Rob Portman Supports Gay Marriage.
-
It's not one in ten. That was always propaganda. Recently they actually got a pretty good handle on what the number is, and it's about 2.5%-3.0% of the population is gay. So, about the same number that is Jewish.
But, I'm not gay and it's a very important issue to me. I almost certainly wouldn't vote for someone who is rabidly anti-gay, or even moderately anti-gay. I really don't understand the argument that since there are other important issues we shouldn't discuss or address the lack of civil rights for a certain category of our fellow Americans.
It's a big deal to a lot of people. As Rob Portman just found out. You might even say it goes to the whole notion of "the pursuit of happiness." Also "equal protection" and "freedom." I think I remember reading about those somewhere.
-
Actually if an anti religion plank is the most important part of a platform to you I think that's how you should vote.
But like it was just said, I, and many others might consider the looming financial disaster more important than gay marriage.
Even though I'm a supporter.
Also as it has been pointed out that looks like it's a shoo in, a done deal.
But let's not be naive, the reason that some want it elevated to the same important as the budget is because they need to keep the base in line.
And the national debt debate isn't really a winner for the left. Or it shouldn't be.
I'd also bet that there are some people who think the banning of large soft drink cups is an important issue.
WSS
I'm not anti religion I just feel that by following the religious hard line they lose more than they would gain. All you have to do as an R is be better at the economy than the D's and neutral on all the religious issues and the party becomes infinitely more palatable.
I'm not anti religion I just feel that by following the religious hard line they lose more than they would gain. All you have to do as an R is be better at the economy than the D's and neutral on all the religious issues and the party becomes infinitely more palatable.
Don't misunderstand, I completely get your rationale.
Personally I'm pretty open minded on all of these social issues.
But since gay marriage and abortion and all of that crap is going to take care of itself anyway no matter who is president I vote on the issues I think 1 party or the other could change.
I mean seriously, we're not going to get a constitutional amendment no matter who's in the White House.
I also don't care if a kid wants to say a prayer at a school function.
WSS
-
-
-
I'm not anti religion I just feel that by following the religious hard line they lose more than they would gain. All you have to do as an R is be better at the economy than the D's and neutral on all the religious issues and the party becomes infinitely more palatable.
Don't misunderstand, I completely get your rationale.
Personally I'm pretty open minded on all of these social issues.
But since gay marriage and abortion and all of that crap is going to take care of itself anyway no matter who is president I vote on the issues I think 1 party or the other could change.
I mean seriously, we're not going to get a constitutional amendment no matter who's in the White House.
I also don't care if a kid wants to say a prayer at a school function.
WSS
Don't misunderstand, I completely get your rationale.
Personally I'm pretty open minded on all of these social issues.
But since gay marriage and abortion and all of that crap is going to take care of itself anyway no matter who is president I vote on the issues I think 1 party or the other could change.
I mean seriously, we're not going to get a constitutional amendment no matter who's in the White House.
I also don't care if a kid wants to say a prayer at a school function.
WSS
If only the conservatives were to come out tomorrow and say we take a strict no social issue stance and run, I think it would be an easy win for them. The Moral high ground stuff kills them in popular opinion.
-
Don't misunderstand, I completely get your rationale.
Personally I'm pretty open minded on all of these social issues.
But since gay marriage and abortion and all of that crap is going to take care of itself anyway no matter who is president I vote on the issues I think 1 party or the other could change.
I mean seriously, we're not going to get a constitutional amendment no matter who's in the White House.
I also don't care if a kid wants to say a prayer at a school function.
WSS
If only the conservatives were to come out tomorrow and say we take a strict no social issue stance and run, I think it would be an easy win for them. The Moral high ground stuff kills them in popular opinion.
If only the conservatives were to come out tomorrow and say we take a strict no social issue stance and run, I think it would be an easy win for them. The Moral high ground stuff kills them in popular opinion.
Could be. I don't think people really want to be that conservative and use religion as an excuse.
I don't see all that many evangelistic Republican candidates, do you? Mitt Romney? John McCain? George W Bush?
On the other hand the president himself has Bragg often about his deep Christian roots and his dedication to that religion, right?
The church he joined, and I understand it was for show, was farther to the outside then any other presidential candidate.
I have a good friend who is Jewish and said he couldn't vote for an evangelistic Christian governor here in Ohio because they thought he was going to hell.
I asked him if he believed there was a hell and he said no.
So I wonder then who cares?
Of course he voted for Methodist minister Strickland.
So yes I guess you can blast the Republicans for being too Christian for your taste.
Maybe you could point out the Democrats stand up and says that Christianity is a crock of.....
WSS
-
If only the conservatives were to come out tomorrow and say we take a strict no social issue stance and run, I think it would be an easy win for them. The Moral high ground stuff kills them in popular opinion.
Could be. I don't think people really want to be that conservative and use religion as an excuse.
I don't see all that many evangelistic Republican candidates, do you? Mitt Romney? John McCain? George W Bush?
On the other hand the president himself has Bragg often about his deep Christian roots and his dedication to that religion, right?
The church he joined, and I understand it was for show, was farther to the outside then any other presidential candidate.
I have a good friend who is Jewish and said he couldn't vote for an evangelistic Christian governor here in Ohio because they thought he was going to hell.
I asked him if he believed there was a hell and he said no.
So I wonder then who cares?
Of course he voted for Methodist minister Strickland.
So yes I guess you can blast the Republicans for being too Christian for your taste.
Maybe you could point out the Democrats stand up and says that Christianity is a crock of.....
WSS
Could be. I don't think people really want to be that conservative and use religion as an excuse.
I don't see all that many evangelistic Republican candidates, do you? Mitt Romney? John McCain? George W Bush?
On the other hand the president himself has Bragg often about his deep Christian roots and his dedication to that religion, right?
The church he joined, and I understand it was for show, was farther to the outside then any other presidential candidate.
I have a good friend who is Jewish and said he couldn't vote for an evangelistic Christian governor here in Ohio because they thought he was going to hell.
I asked him if he believed there was a hell and he said no.
So I wonder then who cares?
Of course he voted for Methodist minister Strickland.
So yes I guess you can blast the Republicans for being too Christian for your taste.
Maybe you could point out the Democrats stand up and says that Christianity is a crock of.....
WSS
If the D's were to take a Christianity is crock stance it would be just as damaging for me(and others). I really think that taking a position on religion only hurts you. your analogy was a perfect example of this. why alienate a potential voter based on religion? Its just needlessly divisive. run on a platform of government issues and become more palatable. It gives less BS reasons for a person to dismiss you as a candidate.
Trust me I am not a religion bashing atheist.
-
It's not one in ten. That was always propaganda. Recently they actually got a pretty good handle on what the number is, and it's about 2.5%-3.0% of the population is gay. So, about the same number that is Jewish.
But, I'm not gay and it's a very important issue to me. I almost certainly wouldn't vote for someone who is rabidly anti-gay, or even moderately anti-gay. I really don't understand the argument that since there are other important issues we shouldn't discuss or address the lack of civil rights for a certain category of our fellow Americans.
It's a big deal to a lot of people. As Rob Portman just found out. You might even say it goes to the whole notion of "the pursuit of happiness." Also "equal protection" and "freedom." I think I remember reading about those somewhere.
You might even say it goes to the whole notion of "the pursuit of happiness." Also "equal protection" and "freedom." I think I remember reading about those somewhere.
Clearly an antiquated document.
-
It's not one in ten. That was always propaganda. Recently they actually got a pretty good handle on what the number is, and it's about 2.5%-3.0% of the population is gay. So, about the same number that is Jewish.
But, I'm not gay and it's a very important issue to me. I almost certainly wouldn't vote for someone who is rabidly anti-gay, or even moderately anti-gay. I really don't understand the argument that since there are other important issues we shouldn't discuss or address the lack of civil rights for a certain category of our fellow Americans.
It's a big deal to a lot of people. As Rob Portman just found out. You might even say it goes to the whole notion of "the pursuit of happiness." Also "equal protection" and "freedom." I think I remember reading about those somewhere.
It's not one in ten. That was always propaganda. Recently they actually got a pretty good handle on what the number is, and it's about 2.5%-3.0% of the population is gay. So, about the same number that is Jewish.
But, I'm not gay and it's a very important issue to me. I almost certainly wouldn't vote for someone who is rabidly anti-gay, or even moderately anti-gay. I really don't understand the argument that since there are other important issues we shouldn't discuss or address the lack of civil rights for a certain category of our fellow Americans.
It's a big deal to a lot of people. As Rob Portman just found out. You might even say it goes to the whole notion of "the pursuit of happiness." Also "equal protection" and "freedom." I think I remember reading about those somewhere.
I can't disagree with defending one's right to "the pursuit of happiness" as I am a huge advocate of the constitution being the law of the land. Don't miss what I'm saying in my post. Gays should be allowed to marry. It has absolutely zero effect on my life. However, the economy has a HUGE affect on everyone's life and I feel it should have been the main focus of the last election. Life's not fair and sometimes people need to wait to get things so if that means putting gay marriage on hold to fix the economy then so be it. It sucks, yeah, but that's what I believe we should be doing. I just don't understand how social politics pull so much weight over an impending financial crisis.
-
Well like you said, it gas zero affect on YOUR life
-
It's not one in ten. That was always propaganda. Recently they actually got a pretty good handle on what the number is, and it's about 2.5%-3.0% of the population is gay. So, about the same number that is Jewish.
But, I'm not gay and it's a very important issue to me. I almost certainly wouldn't vote for someone who is rabidly anti-gay, or even moderately anti-gay. I really don't understand the argument that since there are other important issues we shouldn't discuss or address the lack of civil rights for a certain category of our fellow Americans.
It's a big deal to a lot of people. As Rob Portman just found out. You might even say it goes to the whole notion of "the pursuit of happiness." Also "equal protection" and "freedom." I think I remember reading about those somewhere.
I can't disagree with defending one's right to "the pursuit of happiness" as I am a huge advocate of the constitution being the law of the land. Don't miss what I'm saying in my post. Gays should be allowed to marry. It has absolutely zero effect on my life. However, the economy has a HUGE affect on everyone's life and I feel it should have been the main focus of the last election. Life's not fair and sometimes people need to wait to get things so if that means putting gay marriage on hold to fix the economy then so be it. It sucks, yeah, but that's what I believe we should be doing. I just don't understand how social politics pull so much weight over an impending financial crisis.
I can't disagree with defending one's right to "the pursuit of happiness" as I am a huge advocate of the constitution being the law of the land. Don't miss what I'm saying in my post. Gays should be allowed to marry. It has absolutely zero effect on my life. However, the economy has a HUGE affect on everyone's life and I feel it should have been the main focus of the last election. Life's not fair and sometimes people need to wait to get things so if that means putting gay marriage on hold to fix the economy then so be it. It sucks, yeah, but that's what I believe we should be doing. I just don't understand how social politics pull so much weight over an impending financial crisis.
It is really a pretty easy fix that could be done in days, just a few changes in existing law mostly in terminology. Like I said earlier it would suck if I were the 10%(or whatever the number may be). Just because there are larger issues does not exclude it from being an issue.
-
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, when asked if his views had changed on gay marriage, the Georgia Republican quipped: “I’m not gay. So I’m not going to marry one.”
Again, these guys are really sympathetic to people who aren't them.
-
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, when asked if his views had changed on gay marriage, the Georgia Republican quipped: “I’m not gay. So I’m not going to marry one.”
Again, these guys are really sympathetic to people who aren't them.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, when asked if his views had changed on gay marriage, the Georgia Republican quipped: “I’m not gay. So I’m not going to marry one.”
Again, these guys are really sympathetic to people who aren't them.
I'm starting to realize why black people never really got out and voted til Obama.
-
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, when asked if his views had changed on gay marriage, the Georgia Republican quipped: “I’m not gay. So I’m not going to marry one.”
Again, these guys are really sympathetic to people who aren't them.
I'm starting to realize why black people never really got out and voted til Obama.
I'm starting to realize why black people never really got out and voted til Obama.
Exactly.
-
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, when asked if his views had changed on gay marriage, the Georgia Republican quipped: “I’m not gay. So I’m not going to marry one.”
Again, these guys are really sympathetic to people who aren't them.
I'm starting to realize why black people never really got out and voted til Obama.
I'm starting to realize why black people never really got out and voted til Obama.
Like why the klan really got out in force behind David Duke I guess.
Keep in mind, open minded boy, that black people hate gays worse than most.
Big reason the empty suit's been flip flopping all over the place on the issue...
WSS
-
Blacks went from 61% turnout in 2004 to 65% in 2008, while whites went from 67% in 2004 to 66% in 2008, so I don't really think the statement is even warranted in the first place. Clearly, blacks were more energized by a black candidate. But it's simply not true that "black people never really got out and voted til Obama" is it?
And in 2012, while the official Census figures aren't in, it seems the white vote turnout was down again in 2012, and blacks may have even turned out in greater numbers than whites for the first time in history. So, if you're going to take one data point and say that blacks didn't come out and vote until Obama was on the ballot, I guess you'd have to take that same data point and say white voters didn't show up because there was a black man on the ballot.
But I wouldn't say either of those things. Nor would I liken black enthusiasm for the first black president to the Klan's enthusiasm for a fellow white supremacist. But I'm also not prejudiced against black people.
I think Vapor was just baiting you anyway.
-
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, when asked if his views had changed on gay marriage, the Georgia Republican quipped: “I’m not gay. So I’m not going to marry one.”
Again, these guys are really sympathetic to people who aren't them.
I'm starting to realize why black people never really got out and voted til Obama.
I'm starting to realize why black people never really got out and voted til Obama.
Well they did vote for the other black President, Clinton.
-
Blacks went from 61% turnout in 2004 to 65% in 2008, while whites went from 67% in 2004 to 66% in 2008, so I don't really think the statement is even warranted in the first place. Clearly, blacks were more energized by a black candidate. But it's simply not true that "black people never really got out and voted til Obama" is it?
And in 2012, while the official Census figures aren't in, it seems the white vote turnout was down again in 2012, and blacks may have even turned out in greater numbers than whites for the first time in history. So, if you're going to take one data point and say that blacks didn't come out and vote until Obama was on the ballot, I guess you'd have to take that same data point and say white voters didn't show up because there was a black man on the ballot.
But I wouldn't say either of those things. Nor would I liken black enthusiasm for the first black president to the Klan's enthusiasm for a fellow white supremacist. But I'm also not prejudiced against black people.
I think Vapor was just baiting you anyway.
Blacks went from 61% turnout in 2004 to 65% in 2008, while whites went from 67% in 2004 to 66% in 2008, so I don't really think the statement is even warranted in the first place. Clearly, blacks were more energized by a black candidate. But it's simply not true that "black people never really got out and voted til Obama" is it?
And in 2012, while the official Census figures aren't in, it seems the white vote turnout was down again in 2012, and blacks may have even turned out in greater numbers than whites for the first time in history. So, if you're going to take one data point and say that blacks didn't come out and vote until Obama was on the ballot, I guess you'd have to take that same data point and say white voters didn't show up because there was a black man on the ballot.
And that doesn't even make sense. If white people are as evil and prejudiced as you seem to think they should have come out in droves for the white candidate but they didn't.
But I wouldn't say either of those things. Nor would I liken black enthusiasm for the first black president to the Klan's enthusiasm for a fellow white supremacist.
Ha ha. I remember you bitching about Mormon support for Romney but...
People will vote on the basis of a shared dislike of a particular group, be it black or white.
But I'm also not prejudiced against black people.
Your prejudice is on the opposite side, that's all.
I think Vapor was just baiting you anyway.
I'd say he's just talking out his ass.
So the point is gay marriage right?
More blacks oppose it than whites.
And Obama pandered to them like a champ.
But we're mad at Rob Portman?
Now if I use the descriptive terms you guys use about white Christians, superstitious, ignorant, bigoted, hateful or stupid you'd most likely gripe.
But it's a stupid analogy anyway.
WSS
-
Blacks went from 61% turnout in 2004 to 65% in 2008, while whites went from 67% in 2004 to 66% in 2008, so I don't really think the statement is even warranted in the first place. Clearly, blacks were more energized by a black candidate. But it's simply not true that "black people never really got out and voted til Obama" is it?
And in 2012, while the official Census figures aren't in, it seems the white vote turnout was down again in 2012, and blacks may have even turned out in greater numbers than whites for the first time in history. So, if you're going to take one data point and say that blacks didn't come out and vote until Obama was on the ballot, I guess you'd have to take that same data point and say white voters didn't show up because there was a black man on the ballot.
But I wouldn't say either of those things. Nor would I liken black enthusiasm for the first black president to the Klan's enthusiasm for a fellow white supremacist. But I'm also not prejudiced against black people.
I think Vapor was just baiting you anyway.
I think Vapor was just baiting you anyway.
No, I just made an uneducated comment, which is something I think most people here won't admit to.
-
Oh yeah, well, I've made those kind of statements too, dammit !
....
oops. Wait, I ....
too late.
crap.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login