GOP's Rob Portman announces support for same-sex marriage

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
GOP's Rob Portman announces support for same-sex marriage


Republican Senator Rob Portman has announced his support for same-sex marriage, saying he reversed his position on the divisive social issue after his son came out as gay. “I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn't deny them the opportunity to get married,” Portman wrote in an op-ed published Friday in the Columbus Dispatch. “That isn’t how I’ve always felt. As a congressman, and more recently as a senator, I opposed marriage for same-sex couples. Then something happened that led me to think through my position in a much deeper way," Portman wrote in the op-ed.


It's nice to see someone who changed his mind to support someone that he is close to. It's funny how people say they want the government out of our lives but has no problem with them telling you who you can marry.




posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Wow, what better way to say to your kid that you love him...



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


We'll see a lot more of the GOP doing this. Along with photo ops with Hispanics.

They want to keep their jobs next year and know the only way to do it is by seeming more moderate and distancing themselves from the Teabaggers.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
As a republican Im all for same sex marriage.

I just don't want the inevitable to happen. LGBT month.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Directive5120
 


Or he realized his son should not be treated as a second class citizen because of his sexuality.


~Tenth


He should have realized it for all people who feel the same way. If his son hadn't been gay, he would have continued his anti-gay agenda and others would have been treated as second class citizens. I call this convenience and nepotism, not integrity or empathy.

For the record: I have nothing against gay couples. People should do whatever works for them.
edit on 15-3-2013 by Directive5120 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
"Republican Rob Portman Supports Gay Marriage"

More proof that this is a view based on empathy and not logic.

No one has a "right" to be married, marriage is a rite, not a right.

Marriage has roots in religion and is a societal institution to civilise males. This can also be traced back to an evolutionary survival reflex for human preservation, the encouragement of family stability; thus preservation of the tribe.

If marriage was a human right, then not marrying someone would be a violation of that right. It would also have been mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Rightfully it is not.

Marriage is composed of a man and a woman. Anything else is something else.

So, lets review, this is not a civil rights issue, no one is taking any rights away from homosexuals. Homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else, period.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWrightWing
"Republican Rob Portman Supports Gay Marriage"

More proof that this is a view based on empathy and not logic.

No one has a "right" to be married, marriage is a rite, not a right.

Marriage has roots in religion and is a societal institution to civilise males. This can also be traced back to an evolutionary survival reflex for human preservation, the encouragement of family stability; thus preservation of the tribe.

If marriage was a human right, then not marrying someone would be a violation of that right. It would also have been mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Rightfully it is not.

Marriage is composed of a man and a woman. Anything else is something else.

So, lets review, this is not a civil rights issue, no one is taking any rights away from homosexuals. Homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else, period.


Marriage is a word nothing more the man and woman thing is only based on religion. And seeing the divorce rates on the straight people letting gays marry really can't do any damage to institution of marriage.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   
there is nothing in the constitution about marriage.
therefore it is a states right issue. and the federal gov't has no power one way or the other to make laws regarding marriage.

if a state elects to make civil unions legal, so be it.
but this is where the first amendment comes in.
the state can't force churches to marry anyone, nor can the fed.

other than that have at it.

i don't see what the big deal is, other than the religious fanatics who claim the word "marriage" is reserved only for the churches, and the religious.
if you don't like it, tell it to the church.

if the people want to marry in the church, they will find a church that will oblige them.

and as far as finances goes, insurance, retirement, and taxes, who cares?
it's not your money, it's theirs.


live and let live...
edit on 15-3-2013 by bjax9er because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Kick him out, put some other tard in his seat.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


To him I say.. "you're fired! You should be thinking out your positions in a "much deeper way" with every decision you make for us." With that said, I support marriage equality and it's good this guy figured something out, but it really just shows that he does whatever will get the vote. If only his son had come out as gay annd told his dad he'd be going to the frontlines in some mideastern country. Or told him he liked smoking pot and got busted and was facing ten years for plant material.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Better late than never. Gotta' give people room to grow and learn.
And he has. Good for him. He put aside any partisan party loyalty
to support his family and to learn and grow .... kudos ...



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 06:14 AM
link   
I support civil unions. I don't support forcing Churches to go against its beliefs, long standing, cultural beliefs. If churches voluntarily marry homosexuals in their church, then, IMO, it's a sign of the times in my beliefs.
edit on 16-3-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Marriage is a word nothing more the man and woman thing is only based on religion. And seeing the divorce rates on the straight people letting gays marry really can't do any damage to institution of marriage.


Are you saying if divorce rates were low, that would have an impact of some sort on your feeling about gay marriage?

Really?

Words words words... they can mean anything anyone wants, correct? Definitions are so malleable, who needs a dictionary?

Today I have determined that Marriage means "A kind of fish." Does that now make it so?

You can bet the concept of marriage predates any formal contemporary religion. Who would be surprised to find the bonding of a man and a woman predates any religion in the past?

If marriage means anything other than a man and a woman, then it can mean anything anyone wants.

A woman can marry a horse. A man can marry his car. This would give animals and inanimate objects human rights status.

To review: Marriage is a right to no one. Its not a right to heterosexuals, homosexuals, paedophile's or collie-molesters. Period.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWrightWing
"Republican Rob Portman Supports Gay Marriage"

More proof that this is a view based on empathy and not logic.

No one has a "right" to be married, marriage is a rite, not a right.

Marriage has roots in religion and is a societal institution to civilise males. This can also be traced back to an evolutionary survival reflex for human preservation, the encouragement of family stability; thus preservation of the tribe.

If marriage was a human right, then not marrying someone would be a violation of that right. It would also have been mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Rightfully it is not.

Marriage is composed of a man and a woman. Anything else is something else.

So, lets review, this is not a civil rights issue, no one is taking any rights away from homosexuals. Homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else, period.


Marriage became a de facto civil right when government stuck it's fat oar in the water and started paddling it toward the treasury.

And even if government stopped legislating who could marry whom, and left the decision to churches, people like you would be up in arms crying for government to start legislating which churches got the power to solemnize a marriage!



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWrightWing
"Republican Rob Portman Supports Gay Marriage"

More proof that this is a view based on empathy and not logic.
Execpt for the fact that there are logical argument supporting marriage equality, whereas there are little no logical arguments against it. Sounds like you're projecting here (not with the empathy part, but with the logic part).


No one has a "right" to be married, marriage is a rite, not a right.
Not an argument against marriage equality. Also, marriage in this context, is a legal contract, so either way you're wrong.


Marriage has roots in religion and is a societal institution to civilise males. This can also be traced back to an evolutionary survival reflex for human preservation, the encouragement of family stability; thus preservation of the tribe.
Marriage in this case refers to legal contracts, so your argument is irrelevant.


If marriage was a human right, then not marrying someone would be a violation of that right. It would also have been mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Rightfully it is not.
If you're forced to do something, then it isn't a right. Also, not an argument against marriage equality.


Originally posted by TheWrightWing
if marriage means anything other than a man and a woman, then it can mean anything anyone wants.

A woman can marry a horse. A man can marry his car. This would give animals and inanimate objects human rights status.
Slippery slope. Besides, unlike most of those relationships, homosexuals relationships are consensual, unlike bestiaility and the like. Also, i'm pretty sure a car can't sign a marriage contract.
edit on 16-3-2013 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-3-2013 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-3-2013 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
It's nice to see someone who changed his mind to support someone that he is close to.


Sorry but I disagree with you 100%

He only changed his mind because it is his Son who is gay. If his Son was not gay, he would still be opposing gay marriage. To me, this highlights one of the problems.

Our lawmakers lack the ability to see life through the perspective of others. They only view life from their own perspective. So in this case, Portman changes his mind based solely on selfish reasoning. He wants his Son to be happy and entitled to the same as anyone else. When he believed his Son was straight, he didn't care about some gay guy down the street being entitled to the same as everyone else.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Yuuup...Another Republican hypocrite. They are a dime a dozen. This one is against euality for gays until he finds out his kid is one. What a slimeball.



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWrightWing
"Republican Rob Portman Supports Gay Marriage"

More proof that this is a view based on empathy and not logic.

No one has a "right" to be married, marriage is a rite, not a right.

Marriage has roots in religion and is a societal institution to civilise males. This can also be traced back to an evolutionary survival reflex for human preservation, the encouragement of family stability; thus preservation of the tribe.

If marriage was a human right, then not marrying someone would be a violation of that right. It would also have been mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Rightfully it is not.

Marriage is composed of a man and a woman. Anything else is something else.

So, lets review, this is not a civil rights issue, no one is taking any rights away from homosexuals. Homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else, period.


I say this all the time.

Marriage is a religious thing. There are many religions. Each of them has stolen the idea of marriage between two people, added their own little details, copy-writed it and started selling it to the public.

That being fact, i should also be able to set up my own religion, adopt the concept of marriage, add my own twist (That it should only be between same sex couples) and then sell it to the public.

But you're going to tell me i cant do that? Why not? Dont you think i have my own idea's about god? Dont you think there are enough people out there who also share my idea's on faith?

The reason why this entire argument is so silly is because it shouldn't really be an issue. People of the same sex have intimate emotional relationships with one another, they build lives together and those types of people shouldn't have their love and commitment to one another undermined because it doesn't fit other peoples ideal views of the world.

It is a civil rights issue. Homosexuals are citizens and you are denying them the right to be married under the eyes of the law.





new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join