- Status
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
He seemingly changed his position after his son ‘came out’ as homosexual
Two House republicans whose names I have never heard of and 1 republican senator have announced support for redefining marriage
AP: Analysis Shows GOP Legislators Who Support SSM Lose Their Seats
If ‘marriage’ brings homosexual couples stability then why where marriage has been redefined does a small percentage of the homosexual population marry and when they do marry most of the marriages end in divorce. Studies have shown gay marriages last for a shorter duration than heterosexual marriages. Research from Stockholm University found that in Norway, male male marriages are 50% more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, female female marriages are 167% more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages. In Sweden, divorce risk for male gay ‘unions’ is 50% higher than for heterosexual marriages, divorce risk for female gay ‘unions’ is nearly double that
‘Joy’ that marriage may bring is not a reason government accepts as a compelling interest to legalise or subsidise a variety of things. Government does not subsidise chocolate even though it increases happiness through endorphins, and government prohibits polygamous marriage, even though people can argue if they were alllowed to marry multiple people it would make them more joyful
Two House republicans whose names I have never heard of and 1 republican senator have announced support for redefining marriage
AP: Analysis Shows GOP Legislators Who Support SSM Lose Their Seats
If ‘marriage’ brings homosexual couples stability then why where marriage has been redefined does a small percentage of the homosexual population marry and when they do marry most of the marriages end in divorce. Studies have shown gay marriages last for a shorter duration than heterosexual marriages. Research from Stockholm University found that in Norway, male male marriages are 50% more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, female female marriages are 167% more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages. In Sweden, divorce risk for male gay ‘unions’ is 50% higher than for heterosexual marriages, divorce risk for female gay ‘unions’ is nearly double that
‘Joy’ that marriage may bring is not a reason government accepts as a compelling interest to legalise or subsidise a variety of things. Government does not subsidise chocolate even though it increases happiness through endorphins, and government prohibits polygamous marriage, even though people can argue if they were alllowed to marry multiple people it would make them more joyful
S
stephe1987
Guest
Don’t forget, many of these marriages are also not faithful. Most same-sex relationships do not last long without bringing other into the bedroom. Promiscuity is an open secret in the gay community. They want marriage for legal benefits (tax breaks, health care, adoption rights), not because they want to stay together and only be with each other for life.
I think this senator is in an emotional state, and emotions are the devil’s playground. He was probably shaken when his son “came out” as gay and instead of learning to stand his ground on his beliefs, he allowed his beliefs to be changed because he didn’t want to hurt his son’s feelings if he didn’t approve of his lifestyle (not to be separated from love of the person; you can love a person and still not approve of their lifestyle).
I think this senator is in an emotional state, and emotions are the devil’s playground. He was probably shaken when his son “came out” as gay and instead of learning to stand his ground on his beliefs, he allowed his beliefs to be changed because he didn’t want to hurt his son’s feelings if he didn’t approve of his lifestyle (not to be separated from love of the person; you can love a person and still not approve of their lifestyle).
M
mountee
Guest
The local paper’s take from Portman’s home town,
news.cincinnati.com/article/20130314/NEWS010801/303140173/Rob-Portman-now-supports-gay-marriage
news.cincinnati.com/article/20130314/NEWS010801/303140173/Rob-Portman-now-supports-gay-marriage
P
paulrxp
Guest
This is what always bothered me about politics. How can your position change so profoundly about an issue? It tends to make me believe that these viewpoints were never justified by morality. This compromise of morality is what I feel those in the religious world should avoid at all cost.
Even I would not support someone who is against Homosexual marriage if I knew that that person did not have a sound reason for believing in it. If your reasons for being against homosexual marriage is due to bigotry, hate, and ignorance it’s just as wrong.
Even I would not support someone who is against Homosexual marriage if I knew that that person did not have a sound reason for believing in it. If your reasons for being against homosexual marriage is due to bigotry, hate, and ignorance it’s just as wrong.
S
Seeker1961
Guest
Because the issue came home. It’s about his son now, not a bunch of people wearing rainbow boas and spandex at the gay pride parade.
Not the first time I’ve seen this kind of switch when people actually get to know gay people away from the stereotypes.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Rand Paul’s take on what to do about so-called “Same Sex Marriage”.
Rand Paul says tax code should remove mention of marriage
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that while he believes in the “historic and religious definition of marriage,” he believes the federal tax code should be reformed in a way to make it “more neutral” and not exclude same-sex couples.
“I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” Paul said in an interview with the National Review. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”
Read more: thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/287991-rand-paul-says-tax-code-should-remove-mention-of-marriage#ixzz2Nc58i3A6
Rand Paul says tax code should remove mention of marriage
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that while he believes in the “historic and religious definition of marriage,” he believes the federal tax code should be reformed in a way to make it “more neutral” and not exclude same-sex couples.
“I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” Paul said in an interview with the National Review. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”
Read more: thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/287991-rand-paul-says-tax-code-should-remove-mention-of-marriage#ixzz2Nc58i3A6
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Exactly its about HIS SON now! Well said and I agree.
Very true and I applaud your insight. However, ones lack of understanding and attempt to resolve this no doubt consists of deeply rooted personal emotional feelings. this may also be indicative of bias, thus an inability to make a fair and open minded rational decision.
Imho he should abstain from involvement and dismiss himself. That’s the charitable, right thing to do in love and concern.
Very true and I applaud your insight. However, ones lack of understanding and attempt to resolve this no doubt consists of deeply rooted personal emotional feelings. this may also be indicative of bias, thus an inability to make a fair and open minded rational decision.
Imho he should abstain from involvement and dismiss himself. That’s the charitable, right thing to do in love and concern.
S
stevegravy
Guest
S
stevegravy
Guest
F
fix
Guest
It is almost always the case. What if his son endorsed swinging? Would that suddenly make such a lifestyle morally acceptable? Emotionalism is not a substitute for moral correctness.
G
gnjsdad
Guest
Politicians are, if nothing else, finely attuned to which direction the cultural winds are blowing from. It is obvious that the ease with which opposition to this degenerate mockery of the institution of marriage (homosexual “marriage”) has crumbled bespeaks a culture in advanced stages of decay. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that this Senator would take this position.
Politics will cure nothing. It is a reflection of culture. Only the leaven of Catholic teaching will purify the culture. Only then will politics approach it proper moral position.
F
Frank_Drebin
Guest
However, that doesn;t make the switch right.
Look, if you have principles, they don’t change.
I am very sympathetic to anyone whose children test their faith, because of the love a parent has for a child. But if you really judge right and wrong based on whether or not your kids do something, you are a very poor person to be speaking on the issue of right and wrong.
We hear it a lot with the notion of abortion, where someone claims to be personally opposed, but if it happened to their daughter, they’d treat it as a “private matter.” Really? Get some principles, please.
No offense to Portman, but it doesn’t give him much credibility when looking at voting for him. You flip your morals because your kid violated them? Whatever. It reminds me Jocelyn Elders a bit.
We should look to Abraham’s example with regards to putting God above all else, even our children. I can sympathize with Portman as a parent, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t completely wrong.
Of course, now I see why he was chosen to mimic Obama in the mock debates - he flips on the issue of gay marriage just like Obama too. At least his flip wasn’t done for votes.
Yep. For some reason, encouraging the hardcore use of pornography or adultery never gets support from people’s whose kids stray, but when their child is homosexual, we get the “poor kid” stuff.
They all deserve pity, but they all deserve to be held as lifestyles to avoid and not tolerate as well. Anyone who applauds Portman likely wouldn’t do so if he came out in favor of NAMBLA memberships, however legal they currently are.
F
fix
Guest
That is right. Emotionalism too often is the standard used.
S
Seeker1961
Guest
Yes because a relationship between two consenting adults is EXACTLY the same as someone having sex with a child…
F
Frank_Drebin
Guest
NAMBLA is legal. Both are immoral, and as actions are intrinsically evil.Yes because a relationship between two consenting adults is EXACTLY the same as someone having sex with a child…
If you have an issue with that, talk to God. He is the Father or all morality, and He made the rules you apparently take issue with.
And you basically proved my point. You think some principles are okay to change based on your children;s proclivities, and others are absurd.
How about none of them should ever change if they are grounded in God’s truth? That way, you avoid the arbitrary nature of which of your principles you should stick to.
F
fix
Guest
We all have known people who do all sorts of things. Tax cheats, adulterers, pornography viewers, and much more. Some are polite, some are related to us, some would loan you money or give you a ride to work, but none of that would change our view on the immorality of these acts. No matter the emotional tie.
S
Seeker1961
Guest
Do you really equate what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home to an adult raping a child??? These things are exactly the same in your eyes? And where is adultery and pre-marital sex on your list of evil things? I notice that never gets brought up in the comparisons-it’s always raping children and animals.
This is one reason why the Catholic Church has so much trouble gaining ground on this issue. Nobody rails against the sins heterosexuals commit on a regular basis-they only scream about the sin that less than 10% of the population would ever have the slightest inclination to consider. Nobody wants to tick off 90% of the population, so they don’t compare the sins they might commit to raping children and animals.
L
livnlern
Guest
That’s like equating rape with murder. Which one is more immoral? They’re both immoral, but to differing degrees. So, just because it’s a worse crime to murder someone, doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong to rape someone.
S
Seeker1961
Guest
I didn’t say that it wasn’t wrong…what I said was that the comparisons that get made are ridiculous and are one of the reasons that people don’t listen to us.
When you equate the actions of two consenting adults with the actions of an adult raping a child or wanting to marry their dog you lose credibility with the secular world.
Be bold…compare homosexual sex with pre-marital sex because that’s really where it belongs. It’s sex outside of marriage.
- Status