• 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!

Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

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


  • Total voters
    31
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

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.

The USSC should not rule against it based on the religious preference.
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Marriage is a spiritual union and if the Lutherans want to embrace such unions and the Catholics don't then that's their issue, not mine but once the government jumps into the mix it automatically becomes my problem because millions of jackasses on both side of the discussion can't seem to manage not to make it some kind of rallying point for their "cause".

But hasn't it become inextricably intertwined with law whether we want to define it that way or not? I mean, what about the tax benefits associated with marriage? What about divorce proceedings, authority to make medical decisions on behalf of your SO in life-threatening crises, custody disputes in the case of children etc etc. If we're going to have a legal system that handles that kinds of things, a legal system that acknowledges the existence of marriage, then we at some point we need to define "marriage" legally.

I think saying marriage should only be a private spiritual relationship with no governmental recognition whatsoever overlooks the reality of the situation.

We've got economic problems and national security problems and immigration problems that are all things that government SHOULD be focusing on but we can't seem to get those addressed because Doris the Dyke and Holy Scripture Hank keep on voting for people based on some stupid platform that shouldn't even be there in the first place.

Agreed. I actually think gay marriage is a hugely overblown political issue that shouldn't be receiving a level of coverage on par with other major political issues like economic policy , foreign policy etc.
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

The USSC should not rule against it based on the religious preference.

I agree. The USSC should rule for or against it based on the will of the people as it was recorded into law during the various times of the signing and amending of the US Constitution.
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

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

Perhaps, and depending on the situation, however as Portman is a Senator I'm going to take a really dangerous leap and guess he ran on a platform of representing the people of his state. Fair assumption or not? If so, then this story makes him a hypocrite at best and a liar at worst because it demonstrates that he wasn't representing the people of his state, just himself and his immediate family. It proves he's lacking in compassion as otherwise it wouldn't have required a family member coming out for him to say, "Whoah! Nobody told me homos were human!" Why couldn't he have recognized the reality of that, his constituents being real people to begin with?

With such politicians it is necessitated that a close family member is laid off right before reaching retirement age, get denied health insurance, lose their homes, or any of a litany of other awful tragedies, else the good people of the state of Ohio can't expect a lick of compassion from the compassionate Senator Portman. Rest assured -- until the same problems land right on his face, yours aren't real.
 
Last edited:
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.

You really don't need to hold deep regret or apologize for your attitude at such a young age, although I think it demonstrates how the anti-SSM crowd is thinking on a 6th grade level.
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Perhaps, and depending on the situation, however as Portman is a Senator I'm going to take a really dangerous leap and guess he ran on a platform of representing the people of his state. Fair assumption or not? If so, then this story makes him a hypocrite at best and a liar at worst because it demonstrates that he wasn't representing the people of his state, just himself and his immediate family. It proves he's lacking in compassion as otherwise it wouldn't have required a family member coming out for him to say, "Whoah! Nobody told me homos were human!" Why couldn't he have recognized the reality of that, his constituents being real people to begin with?

Yeah and I mean, who gets represented in that equation anyway? There are surely gay voters in every state who would like to marry. Ultimately we should expect elected officials to lead, especially when it comes to civil rights. Otherwise, the "fine people of Mississippi" will not have a senator taking a stance like this until around 2313.
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

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?
If a person changes their mind because their kid "comes out of the closet", then what does that say about YOU and your ability to weigh the various sides of complex issues?
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

I'm really surprised. Not what I would have expected you to say from your interactions on this forum. Just from that statement, it would seem to me that you think you'd be embarrassed to have them at certain family gatherings. You don't strike me as the type of person who cares what anyone thinks. (In a good way, not a bad one.) Interesting.
Everybody cares what others think, bar none, to some degree. Some just play it off better.
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

But hasn't it become inextricably intertwined with law whether we want to define it that way or not? I mean, what about the tax benefits associated with marriage? What about divorce proceedings, authority to make medical decisions on behalf of your SO in life-threatening crises, custody disputes in the case of children etc etc. If we're going to have a legal system that handles that kinds of things, a legal system that acknowledges the existence of marriage, then we at some point we need to define "marriage" legally.

I think saying marriage should only be a private spiritual relationship with no governmental recognition whatsoever overlooks the reality of the situation.



Agreed. I actually think gay marriage is a hugely overblown political issue that shouldn't be receiving a level of coverage on par with other major political issues like economic policy , foreign policy etc.

At the federal level the main issue is one of taxes and I foresee that going away in the not too distant future. Karen Hawkins, the IRS director for the Office of Professional Responsibility came out last year and suggested that a conflict of interest may exist for tax professionals who prepare MFJ returns. The assumption is that there is a risk that one spouse will have coerced the other into going along with something or withheld information from the other or will be the sole party in the relationship that is providing information to the preparer. In 2011 they took the first step in this matter by requiring paid preparers to obtain separate disclosure authorizations for both parties on a joint return and I suspect that it will be only a matter of time before filing a joint return is a thing of the past.
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

At the federal level the main issue is one of taxes and I foresee that going away in the not too distant future. Karen Hawkins, the IRS director for the Office of Professional Responsibility came out last year and suggested that a conflict of interest may exist for tax professionals who prepare MFJ returns. The assumption is that there is a risk that one spouse will have coerced the other into going along with something or withheld information from the other or will be the sole party in the relationship that is providing information to the preparer. In 2011 they took the first step in this matter by requiring paid preparers to obtain separate disclosure authorizations for both parties on a joint return and I suspect that it will be only a matter of time before filing a joint return is a thing of the past.

I consider the taxes issue to be the smallest problem and the easiest one to solve, as you suggested, by simply eliminating joint filing.

What about all the other issues I mentioned? Custody battles, visitation rights, property disputes in the event of an unexpected death of a SO, authority for medical decisions etc. Until someone can offer a better solution for handling this kind of disputes than allowing government courts to act as arbitrator, I have a hard time taking seriously the suggestion that government shouldn't recognize or be involved in marriage at all.
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

I agree. The USSC should rule for or against it based on the will of the people as it was recorded into law during the various times of the signing and amending of the US Constitution.

What do you mean by that? That's a very ambiguous statement.
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

I consider the taxes issue to be the smallest problem and the easiest one to solve, as you suggested, by simply eliminating joint filing.

What about all the other issues I mentioned? Custody battles, visitation rights, property disputes in the event of an unexpected death of a SO, authority for medical decisions etc. Until someone can offer a better solution for handling this kind of disputes than allowing government courts to act as arbitrator, I have a hard time taking seriously the suggestion that government shouldn't recognize or be involved in marriage at all.

Those are state level issues and they won't go away whether gay marriage is legalized or not. If you think, for example, that custody issues between a married hetero (in the process of divorce) couple is a walk in the park then you are sadly mistaken.
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Perhaps, and depending on the situation, however as Portman is a Senator I'm going to take a really dangerous leap and guess he ran on a platform of representing the people of his state. Fair assumption or not? If so, then this story makes him a hypocrite at best and a liar at worst because it demonstrates that he wasn't representing the people of his state, just himself and his immediate family. It proves he's lacking in compassion as otherwise it wouldn't have required a family member coming out for him to say, "Whoah! Nobody told me homos were human!" Why couldn't he have recognized the reality of that, his constituents being real people to begin with?

With such politicians it is necessitated that a close family member is laid off right before reaching retirement age, get denied health insurance, lose their homes, or any of a litany of other awful tragedies, else the good people of the state of Ohio can't expect a lick of compassion from the compassionate Senator Portman. Rest assured -- until the same problems land right on his face, yours aren't real.

Those are good points. I will answer with something I heard. An openly gay reporter for the Washington Post was more easy on him, saying, it took him time to come to terms with it and then his parents. So he understood Portman's evolution. We come to terms, when we come to terms. It's good, however Portman did, that he is there. Some people will never come to even live and let live with respect to homosexuality.

I hear you on that, and it bothers me too. I don't know why it has to be that way.
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Those are state level issues and they won't go away whether gay marriage is legalized or not. If you think, for example, that custody issues between a married hetero (in the process of divorce) couple is a walk in the park then you are sadly mistaken.

What does it matter if it's state or federal? If they're state issues than the state governments need to define marriage.
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

If a person changes their mind because their kid "comes out of the closet", then what does that say about YOU and your ability to weigh the various sides of complex issues?

I'm guessing you mean about that person.

It says they let something, in this case religious prejudice, get in the way of their reasoning. That's high bar to go over. Religion is a part of many millions of peoples' lives from birth. How does one go against that? Fortunately, Portman's son lead the way for him.
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

What does it matter if it's state or federal? If they're state issues than the state governments need to define marriage.

As I've said elsewhere if not in this thread, the issue should be a local one but if we're going to get out from under this insanity then we have to start somewhere and clipping it at the federal levels is the first and most important step. After that, as a Republican nation, it's up to the people of the various states where they want their guidelines set..
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

As I've said elsewhere if not in this thread, the issue should be a local one but if we're going to get out from under this insanity then we have to start somewhere and clipping it at the federal levels is the first and most important step. After that, as a Republican nation, it's up to the people of the various states where they want their guidelines set..

Fair enough, but if I recall your argument against SSM was that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. If you agree that state governments (or smaller local governments, whatever) need to define marriage, what is your position on that? Do you think your state government should recognize SSM?
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Religion doesn't own marriage.
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

Fair enough, but if I recall your argument against SSM was that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. If you agree that state governments (or smaller local governments, whatever) need to define marriage, what is your position on that? Do you think your state government should recognize SSM?

I don't remember what the thread was where I posted this stuff but I believe that it is a local issue and the more local the better. If, for example, Phoenix wants to recognize gay marriage and Tempe doesn't then so be it but once it gets down to that level it really shouldn't make an political difference one way or another other than, possibly in the way ones house it titled.
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

I'm guessing you mean about that person.

It says they let something, in this case religious prejudice, get in the way of their reasoning. That's high bar to go over. Religion is a part of many millions of peoples' lives from birth. How does one go against that? Fortunately, Portman's son lead the way for him.
There can be mitigating circumstances, but in a general sense I disagree. If the change in opinion was quick, I say it was/is an emotional decision, not a thoroughly thought-out decision. It also says that the person's original position was never properly thought out, or committed to, either. Basically, the person is prone to bend with the wind according to wherever their interest lies at the moment.

I would be more believing of the person's change in attitude if it were over a long-ish period of time. I believe that people's opinions can most certainly evolve and change, just that sudden about-faces should be viewed skeptically. (My opinion on the death penalty is 180 degree from what it once was, but it took me over 10 years to make that turn-around complete)

Disclaimer: Generic viewpoint. Can apply to many other topics as well, including SSM, etc.
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

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?

I have liberal relatives and I have not had a change of heart, I am still hate libs.
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

There can be mitigating circumstances, but in a general sense I disagree. If the change in opinion was quick, I say it was/is an emotional decision, not a thoroughly thought-out decision. It also says that the person's original position was never properly thought out, or committed to, either. Basically, the person is prone to bend with the wind according to wherever their interest lies at the moment.

I would be more believing of the person's change in attitude if it were over a long-ish period of time. I believe that people's opinions can most certainly evolve and change, just that sudden about-faces should be viewed skeptically. (My opinion on the death penalty is 180 degree from what it once was, but it took me over 10 years to make that turn-around complete)

Disclaimer: Generic viewpoint. Can apply to many other topics as well, including SSM, etc.

I the reasoning. With politics, that is easily done as one walks along in lock-step to keep in favor with the group. In Portman's case, he knew for 2 years before changing positions. I don't know if that qualifies as longish. I'm not really trying to defend him either, but there are lots of people experience epiphanies. Shut off in their beliefs, sure that they are right, something happens to open their eyes.
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

I have liberal relatives and I have not had a change of heart, I am still hate libs.

That may not be a familial one way street.
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

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.



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.

So, homosexuality is not a sin, but homosexuals should not be allowed to marry?
 
Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

I the reasoning. With politics, that is easily done as one walks along in lock-step to keep in favor with the group. In Portman's case, he knew for 2 years before changing positions. I don't know if that qualifies as longish. I'm not really trying to defend him either, but there are lots of people experience epiphanies. Shut off in their beliefs, sure that they are right, something happens to open their eyes.
I was not aware that Portman knew for two years. Two years could work as "long-ish". For me, and being that he is a politician, it would need to be known how he acted during that two years between knowing and going public. I think it would be safe to say that his son's admission threw his belief into a state of uncertainty. So... during that time that he was wrestling with it (which I have zero issue with), did he back off on his political and public posturing, or was he at least somewhat intellectually honest and back off regarding this particular issue.

I wouldn't expect him, nor would I want him, to do a quick about-face, but I do feel he should back off and not portray himself as defined on the issue as he had previously.
 
Back
Top Bottom