Sen. Rob Portman changes stance on gay marriage 2 years after son says he's gay

[nehalem256]

100% Wrong. Couples not involving children, whether homo- or hetero-sexual, are a benefit to the economy; Dual Income No Kids.

No, you are 100% wrong. First of all its not like people are going to stop working, because they are not in a government recognized relationship.

Second I said:

The only open question is how much MORE important are heterosexual couples.

What is so difficult for you to understand. You keep arguing that heterosexual couples provide all the same benefits to society PLUS the important function of controlling pro-creation. There can be no disputing that heterosexual couples are more important.

But lets put this in short-bus terms. If you have one pile of money with $100 and one pile with $101, which pile is more valuable?

Society has a special interest in relationships that benefit it, and since procreation is not something our society has a problem doing, it is not the only concern and relationships between those who can procreate are not the only relationships that benefit society.

That would seem to be an argument in favor of the government handing out special BFF certificates now wouldn't it?

 

[nehalem256]

No, deciding to use her business to push a political agenda cost her some lawsuits. You don't put up a sign saying you support this or that in your business, you just sell flowers.

You would have a point if you were talking about a mega-corporation like Walmart.

But when you are talking about a small business there is essentially no difference between the business and the person.

There can be no question that legalizing SSM lessened the woman's quality of life. None.

 

[zsdersw]

No, you are 100% wrong. First of all its not like people are going to stop working, because they are not in a government recognized relationship.

Second I said:

No, you're 100% wrong on same-sex marriage... and always will be. Aren't you the one who thinks the husband should work and the wife should stay at home and raise the kids? You know, the Leave it to Beaver thing?

What is so difficult for you to understand. You keep arguing that heterosexual couples provide all the same benefits to society PLUS the important function of controlling pro-creation. There can be no disputing that heterosexual couples are more important.

They're neither more nor less important to society. Marriage is an ideal arrangement, something to strive for. When any couple, hetero- or homo-sexual, strives for that ideal lifelong loving committed relationship, society benefits. Procreation can just as easily happen via one-night-stands.

If procreation is so important, shouldn't we give every heterosexual.. whether they're married or not.. some kind of benefit simply for being heterosexual? After all, they're the ones who can make kids.

Your fixation on procreation is absurd. History's fixation on procreation as a purpose for marriage is absurd.

But lets put this in short-bus terms. If you have one pile of money with $100 and one pile with $101, which pile is more valuable?

Perhaps you belong on the short bus. All this time you have never referred to homosexual relationships as being so nearly as valuable to society as being "$1 away" from equal.

I reject your wholly false characterization of the importance of some relationships and the relative non-importance of others anyway, so it doesn't really matter. You're still just as wrong.

That would seem to be an argument in favor of the government handing out special BFF certificates now wouldn't it?

No, it would not. Unlike you, I actually have a best friend. Our relationship is like family, not romance. My BFF is also a guy, so it's not like I can't make the distinction between a family-type relationship and a romantic and/or sexual one.

 

[zsdersw]

There can be no question that legalizing SSM lessened the woman's quality of life. None.

There is no escaping the consequences of our choices. She chose to let her personal feelings interfere with her business. As a result, a customer chose to pursue legal action.

 

[nehalem256]

There is no escaping the consequences of our choices. She chose to let her personal feelings interfere with her business. As a result, a customer chose to pursue legal action.

And this is all a consequence of Washington legalizing SSM.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

 

[zsdersw]

And this is all a consequence of Washington legalizing SSM.

She is not exempt from the consequences of her choices just because her state legalized SSM.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Why are you a dumbass?

 

[Matt1970]

You would have a point if you were talking about a mega-corporation like Walmart.

But when you are talking about a small business there is essentially no difference between the business and the person.

There can be no question that legalizing SSM lessened the woman's quality of life. None.

Well if you want to run your flower business by checking political party cards at the door then more power to you. I personally don't like cutting my customer base in half. I do that by rarely ever talking about politics with my customers.

 

[nehalem256]

No, you're 100% wrong on same-sex marriage... and always will be. Aren't you the one who thinks the husband should work and the wife should stay at home and raise the kids? You know, the Leave it to Beaver thing?

I think you are drastically oversimplifying my position. For a minority of women having a career is the correct choice. But don't take my word for it:

84% of working women told ForbesWoman and TheBump that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghanc...out-the-new-american-dream-for-working-women/

You appear to be confusing my with liberals who want women to be just like men. I am capable of drawing more distinctions.

They're neither more nor less important to society. Marriage is an ideal arrangement, something to strive for. When any couple, hetero- or homo-sexual, strives for that ideal lifelong loving committed relationship, society benefits. Procreation can just as easily happen via one-night-stands.

If procreation is so important, shouldn't we give every heterosexual.. whether they're married or not.. some kind of benefit simply for being heterosexual? After all, they're the ones who can make kids.

Of course procreation can happen through ONS. However, this is normally considered a bad thing. And for this reason society created rules and structures(marriage) to prevent it.

Your fixation on procreation is absurd. History's fixation on procreation as a purpose for marriage is absurd.

So basically the whole concept of marriage from the beginning of time until 1970ish was absurd

Sounds to me like you are once again conceding that the relationship you describe as "marriage" has nothing to do with real marriage.

You just borrowed the term marriage to refer to your institution in order to appropriate the benefits and rights associated with real marriage.

Perhaps you belong on the short bus. All this time you have never referred to homosexual relationships as being so nearly as valuable to society as being "$1 away" from equal.

I reject your wholly false characterization of the importance of some relationships and the relative non-importance of others anyway, so it doesn't really matter. You're still just as wrong.

You appear to be missing the point. At best homosexual relationships are nearly as valuable, but still clearly less valuable as evidenced from your own statements.

To claim that homosexual relationships are equal in value to heterosexual relationships is absurd. The relative value is the only open question.

No, it would not. Unlike you, I actually have a best friend. Our relationship is like family, not romance. My BFF is also a guy, so it's not like I can't make the distinction between a family-type relationship and a romantic and/or sexual one.

Once again you reveal you have no understanding of what marriage is. Marriage is forming a new family unit with another person.

To buy your logic it would make more sense for the government to recognize a relationship between you and a hooker, than between you and your BFF.

 

[nehalem256]

She is not exempt from the consequences of her choices just because her state legalized SSM.

The claim was that no one would suffer consequences because of its legalization. This is clearly false. And in fact SSM supporters are reveling in causing suffering because of it.

To see she is not exempt from consequences is to freely admit that legalizing SSM causes suffering.

 

[zsdersw]

I think you are drastically oversimplifying my position. For a minority of women having a career is the correct choice. But don't take my word for it:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghanc...out-the-new-american-dream-for-working-women/

You appear to be confusing my with liberals who want women to be just like men. I am capable of drawing more distinctions.

You think women shouldn't be allowed in the workforce.

Of course procreation can happen through ONS. However, this is normally considered a bad thing. And for this reason society created rules and structures(marriage) to prevent it.

Marriage doesn't prevent bad things from happening.

So basically the whole concept of marriage from the beginning of time until 1970ish was absurd

Yes. I don't care if you don't agree, you're still wrong and I remain right.

Sounds to me like you are once again conceding that the relationship you describe as "marriage" has nothing to do with real marriage.

You just borrowed the term marriage to refer to your institution in order to appropriate the benefits and rights associated with real marriage.

"Real marriage" is not something you or history get to define.

You appear to be missing the point. At best homosexual relationships are nearly as valuable, but still clearly less valuable as evidenced from your own statements.

They're clearly as valuable. Both relationship worlds, homosexual and heterosexual, are in need of repair. Heterosexuals should stop regarding marriage as trivial and temporary and homosexuals should have marriage, as a permanent bond, to aspire to. Homosexual relationships that are loving, committed, and permanent are as valuable as heterosexual relationships because they're rare.

To claim that homosexual relationships are equal in value to heterosexual relationships is absurd. The relative value is the only open question.

No, they are equal in value to society.

Once again you reveal you have no understanding of what marriage is. Marriage is forming a new family unit with another person.

Once again, neither you nor history get to define what marriage is and will always be.

To buy your logic it would make more sense for the government to recognize a relationship between you and a hooker, than between you and your BFF.

You apparently don't know what logic is, because you've failed at it.

 

[zsdersw]

The claim was that no one would suffer consequences because of its legalization. This is clearly false. And in fact SSM supporters are reveling in causing suffering because of it.

They "suffer consequences" when they get involved, negatively, with someone's same-sex marriage.

To see she is not exempt from consequences is to freely admit that legalizing SSM causes suffering.

Wrong. Try to follow the logic:

- SSM was legalized in Washington.
- She does not support SSM.
- She has a business.
- She chose to express her disapproval of SSM to a customer.

This caused the customer to pursue legal action. She made the choice to interject her feelings into a business transaction.

 

[nehalem256]

You think women shouldn't be allowed in the workforce.

I have never made that claim.

Marriage doesn't prevent bad things from happening.

Marriage certainly decreases the number of bastard children born.

Yes. I don't care if you don't agree, you're still wrong and I remain right.

"Real marriage" is not something you or history get to define.

You claimed that the idea of marriage from beginning of time until 1970ish was absurd.

You don't believe in marriage. You have applied the name marriage to an entirely different thing. And then you throw a fit when anyone calls you on your BS.

They're clearly as valuable. Both relationship worlds, homosexual and heterosexual, are in need of repair. Heterosexuals should stop regarding marriage as trivial and temporary and homosexuals should have marriage, as a permanent bond, to aspire to. Homosexual relationships that are loving, committed, and permanent are as valuable as heterosexual relationships because they're rare.

From your own statements you disagree.

You may regard homosexual relationships as the $99 vs $100. But nearly as valuable is not as valuable.

Also, from the bolded, it would seem from that statement to be equally sensible to recognize BFFs.

 

[nehalem256]

They "suffer consequences" when they get involved, negatively, with someone's same-sex marriage.

She did nothing to impact the other person's SSM. She simply said she would not participate in their wedding.

Wrong. Try to follow the logic:

- SSM was legalized in Washington.
- She does not support SSM.
- She has a business.
- She chose to express her disapproval of SSM to a customer.

This caused the customer to pursue legal action. She made the choice to interject her feelings into a business transaction.

Heaven forbid she not be a unfeeling robot.

Also note what is at the top of the chain. If SSM was not legalized she would not have faced legal sanctions. Oh, and it wasn't just the customer, the AG also decided to sue her for the audacity of disagreeing with SSM.

 

[zsdersw]

I have never made that claim.

It is evident from everything you post about women and families.

Marriage certainly decreases the number of bastard children born.

But not the number of children who are bastards. It takes parents who truly value and recognize the commitment of having a child for that to decrease.

You claimed that the idea of marriage from beginning of time until 1970ish was absurd.

Because it is.

You don't believe in marriage. You have applied the name marriage to an entirely different thing. And then you throw a fit when anyone calls you on your BS.

There's no BS to call. The fact remains, you don't get to define what is and isn't marriage.

From your own statements you disagree.

You may regard homosexual relationships as the $99 vs $100. But nearly as valuable is not as valuable.

I regard them both as $100.

Also, from the bolded, it would seem from that statement to be equally sensible to recognize BFFs.

Nope. BFFs are not thought of by anyone who has a BFF or is someone's BFF as being at all like a marriage. The participants define what their relationship is, not you.

 

[zsdersw]

She did nothing to impact the other person's SSM. She simply said she would not participate in their wedding.

... knowing full well that her participation was desired by the customer because of their lengthy business relationship.

Heaven forbid she not be a unfeeling robot.

You can be a feeling person and still separate your personal views from business transactions.

Also note what is at the top of the chain. If SSM was not legalized she would not have faced legal sanctions. Oh, and it wasn't just the customer, the AG also decided to sue her for the audacity of disagreeing with SSM.

No one is exempt from the consequences of their choices, regardless of what preceded the choice. We don't choose what happens to us, only how we react to it.

You're an idiot if you think otherwise. Oh, who am I kidding, of course you're an idiot. You're always an idiot on here.

 

[nehalem256]

... knowing full well that her participation was desired by the customer because of their lengthy business relationship.

And what is your point. The woman desired not to participate in a SSM.

You can be a feeling person and still separate your personal views from business transactions.

No one is exempt from the consequences of their choices, regardless of what preceded the choice. We don't choose what happens to us, only how we react to it.

You're an idiot if you think otherwise. Oh, who am I kidding, of course you're an idiot. You're always an idiot on here.

And? Clearly the woman suffered because of the legalization of SSM. This is inarguable.

And in fact there was no way around. Either she would be forced to participate in ceremonies she finds detestable, or she would be sued by the state AG. Either way suffering.

 

[zsdersw]

And what is your point. The woman desired not to participate in a SSM.

She's free to make that choice, and others are free to take her to court. She's not exempt from the consequences of making that choice just because you say she is or because you are of the same opinion as her on SSMs.

And? Clearly the woman suffered because of the legalization of SSM. This is inarguable.

She suffered because she chose to conflate her personal feelings with her business. That's almost always a path that leads to suffering in the world of small business. It doesn't matter if it's about GLBT issues or anything else, letting your personal feelings get in the way of business transactions is a recipe for suffering.

And in fact there was no way around. Either she would be forced to participate in ceremonies she finds detestable, or she would be sued by the state AG. Either way suffering.

Sure there was a way around. She could've said she wasn't available on the day of the wedding (or made other appointments so she actually was unavailable) or outsourced it to someone else; hired someone for a day to do what she needed to do.

 

[nehalem256]

It is evident from everything you post about women and families.

No its not. Men and women are different. But one woman is not the same as another. For some women having career is the right choice. But unlike liberals I do not think that society should be reorganizing itself so that we can force all women into the workplace to be just like men.

But not the number of children who are bastards. It takes parents who truly value and recognize the commitment of having a child for that to decrease.

Because it is.

So why are you taking the name for what you find an absurd institution and applying it to a completely different one that you support?

I regard them both as $100.

You have clearly stated that heterosexual relationships are more valuable. You have said that heterosexual relationships give society everything that homosexual relationships do as well as procreation.

You are now trying to cover up your concession.

Nope. BFFs are not thought of by anyone who has a BFF or is someone's BFF as being at all like a marriage. The participants define what their relationship is, not you.

Which seems to be another way of saying that marriage is a meaningless idea since its participants can define it to be anything.

 

[nehalem256]

She's free to make that choice, and others are free to take her to court. She's not exempt from the consequences of making that choice just because you say she is or because you are of the same opinion as her on SSMs.

And that means she is not suffering how?

She suffered because she chose to conflate her personal feelings with her business.

For a small business there is really no distinction between the 2.

Sure there was a way around. She could've said she wasn't available on the day of the wedding (or made other appointments so she actually was unavailable) or outsourced it to someone else; hired someone for a day to do what she needed to do.

Interesting. So the problem isn't that she didn't service the wedding. The problem is she was honest.

 

[zsdersw]

No its not. Men and women are different. But one woman is not the same as another. For some women having career is the right choice. But unlike liberals I do not think that society should be reorganizing itself so that we can force all women into the workplace to be just like men.

Yes it is. You're a 1950s throwback who probably should've stayed there.

So why are you taking the name for what you find an absurd institution and applying it to a completely different one that you support?

It's not an absurd institution, your definition and claim over what it can be defined as is what's absurd.

You have clearly stated that heterosexual relationships are more valuable. You have said that heterosexual relationships give society everything that homosexual relationships do as well as procreation.

No, that is not at all what I said or a reasonable synopsis thereof.

You are now trying to cover up your concession.

You're twisting what I have actually said to suit your own position... something you've been called out on many times before. It's what trolls do.

It's also what idiots do... and you're an idiot.

Which seems to be another way of saying that marriage is a meaningless idea since its participants can define it to be anything.

There are two institutions in our society that get to define things: government and religion. Since adherence to religion is not compulsory but adherence to government laws and rules is, as a citizen, government can define what it considers a marriage. As a democracy (or republic, if you prefer), we as citizens have a say in what government considers a marriage. The definition you use or dipshits at the Heritage Foundation use or anyone throughout history used does not apply to or in any way restrict how our government can define marriage.

 

[zsdersw]

And that means she is not suffering how?

She's suffering for her choices, not because SSM was legalized.

For a small business there is really no distinction between the 2.

Small businesses make the distinction all the time. I've been to and even worked for quite a few.

Interesting. So the problem isn't that she didn't service the wedding. The problem is she was honest.

The problem is she chose to put her personal feelings ahead of her business... and that decision has a cost.

 

[zsdersw]

I'm not going to stop refuting your idiocy, nehalem. Count on it.

 

[nehalem256]

She's suffering for her choices, not because SSM was legalized.

Small businesses make the distinction all the time. I've been to and even worked for quite a few.

She is suffering because SSM was legalized and liberals want to force their views on marriage on to her.

The problem is she chose to put her personal feelings ahead of her business... and that decision has a cost.

And according to you there would have been no problems with doing that so long as she lied.

 

[zsdersw]

She is suffering because SSM was legalized and liberals want to force their views on marriage on to her.

Incorrect. She's suffering because of a choice she made. SSM being legalized doesn't exempt everyone who objects to that from the consequences of every choice they make.

And according to you there would have been no problems with doing that so long as she lied.

Well, most likely there wouldn't have been any lawsuits. She could've also changed her schedule around or made other bookings for that day.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes it is. You're a 1950s throwback who probably should've stayed there.



It's not an absurd institution, your definition and claim over what it can be defined as is what's absurd.

So basically the whole concept of marriage from the beginning of time until 1970ish was absurd

Yes. I don't care if you don't agree, you're still wrong and I remain right.

You find the institution of marriage as understood until the 1970s to be absurd.

You have then defined an entirely different concept and borrowed the name marriage for it.

Why does it make sense to take the name from what you have called an absurd concept and apply it to a concept you support?

No, that is not at all what I said or a reasonable synopsis thereof.

You're twisting what I have actually said to suit your own position... something you've been called out on many times before. It's what trolls do.

It's also what idiots do... and you're an idiot.

I have twisted nothing:

No it's not. Procreation is not the only important thing to society, or even the most important thing. Improving health, maximizing personal happiness, productivity, and overall quality of life while minimizing crime, substance abuse, poverty, and neglect... these are things as important to society as the creation of more people. If creating more people were the only important or most important thing, we'd all be grown in tubes in a mass-production scenario.

From the first bolded you are conceding that procreation is something important to society.

From the second bolded you go on to list a number of other things you think marriage provides that are important that apply to hetero and homo couples.

So from you own claims there is no conclusion other than that heterosexual relationships provide more important things to society than homosexual relationships.

There are two institutions in our society that get to define things: government and religion. Since adherence to religion is not compulsory but adherence to government laws and rules is, as a citizen, government can define what it considers a marriage. As a democracy (or republic, if you prefer), we as citizens have a say in what government considers a marriage.

Where have I brought up religion?

The definition you use or dipshits at the Heritage Foundation use or anyone throughout history used does not apply to or in any way restrict how our government can define marriage.

You mean the NYTs article I linked backing up my point yesterday?