Republican senator announces support for gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter oldcelt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Elizabeth502 said:
Speaking of stereotypes…

Apparently some people 😉 don’t know many straight people who do not fit their own manufactured stereotype.

Breaking News :eek:: Some of us have no stereotypes and have direct experience with the issue coming home. Yet we have no confusion between personal relationships, Catholic doctrine, and public policy. We are able to distinguish these and not compromise our relationships with loved ones, nor our civil responsiblity informed by a Catholic faith per the bishops’ documents on Faithful Citizenship.

Imagine.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
He also broke the trust of the people who voted him into office. If you can not still love your adult children and still correct them or tell them they are wrong, then you are equating parenthood to being there best buddy.
 
paulrxp said:
It really wouldn’t bother me if this is how Portman felt, I mean he’s showing love for his kid, that should be every fathers priority, even over your career.

I think he’s got 4 more years on his term,it’ll be interesting to see if he does runs again. I wonder if he would run if the Republicans asked him to run as an Independent instead of a Republican.

Lets just get rid of representatives, we have technology the founding fathers didn’t have. No need for debates, party antics, costs, perks, divisiveness, personal gain, power, special interest and corruption. Everything is a poll in our society anyway. Every voice will be heard without all the drama. My vote would carry equal weight with Portmans.
During election time I mainly vote for the referendums, voting for candidates is just secondary to me,I feel much more represented when I can choose on the individual issues.
Click to expand...
Being a loving parent doesnot mean you have to agree with their lifestyle. Please have some backbone, love, and quide your children.
 
twoshoes said:
Being a loving parent doesnot mean you have to agree with their lifestyle. Please have some backbone, love, and quide your children.
Click to expand...
Well I guess no invite to Christmas or Thanksgiving dinner if he was your son.
 
twoshoes said:
Being a loving parent doesnot mean you have to agree with their lifestyle. Please have some backbone, love, and quide your children.
Click to expand...
Just from what I wrote, how do you think I’d vote if Portman were to run again?
 
Julianna said:
Well I guess no invite to Christmas or Thanksgiving dinner if he was your son.
Click to expand...
Oh come on what a specious and silly comment! There is a HUGE difference between supporting and loving a child who has a different opinion than you and disowning him. There is nothing that prevents Senator Portman from loving his son, accepting his homosexuality but still not claiming that gay marriage is acceptable. I have a number of close homosexual friends and they know I don’t believe that same sex pairings are the same as traditional marriage. They accept my beliefs and I accept that they are a committed couple (although ZERO interest in marriage). Senator Portman could have stood for what he had claimed were his principles without ceasing to love, accept and support his son.

My only conclusion is that he didn’t have a particularly strong commitment to traditional marriage and when his ox was gored he had a sudden transformation. I have lost a lot of respect for the man. There are politicians on both sides of the aisle who are proponents of same sex marriage. I think most of them haven’t really thought through the ramifications of this substantial cultural and legal change. But I can respect someone with a strongly held and consistently applied ethic. When someone changes because they or a family member is affected well it just speaks to their weakness in principle.

He is going to find being re-elected tough. Not because of the position taken but because of the sudden change…as if it were all about HIM and his child. NOT.

Lisa
 
twoshoes said:
He also broke the trust of the people who voted him into office. If you can not still love your adult children and still correct them or tell them they are wrong, then you are equating parenthood to being there best buddy.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting observation. On the one hand, when I vote what I want more than anything is for the candidate to honestly represent what he believes, and what he intends to do. I hate the current poll driven politics, where the politician changes his platform with each new ratings poll.

On the other hand, I respect a person who can change his or her opinion in the light of personal growth, and new insight or information. This is a requirement of good leadership.

So, I would not be so quick to cry out “betrayal”. But I get your point.

In this case, it appears that a person with certain impersonal moral values was confronted with the personal ramifications of his beliefs. That is where the rubber meets the road.

By analogy… ra ra for the “chicken hawks” who have never served a day in the military, but are quick to commit our military men and women. How would they make the same decision, if their sons and daughters were eligible to be drafted, of if they had to report for duty themselves?

This is the true moral test. Does one’s personal moral perspective hold up to personal commitment, in the face of moral dilemma and personal adversity. Do you betray your friend to save your own skin? Do you take a bullet to protect your comrade? and so on…

I guess my final point is that this senator made a very personal decision, based on his own values and his life experience. For each of us, that is different.
 
epan said:
… On the other hand, I respect a person who can change his or her opinion in the light of personal growth, and new insight or information. This is a requirement of good leadership.

So, I would not be so quick to cry out “betrayal”. But I get your point.
Click to expand...
That’s what I was getting at. I understand what the man did as a loving, loyal father, but not as a politician who represents thousands of people who gave him the power to make that choice. A politician that does not represent what I voted for is what bothers me. It could have been any other economic or social issue, this just happened to be about gay marriage. I question his justifications for why he was against gay marriage more than his justification for being in favor of it now.
 
rossum said:
Is sinning disobedience? Is homosexual behaviour a sin?

rossum
Click to expand...
Forgive me, but do you advocate the public execution by stoning of those children who are gay, as an obligation of their own parents to instigate and to witness?

Have you ever been stoned, literally? I have. By a gang of Iragi teens. It hurts, and we could not shoot back. What do you suppose the solution was?
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Speaking of stereotypes…

Apparently some people 😉 don’t know many straight people who do not fit their own manufactured stereotype.

Breaking News :eek:: Some of us have no stereotypes and have direct experience with the issue coming home. Yet we have no confusion between personal relationships, Catholic doctrine, and public policy. We are able to distinguish these and not compromise our relationships with loved ones, nor our civil responsiblity informed by a Catholic faith per the bishops’ documents on Faithful Citizenship.

Imagine.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Guess I wasn’t talking about you then, was I?

🤷 why do defensive? Every post on the site isn’t directed at you personally.
 
Julianna said:
Well I guess no invite to Christmas or Thanksgiving dinner if he was your son.
Click to expand...
No, actually, that does not logically follow from the comments of the poster to whom you responded, and it has never followed in my own family, with my relative, either. There was never a single instance of abandonment by the family, nor talk of such. Disapproval of the lifestyle can co-exist with welcoming of the person, as the ex-Cardinal Bergoglio himself has shown. A person is not his/her actions, or I should never be invited to any holiday gathering myself.

Every person remains intact in his or her core, regardless of both sins and disordered attractions, and that is and has been the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. That’s precisely why the Church does not prefer an equation of personhood with sexual orientation, any more than she teaches that we “are” our sins. We are not. We have separate and individual integrity which is cherished by God and which is required by the faithful Christian to honor in others.
 
Here’s what our new Holy Father has to say about homosexuality and SSM:

“There have always been homosexuals. The island of Lesbos is known as a place where homosexual women lived. But never in history has anyone sought to give it the same status as marriage. Whether it was tolerated or not, whether it was admired or not, no one regarded it as equivalent. We know that in moments of great change, the phenomenon of homosexuality increased. But this is the first time that anyone posed the legal possibility of equating it with marriage. I regard it as a retrograde step, anthropologically speaking. I am saying this because it transcends the religious question; it is an anthropological one. If a union is private, no third parties or society are affected. But now that it has been given the status of marriage and given facilities for adoption, children will be affected. Everyone needs a masculine father and a feminine mother to help them shape their identity.”

lifesitenews.com/news/10-must-read-quotations-from-pope-francis-portrait-of-a-forceful-thinker
 
livnlern said:
Here’s what our new Holy Father has to say about homosexuality and SSM:

“There have always been homosexuals. The island of Lesbos is known as a place where homosexual women lived. But never in history has anyone sought to give it the same status as marriage. Whether it was tolerated or not, whether it was admired or not, no one regarded it as equivalent. We know that in moments of great change, the phenomenon of homosexuality increased. But this is the first time that anyone posed the legal possibility of equating it with marriage. I regard it as a retrograde step, anthropologically speaking. I am saying this because it transcends the religious question; it is an anthropological one. If a union is private, no third parties or society are affected. But now that it has been given the status of marriage and given facilities for adoption, children will be affected. Everyone needs a masculine father and a feminine mother to help them shape their identity.”

lifesitenews.com/news/10-must-read-quotations-from-pope-francis-portrait-of-a-forceful-thinker
Click to expand...
👍

(Same thing several of us have said all along. Great to know we’re in good company. :))
 
Personanongrata said:
👍
Click to expand...
:confused: Personanongrata, how on earth can your religion state “Catholic” and being a Christian you think that Christ would support the acts of homosexuality in any way (Which include homosexual marriage)?

:confused::confused:How can Christians be supporting homosexual marriage?

Do you know Christ? do you know your faith? do you know that in no way would Christ ever support such a thing as homosexual marriage or any acts of homosexuality for that matter?

I don’t mean to offend you, but im confused to see people who claim to know christ, that say it’s right to support homosexual marriage, the fact that they support it means that they don’t know christ.

I mean you read my previous post, idk what else I can say.

I just can’t believe that your religion says: Catholic, same as me and you can support homosexual marriage, please ask your local priest about it, or view the churches stand on it.

This is why I said that all us followers of Christ should be united on this, if there is division amongst christians about this issue, than how can we stop them?

Every christian should know that Christ would never support such a thing as ‘homosexual marriage’
 
livnlern said:
Here’s what our new Holy Father has to say about homosexuality and SSM:

“There have always been homosexuals. The island of Lesbos is known as a place where homosexual women lived. But never in history has anyone sought to give it the same status as marriage. Whether it was tolerated or not, whether it was admired or not, no one regarded it as equivalent. We know that in moments of great change, the phenomenon of homosexuality increased. But this is the first time that anyone posed the legal possibility of equating it with marriage. I regard it as a retrograde step, anthropologically speaking. I am saying this because it transcends the religious question; it is an anthropological one. If a union is private, no third parties or society are affected. But now that it has been given the status of marriage and given facilities for adoption, children will be affected. Everyone needs a masculine father and a feminine mother to help them shape their identity.”

lifesitenews.com/news/10-must-read-quotations-from-pope-francis-portrait-of-a-forceful-thinker
Click to expand...
Everything I see impresses me more and more. This is exactly the issue and I think Portman’s sudden change of mind indicates he hasn’t considered the ramifications of redefining marriage. Too many claim that if you don’t agree with same sex marriage you are a homophobe or a bigot or some other conversation killing title. It goes far beyond having to grooms on the wedding cake or buying two bridal gowns which is about as far as most people seem to go in their thought process. As Pope Francis notes, the real victims are the children, the organizations that might be prohibited from continuing their work if they do not accommodate homosexuals’ desires for adoptions as has already happened. As I’ve mentioned on several threads, I used to breed show horses and the very techniques homosexuals use to obtain children are exactly the same way I bred animals. It is such a dehumanizing and degrading process to use with human beings and makes them in effect commodities. I so appreciate the Church’s strong teaching on maintaining human dignity in every way. It’s sad that selfish desires push away the Truth.

BTW I just looked up Portman’s religion…he’s a Methodist. As a former Methodist that explains a lot 😦

Lisa
 
Everything I see from Pope Francis impresses me more and more. This is exactly the issue and I think Portman’s sudden change of mind indicates he hasn’t considered the ramifications of redefining marriage. Too many claim that if you don’t agree with same sex marriage you are a homophobe or a bigot or some other conversation killing title. It goes far beyond having two grooms on the wedding cake or buying two bridal gowns which is about as far as most people seem to go in their thought process. As Pope Francis notes, the real victims are the children, the organizations that might be prohibited from continuing their work if they do not accommodate homosexuals’ desires for adoptions as has already happened. As I’ve mentioned on several threads, I used to breed show horses and the very techniques homosexuals use to obtain children are exactly the same way I bred animals. It is such a dehumanizing and degrading process to use with human beings and makes them in effect commodities. I so appreciate the Church’s strong teaching on maintaining human dignity in every way. It’s sad that selfish desires push away the Truth.

BTW I just looked up Portman’s religion…he’s a Methodist. As a former Methodist that explains a lot 😦

Lisa
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
Our society has decided that marriage does not need to be fruitful. Actually, our society has decided that the lack of marriage can be fruitful and that’s just fine. We are so screwed up as a society I don’t even know where to begin.

God help us all.
Click to expand...
Why should he? When Isreal completely abandoned Him like we have, he allowed them to be captured by Babylon and dragged off into captivity for hundreds of years.
 
livnlern said:
Here’s what our new Holy Father has to say about homosexuality and SSM:

" We know that in moments of great change, the phenomenon of homosexuality increased. "
Click to expand...
I’ve not heard that one before. Any idea where it comes from?
 
Julianna said:
Well I guess no invite to Christmas or Thanksgiving dinner if he was your son.
Click to expand...
Yes he would have a seat at the head of my table, I would hug him and love him as much as my other children, he would get gifts at Christmas and his birthday with love and effection and then we would have a discussion of his life style. Why do people always think if you disagree with your children you do not love and honor them, such convoluted parenting.

You guess wrong Julianna, his friend and the person he loves would also be invited to my house as long as they acted appropriately.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top