioned you being taught about gay marriage lol not once and repeating that lie only makes you post fail further
2.) never said it was hence why its a strawman and it fails
3.) and yet dont understand equal rights
4.) thats what i though you cant quote me saying the lie you made up
5.) you posted a lie, multiples now
6.) and you made claims on top of his words you cant back up and that have been proven wrong
7.) can you quote me saying that? if you cant you post fails again
8.) correct it further shows you dont understand the issue, SSM is an equal rights issue thank you for proving my point and the facts.

again let me know when you have anything that supports your claim, even one accurate fact would be great . . thanks

1) If you know we weren't taught about gay marriage while we were young, then you should not find it sad or surprising that it takes a personal connection to the issue to change our minds
2) Good, then you know neither Rob Portman nor anyone his age was taught about SSM to have an opinion on it
3) I understand equal rights. Your claim is a lie. I'm pro-SSM. I'm pro equal rights for everyone.
4) Once again, you're finally admitting the SSM issue is a recent one which is why people are still evolving - including our President in 2012.
5) I never mentioned blacks in my posts until you did. Either link to where I did, or admit your post is a lie.
6) You can Google Rob Portman's words on this issue in 2013. Your post again is a lie. This is what he said, and unlike you, I believe him.
7) So good, now you are also admitting that the SSM issue has only recently been discussed. There would be no reason for Rob Portman to have to face it or confront it until it involves someone he loves.
8) I understand SSM is an equal rights issue. I never said anything otherwise. Your post is a lie.

What "claim" are you asking me to support? The one that Rob Portman loves his son and because of that, he wants whatever makes his son happy, and if that means supporting his son's right to marry the man he loves, he now has to change his view on SSM? Google it. I'm not your research assistant.

FYI, your posts are a disservice to the people who discuss the issue of SSM rationally. You don't even realize that I'm pro-SSM, but you post posts that are filled with lies, accusations, and angst. You need to rethink the way you post.
 
Not all feelings are that fleeting. That's no kind of rebuttal at all. Perhaps we are using different definitions, but if I held an opinion on something, and then something happened that made me change my mind, or I learned something that changed my perceptive, my feelings about that thing would change. Permanently, not just till later.

Feelings are indeed exceedingly poor basis for "principles", especially where particularly powerful emotions (such as love of a child) are concerned. That is a way to construct "principles" that really boil down to self-gratification, because you are depending on your feelings and desires to validate them. I'd have happily killed that man had I depended on my feelings. I'd be the guy on television saying "sure my son murdered a few people, but at heart he's a really great guy" if I depended on my feelings to guide my judgments.

No, the threat is to my uncle's comfortable notions about normality, about his standing in his community, about how he'll explain to the priest, about how he has always seen the world. Of course he doesn't think gay people are going to murder him, but he once thought that their - to him - increased presence, was a threat to order and the social fabric.

So his fear was social? :shrug: alright.

And if she told you she was gay and those things wouldn't be happening, presumably you'd be cool with it?

Nope, I would be extremely upset, and not a little heartbroken.

I think the time is important - homosexuality is far more accepted by my generation than by his.

My daughter is a little over 1 year old. Not sure what generation "my generation" is to you, but if it's "millennial", then it's "our" generation :).

He learned that there is nothing wrong with being gay, that it's not dirty or shameful or something that other people's people are. His daughter is, and he had to learn to cope with that. Why do you find it so odd that a man would be ignorant of these things?

You are confusing "changed his opinion" with "reduced ignorance".
 
Feelings are indeed exceedingly poor basis for "principles", especially where particularly powerful emotions (such as love of a child) are concerned. That is a way to construct "principles" that really boil down to self-gratification, because you are depending on your feelings and desires to validate them. I'd have happily killed that man had I depended on my feelings. I'd be the guy on television saying "sure my son murdered a few people, but at heart he's a really great guy" if I depended on my feelings to guide my judgments.

We're talking about different kinds of feelings. It's not his emotional love for his daughter that guides his judgments. His emotional love for his daughter forces him to face his fears about gayness and to try to come to terms with them. What happens next is rational, not emotional. He learns about how it is just a normal part of humanity that about 2% are gay, and normal people like his daughter are included. Then he learns that it's nothing to worry about, or be ashamed of etc. Then his principles are guided by a better understanding of it. You are just pouncing on the word 'feelings' and ignoring the fact that there are other stages involved. To feel differently for no reason is one thing - to feel differently because you understand things better is a very good reason to change your principles, because your old principles are based upon something that no longer applies, like an irrational fear for example.

So his fear was social? :shrug: alright.

Partly. And partly personal, because it challenged his world view and his own deep-seated prejudices, as well as his feeling of safety in a world without gayness anywhere near. Your shrugging is very patronising, particularly when you haven't troubled to think about everything I've said.

Nope, I would be extremely upset, and not a little heartbroken.

Why?

My daughter is a little over 1 year old. Not sure what generation "my generation" is to you, but if it's "millennial", then it's "our" generation :).

My uncle is 75 or thereabouts. That's who I was talking about. I'm 23. My cousin is 39.


You are confusing "changed his opinion" with "reduced ignorance".

Reduction of ignorance leads to changes of opinion rather a lot. I am not confusing the two just because you say so.
 
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.
There is a third option that you have overlooked. That is that many who were formerly opposed have simple 'evolved' on the issue. Obama is such a person and I think many on the right fall into the same category. Americans are a fair and reasonable people for the most part and when arguing that gays shouldnt be allowed to marry find a convincing answer to the question: why not? to have become more and more elusive.
 
fyi, your posts are a disservice to the people who discuss the issue of ssm rationally. You don't even realize that i'm pro-ssm, but you post posts that are filled with lies, accusations, and angst. You need to rethink the way you post.
qft !!
 
There is a third option that you have overlooked. That is that many who were formerly opposed have simple 'evolved' on the issue. Obama is such a person and I think many on the right fall into the same category. Americans are a fair and reasonable people for the most part and when arguing that gays shouldnt be allowed to marry find a convincing answer to the question: why not? to have become more and more elusive.

Nowhere did I say they had not evolved on the issue. They clearly have.
 
1) If you know we weren't taught about gay marriage while we were young, then you should not find it sad or surprising that it takes a personal connection to the issue to change our minds
2) Good, then you know neither Rob Portman nor anyone his age was taught about SSM to have an opinion on it
3) I understand equal rights. Your claim is a lie. I'm pro-SSM. I'm pro equal rights for everyone.
4) Once again, you're finally admitting the SSM issue is a recent one which is why people are still evolving - including our President in 2012.
5) I never mentioned blacks in my posts until you did. Either link to where I did, or admit your post is a lie.
6) You can Google Rob Portman's words on this issue in 2013. Your post again is a lie. This is what he said, and unlike you, I believe him.
7) So good, now you are also admitting that the SSM issue has only recently been discussed. There would be no reason for Rob Portman to have to face it or confront it until it involves someone he loves.
8) I understand SSM is an equal rights issue. I never said anything otherwise. Your post is a lie.
9.)What "claim" are you asking me to support? The one that Rob Portman loves his son and because of that, he wants whatever makes his son happy, and if that means supporting his son's right to marry the man he loves, he now has to change his view on SSM? Google it. I'm not your research assistant.
10.)FYI, your posts are a disservice to the people who discuss the issue of SSM rationally. You don't even realize that I'm pro-SSM, but you post posts that are filled with lies, accusations, and angst. You need to rethink the way you post.

1.) again this strawman completely fails but keep trying to sell it
and guess what its still sad that it takes a personal relationship to someone to respect equal rights
2.) never said otherwise thats why your lie failed but he was definitely taught about equal rights
3.) your posts prove otherwise
4.) never claimed otherwise another failure on your part i notice you still havent quoted me saying the lie you claimed?? very telling
5.) another failed strawman never claimed you did lol
6.) and yet you cant support your claims on top of his words, your post fails again
7.) translation you cant quote me saying the lie you made up
8.) you claimed you dont understand why equal rights is mentioned, if you admit they are the same then you shouldnt be confused LMAO your post fails again
9.) the ones you stated and i already quoted and you dodge. . .here ill do it again

do you have ANYTHING that supports your claims of:
"Gay marriage hasn't been a front and center issue for the last 40 years." so that doesnt make it matter to equal rights and make it "real"
or
"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." also meaning that it takes a personal matter to understand equal rights and make it "real"

10.) weird can you quote me one time saying you are not pro SSM? nope another strawman by you that completely fails and facts win again. This is about your lack of understanding that it doesnt need a personal selfish experience to understand equal rights and make it "real"
sorry there isnt one single lie in my posts. Nobody honest, educate and objective takes your claims seriously. if you disagree quote the lie and prove it, your attempts will fail just like your claims. ill be waiting. This will be fun!
 
Last edited:
1.) again this strawman completely fails but keep trying to sell it
and guess what its still sad that it takes a personal relationship to someone to respect equal rights
2.) never said otherwise thats why your lie failed but he was definitely taught about equal rights
3.) your posts prove otherwise
4.) never claimed otherwise another failure on your part i notice you still havent quoted me saying the lie you claimed?? very telling
5.) another failed strawman never claimed you did lol
6.) and yet you cant support your claims on top of his words, your post fails again
7.) translation you cant quote me saying the lie you made up
8.) you claimed you dont understand why equal rights is mentioned, if you admit they are the same then you shouldnt be confused LMAO your post fails again
9.) the ones you stated and i already quoted and you dodge. . .here ill do it again

do you have ANYTHING that supports your claims of:
"Gay marriage hasn't been a front and center issue for the last 40 years." so that doesnt make it matter to equal rights and make it "real"
or
"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." also meaning that it takes a personal matter to understand equal rights and make it "real"

10.) weird can you quote me one time saying you are not pro SSM? nope another strawman by you that completely fails and facts win again. This is about your lack of understanding that it doesnt need a personal selfish experience to understand equal rights and make it "real"
sorry there isnt one single lie in my posts. Nobody honest, educate and objective takes your claims seriously. if you disagree quote the lie and prove it, your attempts will fail just like your claims. ill be waiting. This will be fun!

You never pay attention, do you? Just keep on with these trolls posts.

do you have ANYTHING that supports your claims of:
"Gay marriage hasn't been a front and center issue for the last 40 years." so that doesnt make it matter to equal rights and make it "real"
or
"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." also meaning that it takes a personal matter to understand equal rights and make it "real"


1) I can't prove a negative. You have to prove it has been a front and center issue for 40 years in order to make my statement a lie.
2) I already told you to Google Rob Portman and his own words and thoughts. I'm not your research assistant.

The rest of your babbling incoherent ranting post is too boring to respond to. Now go away and keep making the people who post rational, sane posts on the issue cringe with every nonsensical post you make.
 
You never pay attention, do you? Just keep on with these trolls posts.

do you have ANYTHING that supports your claims of:
"Gay marriage hasn't been a front and center issue for the last 40 years." so that doesnt make it matter to equal rights and make it "real"
or
"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." also meaning that it takes a personal matter to understand equal rights and make it "real"


1) I can't prove a negative. You have to prove it has been a front and center issue for 40 years in order to make my statement a lie.
2) I already told you to Google Rob Portman and his own words and thoughts. I'm not your research assistant.

The rest of your babbling incoherent ranting post is too boring to respond to. Now go away and keep making the people who post rational, sane posts on the issue cringe with every nonsensical post you make.

translation: you cant back up your claims nor can you quote me saying the lies you made up
got it, i knew you would dodge it, facts win again

please let us know when you can, thank you
 
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.

Again we have a thread full of single issue voters, like SSM is the most pressing issue of our times. Terrorism, decaying economy, Putin, China, the Middle East........none of that matters as long as we get to stroll down the aisle.
 
translation: you cant back up your claims nor can you quote me saying the lies you made up
got it, i knew you would dodge it, facts win again

please let us know when you can, thank you

Who's "us"? You and the person reading over your shoulder?

Keep up the fight. It's fun to watch you flounder!
 
1.)Who's "us"? You and the person reading over your shoulder?
2.)Keep up the fight. It's fun to watch you flounder!

1.)the other posters that asked you to explain your stance and you couldnt and dodged them too
2.) translation: you still cant defend your claims so you are deflecting and trying(and failing) to insult and discredit. Desperately trying to make the topic about me is a common tactic by those that have no honest, intellectual, logical and accurate path to take. Thats not gonna working either.
with each dodge and post that doesnt back up your claims it just increase the failure of your posts.

again, please let us know when you can, thank you
 
1.)the other posters that asked you to explain your stance and you couldnt and dodged them too
2.) translation: you still cant defend your claims so you are deflecting and trying(and failing) to insult and discredit. Desperately trying to make the topic about me is a common tactic by those that have no honest, intellectual, logical and accurate path to take. Thats not gonna working either.
with each dodge and post that doesnt back up your claims it just increase the failure of your posts.

again, please let us know when you can, thank you

:lamo I enjoy your posts!

I'll tell Rob Portman to expect your call. You can reach his office at 202-224-3353. He's probably a little busy what with the GOP taking over the Senate next year and all, but I'll bet he can find some time to give you all the details about his evolution on SSM. Good luck!
 
Again we have a thread full of single issue voters, like SSM is the most pressing issue of our times. Terrorism, decaying economy, Putin, China, the Middle East........none of that matters as long as we get to stroll down the aisle.

The simple answer for that is for people unaffected by the issue of gay marriage because it's none of their business and their lives remain unchanged, is to just let it happen and forget about it.

If they don't want to do that, it will get challenged by people who believe they are wrong. It doesn't mean bigger issues don't matter - that's just silly.
 
1.):lamo I enjoy your posts!
2.)I'll tell Rob Portman to expect your call. You can reach his office at 202-224-3353. He's probably a little busy what with the GOP taking over the Senate next year and all, but I'll bet he can find some time to give you all the details about his evolution on SSM. Good luck!

1.) i enjoy yours too
2.) why? has my posts prove i have no questions for him, that is still the lie and strawman you made up that you cant support and continue to dodge makign your posts fail.
while i already know you will dodge this request again, Like i said, when you can defend your claims with any facts or logic what so ever please let us know, id love to read it it, thank you
 
Back
Top Bottom