Rob Portman Reverses Gay Marriage Stance After Son Comes Out

[boilermaker55]

Hey! Keep your religion to your house.

Your small, narrow, boxed-in world is being busted apart and I'm loving every minute of it.

No doubt. You have to know that nations who become this degenerate never exist for long. Is it because God destroys them? Or, is it because they eventually reach a state of such self-hating degeneracy that they commit a kind of national suicide? I opt for self-hating degeneracy.

I believe God does judge nations that are morally bankrupt. Sodom was morally bankrupt and we see it was judged by fire. I believe God would have to apologise to Sodom and Gomorrah if he didn't judge America. Don't you? Lets look at what will bring judgment on a nation.. murder of 50 million babies ( abortion! check! ) openly celebrating homosexuality which is an abomination to God ( check! ) building altars to baal - Mosques included on land that was dedicated to God Almighty ( America! Check! ) Interfering with Israels right to defend herself - dividing up her land ( big judgment coming for that one ) siding with her enemies ( arab oil is not an excuse - neither is intimidation, folks ) these are the very things that have brought the judgment of God and with it? Obama. I don't believe America will have another president after Obama - what you see is it.. our nation was blessed tremendously because we were a nation who served God, knew the bible, attended church, we acknowledged God in everything we did but now? Now we have a judgment that is going to be so severe your very hair will turn white over it. I don't expect it will be very long before our enemies attack us from without and within - judgment of God is at the door now. There is no denying it. Even unbelievers know something is up.

So here is the good news... Under a nuclear attack those who belong fully to the LORD have nothing to worry about. The bad news is...... The rest of you have alot to worry about. Then there is the Good News that Jesus saves... whosoever will can come to Him and he will receive them - Psalm 91 will become theirs in an instant! Then there is the bad news...... that some of you are STILL going to reject him. If I were an unbeliever I'd buy a bible and read it from cover to cover with the prayer that God would reveal His Son to me and save me. That is what I'd do. - Jeremiah

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Your small, narrow, boxed-in world is being busted apart and I'm loving every minute of it.

No doubt. You have to know that nations who become this degenerate never exist for long. Is it because God destroys them? Or, is it because they eventually reach a state of such self-hating degeneracy that they commit a kind of national suicide? I opt for self-hating degeneracy.

I believe God does judge nations that are morally bankrupt.

You're free to believe what you want....even if you....

....believe in phantoms.

​

 

[bodecea]

Many thanks to the person who put up the map proving my point. State by State the majority of Americans voted clearly in favor of marriage being between a man and a woman ONLY! This was only recently so you would think homosexuals would respect the wishes of the American people but obviously not.. - Jeremiah

You just refuse to believe that public opinion is turning against your position, don't you?

That's OK though, because the same thing happened during the Civil Rights movement in the '60's as well.

I think you have a problem with the truth. You need to look into that. Public opinion is marriage should be between a man and a woman. By a HUGE Majority. I expect it will stay that way.

Then get used to Disappointment.


DADT is gone....many states NOW have legal gay marriage...and DOMA is going down soon. That's just the beginning.

For homophobes, it DOESN'T get better.

 

[bodecea]

There is little doubt at all that public opinion is turning to support same sex marriage. It is also turning in support of drug legalization, it is turning against protection of children with strong sentencing for child sexual abuse. The nation isn't becoming a better place. It is slowly sliding into a national depravity. Wer'e becoming a modern day Sodom.

Your small, narrow, boxed-in world is being busted apart and I'm loving every minute of it.

No doubt. You have to know that nations who become this degenerate never exist for long. Is it because God destroys them? Or, is it because they eventually reach a state of such self-hating degeneracy that they commit a kind of national suicide? I opt for self-hating degeneracy.

You keep saying that. Give us a few examples.

 

[bodecea]

I dont get it. Gay marriage is a policy issue. You are either for it or against it based on your view of whether it is good policy or not. That you have a son who likes to take it up the ass really should have no bearing on whether you think one policy or another is correct. It doesnt suddenly change the equation. Only Democrats think like that.

There's a RW attitude for ya.

 

[bodecea]

I dont get it. Gay marriage is a policy issue. You are either for it or against it based on your view of whether it is good policy or not. That you have a son who likes to take it up the ass really should have no bearing on whether you think one policy or another is correct. It doesnt suddenly change the equation. Only Democrats think like that.

Really? How condescending and insulting to gay forum members here. Is that your experience, taking it up the ass? Because that does not define gayness, homosexuality or one's sexual orientation. Many women and so-called "straight men" "take it up the ass", so that can't be "it". And you have no clue as to how Democrats "think".

Rabbi is one of those anti-gay posters who talk more about ONE of the gay sex acts more than gay people do. It think it gives him a tingle.

 

[bodecea]

I dont get it. Gay marriage is a policy issue. You are either for it or against it based on your view of whether it is good policy or not. That you have a son who likes to take it up the ass really should have no bearing on whether you think one policy or another is correct. It doesnt suddenly change the equation. Only Democrats think like that.

Really? How condescending and insulting to gay forum members here. Is that your experience, taking it up the ass? Because that does not define gayness, homosexuality or one's sexual orientation. Many women and so-called "straight men" "take it up the ass", so that can't be "it". And you have no clue as to how Democrats "think".

Dude.....please stop.

You're cracking me up. Lol.


If you're a dude and you take a "penis" up the ass you're Gay or a victim.

Another anti-gay poster talking more about ONE gay sex act than gays do.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Really? How condescending and insulting to gay forum members here. Is that your experience, taking it up the ass? Because that does not define gayness, homosexuality or one's sexual orientation. Many women and so-called "straight men" "take it up the ass", so that can't be "it". And you have no clue as to how Democrats "think".

Dude.....please stop.

You're cracking me up. Lol.


If you're a dude and you take a "penis" up the ass you're Gay or a victim.

Another anti-gay poster talking more about ONE gay sex act than gays do.

It does make me wonder if some of these folks are typing with one hand.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Morally bankrupt?

Again, are you going to sit here and tell me that we are less moral now vs 1850 when (as I mentioned before) millions and millions of African Americans were being kidnapped (by Americans) and shipped in 130 degree slave ships across the Atlantic to work slave labor for life? Imagine someone coming into your home, breaking up your entire family (never to be seen again) and shipping you off to a completely foreign country to work slave labor for life. Oh yea, and you’ll probably get raped a few times a month too.

Explain to me – please – how our society was less morally “bankrupt” back then as compared to now…

Revisionist history. Americans never kidnapped any slaves. The africans kidnapped were taken by africans as a result of tribal warfare ans sold to ARAB slave traders.

The left is dependent on ignorance.

Katz, really?

Regardless of how the Africans were initially "kidnapped", the White Americans shipped them over to the United States in 130 degree slave ships (1 of 3 perished), the White Americans auctioned them off (splitting apart families), the White Americans forced them to work on their plantations for no pay, the White Americans whipped and raped them, ect, ect.

Or am I mistaken, was it the Africans that ran the plantations and commerce in the US in 1850 and forced other Africans (in America) to work slave labor?

Be courageous and explain yourself.
.

According to colonial records, the first slave owner in the United States was a black man.

By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone.

The popular opinion regarding slavery in the United States is that it was a simple matter of racial oppression of blacks by whites. However, the presence of black slaveholders in North America prior to the Civil War shows that slavery was not based solely on color but on economics. Black slave owners, for the most part, were complicities in support of the institution deriving from it wealth and privileges denied to other groups.

Unspoken Reality: Black Slaveholders Prior to the Civil War

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Revisionist history. Americans never kidnapped any slaves. The africans kidnapped were taken by africans as a result of tribal warfare ans sold to ARAB slave traders.

The left is dependent on ignorance.

Katz, really?

Regardless of how the Africans were initially "kidnapped", the White Americans shipped them over to the United States in 130 degree slave ships (1 of 3 perished), the White Americans auctioned them off (splitting apart families), the White Americans forced them to work on their plantations for no pay, the White Americans whipped and raped them, ect, ect.

Or am I mistaken, was it the Africans that ran the plantations and commerce in the US in 1850 and forced other Africans (in America) to work slave labor?

Be courageous and explain yourself.
.

According to colonial records, the first slave owner in the United States was a black man.

By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone.

The popular opinion regarding slavery in the United States is that it was a simple matter of racial oppression of blacks by whites. However, the presence of black slaveholders in North America prior to the Civil War shows that slavery was not based solely on color but on economics. Black slave owners, for the most part, were complicities in support of the institution deriving from it wealth and privileges denied to other groups.

Unspoken Reality: Black Slaveholders Prior to the Civil War

Are you trying to suggest that because a few blacks owned slaves, that makes the whole period of slavery in the US acceptable?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Please. There are far more heterosexuals that are pedophiles than gays. There are far more heterosexual deviants of all kinds (rapists, murderers, sadists, etc...) than there are deviant gays. Don't get me started.

If a man molests young boys, he's not a heterosexual.


Definition of HOMOSEXUAL
1: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

More girls....MANY more girls are molested by men.....heterosexual men.

Link?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Does this:

but I wanted to tone down the crudity.

Really link up with:

Regardless how old the person is you just fucked in the ass you're still Gay.

 

[KevinWestern]

Whether or not you support gay marriage, these facts remain indisputable;

1. Gay marriage is more acceptable now than any other point in US History.

2. America is much less racist, violent, and sexist now than any other point in US history.

 

[KevinWestern]

Revisionist history. Americans never kidnapped any slaves. The africans kidnapped were taken by africans as a result of tribal warfare ans sold to ARAB slave traders.

The left is dependent on ignorance.

Katz, really?

Regardless of how the Africans were initially "kidnapped", the White Americans shipped them over to the United States in 130 degree slave ships (1 of 3 perished), the White Americans auctioned them off (splitting apart families), the White Americans forced them to work on their plantations for no pay, the White Americans whipped and raped them, ect, ect.

Or am I mistaken, was it the Africans that ran the plantations and commerce in the US in 1850 and forced other Africans (in America) to work slave labor?

Be courageous and explain yourself.
.

According to colonial records, the first slave owner in the United States was a black man.

By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone.

The popular opinion regarding slavery in the United States is that it was a simple matter of racial oppression of blacks by whites. However, the presence of black slaveholders in North America prior to the Civil War shows that slavery was not based solely on color but on economics. Black slave owners, for the most part, were complicities in support of the institution deriving from it wealth and privileges denied to other groups.

Unspoken Reality: Black Slaveholders Prior to the Civil War

Listen, you know as well as me that it was the White Americans who controlled and perpetuated a grand majority of the US slave trade, period. Blacks couldn't even vote in the US at this time.

Don't willfully be a moron for the sake of trying to keep your argument afloat; it hurts your credibility.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They have already managed to get beastiality ( sex with animals ) legalized within the military.

Link?


I refuse to google "Beastiality within the Military."

It 's no longer under penalty of the UCMJ

 

[The Rabbi]

I challenge you to man up and answer this question:

Was being gay more acceptable in 1953, or is it more acceptable now in 2013?

Which way is the tide moving?

Is it more acceptable to be a drug addict today than in 1953? How about a serial womanizer?

It was much more acceptable in 1953 to be a drug addict (ie alcohol) than in 2013. Remember how folks used to drink during their lunch break and it'd be OK? That stuff doesn't fly anymore.

Serial Womanizer? 1953 without a doubt. Think of the roles of men/women then as they compare to now...

No, drug addict. Alcoholic is not the same thing. Quit playing games.
Yes, some things are more acceptable, some less.
What was your point again?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wow, so even when talking about a subject that isn't gun-related, you still do the crazy talk.

Guy, it isn't a matter of what you taught them. Who "taught" you to be straight?

Sexual orientation is imprinted on us like hair color, and a lot harder to change.

WOW you aren't born gay that's for sure.

So if Rob Portman's son was not born gay, are you suggesting that Rob Portman taught his son to be gay? Or you're going with the falsehood that his son is just a sexual deviant who made a conscious decision to like other guys rather than women?

His son is a sexual deviant that choose to be a dick sucker.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Katz, really?

Regardless of how the Africans were initially "kidnapped", the White Americans shipped them over to the United States in 130 degree slave ships (1 of 3 perished), the White Americans auctioned them off (splitting apart families), the White Americans forced them to work on their plantations for no pay, the White Americans whipped and raped them, ect, ect.

Or am I mistaken, was it the Africans that ran the plantations and commerce in the US in 1850 and forced other Africans (in America) to work slave labor?

Be courageous and explain yourself.
.

According to colonial records, the first slave owner in the United States was a black man.

By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone.

The popular opinion regarding slavery in the United States is that it was a simple matter of racial oppression of blacks by whites. However, the presence of black slaveholders in North America prior to the Civil War shows that slavery was not based solely on color but on economics. Black slave owners, for the most part, were complicities in support of the institution deriving from it wealth and privileges denied to other groups.

Unspoken Reality: Black Slaveholders Prior to the Civil War

Are you trying to suggest that because a few blacks owned slaves, that makes the whole period of slavery in the US acceptable?

Actually it was more than a few.

And it was perfectly legal and an accepted practice in that era.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

According to colonial records, the first slave owner in the United States was a black man.

By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone.

The popular opinion regarding slavery in the United States is that it was a simple matter of racial oppression of blacks by whites. However, the presence of black slaveholders in North America prior to the Civil War shows that slavery was not based solely on color but on economics. Black slave owners, for the most part, were complicities in support of the institution deriving from it wealth and privileges denied to other groups.

Unspoken Reality: Black Slaveholders Prior to the Civil War

Are you trying to suggest that because a few blacks owned slaves, that makes the whole period of slavery in the US acceptable?

Actually it was more than a few.

And it was perfectly legal and an accepted practice in that era.

So slavery was a good thing in your deluded little world?

 

[WorldWatcher]

It didn't take a Constitutional amendment to legalize abortion. Nor to legalize marijuana.

The question was, if the SCOTUS rules in favor of national Same-sex Civil Marriage based on gender, could the decision be appealed. Similar to what happened in the Loving v. Virginia case that overruled anti-discrimination in terms of Civil Marriage based on race. The answer is no. To overrule the SCOTUS on a Constitutional issue, the requirement is then to pass a Constitutional Amendment.



>>>>

So--SCOTUS rules and each state decides to do whatever it decides to do?

eta:
The Supreme Court's Big Gay-Marriage Day, Explained | Mother Jones

<Is the Supreme Court about to legalize gay marriage in the United States?

Not exactly. The DOMA cases affect couples who are already married under state law. If DOMA is found to be unconstitutional, same-sex married couples across the United States will receive the same treatment as hetero married couples under federal law. But new couples can't get married in states where same-sex unions are not legal. The Diaz case only deals with health benefits for domestic partners employed by the government. In the Proposition 8 case, if the Supreme Court takes it on and finds the amendment unconstitutional, there is a chance the reasoning could be used by courts in other states to legalize gay marriage.>

~~~~
ok--separate issue --states legalizing same sex marriage.

As you corrected, DOMA (Section 3) is a different question and is not about changing State laws, it's about federal recognition of valid legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law.


>>>>