jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (40 posts)

A Republican Defends Humanity

  1. 0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago
    1. John Holden profile image62
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Wow. . . .just wow.

  2. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago

    She didn't defend humanity.   She used her microphone to call wrong right and right wrong.   And she used her tears.
    Wanna know something?   I've felt that heartache at the knowledge that some people I know are mired in the sad rebellious state of homosexuality.    So that woman's tears aren't unique.   Nor are they righteous.   They are a tool for the liberal agenda.   My tears are for those people because they're not hearing what they need so desperately to hear--------that they are loveable, that they are just as good people as anybody else, but that there are plenty of people who want to see them straighten out their hearts and lives and stop living under the delusion that they can't love someone of the opposite sex. 
    Pretty sad that she wanted to renege on the right choice she had made earlier.   I feel for her, even, because she's so deluded;  and yet it's maddening that she thought it was okay to be ashamed of having done the right thing.

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      She's still a Republican.  I don't see how she is a "tool for the liberal agenda at all."  What motivation would she have for helping Democrats win elections in Minnesota?

      I don't think you are insincere about your belief that homosexuality is wrong and people can escape from it.  I just happen to think you are completely wrong because the arguments against homosexuality are not strong.

  3. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    Also bears noting that Ohio Senator Rob Portman publicly reversed his views on gay marriage this week.
    Having sough counsel from another famous politician who also is the father or a gay child, Dick Cheney.
    Cheney's advice?
    Follow your heart.

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The party is changing for the better.

      What will irk me the most is when it's no longer politically viable to be against gay marriage, and then the Republican party will pretend like they were in favor of it all along and try to whitewash history the same way they do with Dr. King.  Conservatives were against him, just like they are against marriage equality.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image83
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It's quite amusing how Conservatives always forget that they've consistently been the villains when it comes to society. Today it's gay marriage, but before that it was racial equality, and before that it was women's suffrage--the right-wingers always try to cover up the fact that all of those things were "sinful," too.

  4. Tom Koecke profile image61
    Tom Koeckeposted 3 years ago

    One of the biggest differences between her speech, and Portman's changed opinion, is she regretted her decision because of conscience; Portman changed his because his son is gay. She has no vested interest in her change of heart. Portman has a son whose rights he wants upheld. I've heard it called narcissistic politics.

    It was likened to Sarah Palin being against most government programs, but supporting the programs that assist disabled children because she has a disabled child.

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I read some liberal blogs arguing for that point.  I think it has some merit, but I'm not entirely convinced.

      From a practical standpoint, I don't want to scare conservatives away from openly advocating marriage equality for fear of being labeled narcissistic.  That would be counterproductive to achieving equality for all gay Americans.

      On the other hand, it does seem a bit small minded, especially for a man as old as he is.  His life experience in politics has been filled with debates about gay rights, conversation therapy, and even decriminalizing sodomy (Supreme Court case in the early 2000s).  So, for him to say, "I hadn't given it much thought before" shows him to be either unreflective or apathetic to the plight of disadvantaged groups.  Both alternatives are damning, but it's better to have him as an ally than a foe.

      It's more than John McCain could do when Anderson Cooper asked him if he would ever change his mind.  McCain answered with a resounding no!

      1. Tom Koecke profile image61
        Tom Koeckeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree whether a person does the right thing for the right reasons, or the right thing for the wrong reasons, he or she is still doing the right thing. However, it does not do away with the fact that he didn't care about my daughter's rights until his son faced similar discrimination.

        I take pride in knowing that I didn't have to change my opinion about human rights when my daughter came out of the closet. I was simply able to continue loving her unconditionally without interruption or second thought.

        That makes me more like the lady giving the speech, having searched my soul before having to conveniently change my mind because my former opinion would now affect someone I love. She is saying the right thing for the right reason; Portman said the right thing for the wrong reason.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I look at it more as an eye-opening experience than narcissism.

          My father was extremely racist right up until he saw his first grandson (who is bi-racial).  It wasn't narcissism that made him change his mind, it was love.

          You can hate all blacks, until you love just one.  You can hate all Jews, until you love just one... and you can hate all gays, until you love just one.

          Once there is an exception, the rule kind of falls apart. That's not narcissism, that's the stunning instantaneous acquisition of knowledge.  Isn't it beautiful?

          1. 0
            Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You have more tolerance than I.  If I met someone of a different race and my parent(s) were racists, I would probably shun my parents and refuse to ever talk to them again.  I'm refuse to allow beliefs that like to simply go on like there is nothing wrong with them.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              *Smiles* Is refusing to love someone because they are racist any worse than refusing to love someone because they believe in gay marriage?

              You may disagree with somebody, but understanding will never happen if you "shun" the ones you are supposed to love because they have a different view than you.

              Each side shows intolerance.  One intolerance isn't any better than another... even if it's an intolerance you agree with wink

              1. 0
                Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Hardly an equivalent!  It's disingenuous to even suggest one.

                I will not claim anyone as family who believes an entire segment of the population is inferior because they are the wrong race.  Obviously I would not have cut off communication without having talks about it first.  But if there is no change, the person is not going to be allowed to get away with that belief and not face consequences.

                What would you do if your father said racist things around your son?  Oh, you'll just "love him anyway," even though he would be telling your son he was only half a human being!

                What if your father openly advocated slavery?  Or said Hitler was right to kill the Jews?  I don't share your mindless loyalty to inhumanity, regardless of the source it comes from.

                1. BuckyGoldstein profile image61
                  BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So, you are intolerant towards intolerance? Think you just proved her point.

                  1. Tom Koecke profile image61
                    Tom Koeckeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It doesn't prove her point. Each of us has the right to speak. No one has the right to be heard. He didn't say they didn't have the right to speak; he said he would not give them an audience.

                  2. 0
                    Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I didn't say I would put tape on anyone's mouth.  I will just not associate with such individuals. 

                    If I were to marry an African American woman, and my parents told her and me that they disapproved of the marriage because she was the wrong race, my parents would not be in my life very long.

                    Furthermore, what if I had kids?  The kids would be subjected to racist balderdash, which isn't fair or rational.

                    If Hitler was your father and you realized he was up to no good, there would be no hesitation in fleeing Germany and never speaking to him again.  Just because he was your father, it does not follow he deserved respect or love.

                    There is an irrational belief that one's parents always have good intentions or would never do something to purposely hurt you.  FALSE.  Utterly false.  Read the book For Your Own Good by Alice Miller.

          2. Tom Koecke profile image61
            Tom Koeckeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Okay, that's one way to look at it. Here's what Portman had to say:

            "At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing Jane and I have shared for 26 years."

            Here's the narcissism: ". . . a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love . . ." He had a revelation because of "his kids." He didn't care about my daughter or Sooner's brother when he didn't know about his kid. It was all about "his kid."

            It is great that Portman now supports my daughter's rights, and that your dad would have no problem with my granddaughter (who is 1/2 Mexican), now that they have faced the truth that was forced upon them.

            Better it is, though, that I was able to give both my daughter and granddaughter unconditional love without having to change my opinion on human rights. Still, it is better that both Portman and your dad were able to change their opinions, even if it took a slap to the face for them to see what is right.

        2. 0
          Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I have a gay brother, and he wasn't interested in fighting for him either. 

          When it comes to some Republicans, this is the only way they will ever change.  Just like Melissa pointed out about her father.

          What's even worse is there are some members of my extended family who still think homosexuality is wrong, even though my brother came out to them three years ago.  They are no longer in our lives tongue.  But what does it say about those type of people?  Portman was at least able to confront reality and change.  My extended family can't even say that.  And unfortunately, there are many more like them.

  5. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago

    Ya know what?

    I can tell from a lot of the posts in this thread that many liberals have no clue about conservatives' lives.  We're labeled with "hate" and "intolerance" and "prejudice" and "racist" and all that simply because of YOUR ignorance and hatred and intolerance of US.

    What I'm about to tell you may surprise you, but it's actually common knowledge for those of us who can see beyond the propoganda.
    And it is this----------many of us conservatives already HAD and HAVE family who are bi-racial,  who are "gay", who are pro-abortion, etc.     That has NEVER stopped us from loving them,  from wanting to be a part of their lives and they a part of ours,  from loving them to the core of their being---their souls.   
    But,  that doesn't mean we have to nor will condone everything they do and everything they stand for.     It's shameful when I hear people talk about how their conservative parents are horrid, when in fact maybe they're just old-fashioned and RIGHT enough to stand their ground on their values and to want the same thing for their kids.     And you're taking away MY rights and the rights of all conservatives when you try to impose your liberal non-value on the rest of us.

    Sure, it's easier to be against homosexuality when it's somebody else's kid, easier to be racist when ya don't have family who are of a different race.   But like I said,  MANY of us already HAD and DO have those people around us and in our lives.   It is very possible and very normal for us to love those people just like we love everyone else.   But it's also very normal to NOT give up our values for the sake of our children's or our step-children's or our cousins' or our whoever's rebellious attitudes.   Comes a time in many of our lives when we have to make a choice about what we want inserted into our personal lives.   That's when, often, the person who's engaging in rebellious conduct needs to make a choice within OUR boundaries as to whether they still love US enough to continue to be a part of our lives.    (And I'm talking about homosexuality and other wrong things right now, NOT race, because I see nothing wrong with interracial relationships/marriage as long as the people are doing because they love each other, not just to make a political/social statement.)

    Maybe SOME parents dis-own their children for being gay,  but I sure don't know of any who have.   Maybe SOME people actually hate them,  but I don't know anyone who hates their child.   They may hate what they do,  but they don't hate them.    They actually try to fulfill their role as parents and brothers and sisters, and associate with them and welcome them,  even if and when they have to draw a line at having perverse actions and ideas shoved upon them on their own territory.     Everyone has the right to have rules;  everyone has the right to say no to certain things.   YOU have the right to go live your lives as you wish.  WE have the right to welcome you and love you but to say NO when you try to change our principles.    WE and THEY have the right to still love you even if you choose to insult us and run from OUR values.

    I dunno if any of you understand this, but if you don't,  I'm pretty sure it's because you're not willing to even TRY.     The burden of proof of love and tolerance and acceptance for what we are and what you are and how a relationship is maintained between us is on YOU, not just on us.   And usually, it's actually predominantly on YOU.     Take responsibility yourselves, instead of blasting and slandering your mothers and fathers and fellow citizens.   STOP treating us and them inhumanely!

    You want a speech that defends humanity??  Well, you just got one.   THIS Republican just defended not only YOU but every person on this planet.
    Get a grip, people, before you cut everyone who's decent and caring and challenges you to live tolerant God-fearing lives out of your lives!

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think you need a hug. 


      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, I could use a hug.
        A plain ol' hug.
        I'm not interested in whatever that "rainbow" hug means politically or socially or whatever.
        I'm one of those average conservative people who are sooo  tired of being hurt by people who want to blast my principles and insult my Faith and blame ME for it.

        Thanks for the offer, Melissa, but it's pretty obvious that you're being condescending.
        Offer me a real hug, one without a liberal agenda, one from just one human to another, and then I'll gratefully accept.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          LOL... OK then...Kitten Hugs


          (I'm a member of the aspca and local humane society too, so still liberal sorry)

          I wasn't being condescending, I was ignoring your words to get through to the emotion behind them.  Anyone who is that angry needs a hug... badly.

          Honestly Brenda, I'm not trying to put my opinions on you. I love ya bunches, but your opinions don't affect my life so I have no need to change them.

          I will, however, lobby to change laws to allow gay marriage... No hard feelings, but your opinions shouldn't affect anyone else's life either. 

          Now you can seethe about gay marriage becoming universally legal... which appears is what is going to happen... and be excessively unhappy if you like. That's your choice. I'm not sure it is a healthy choice, or one that will bring you happiness, but to each their own.

          Conversely, you could always lobby for the anti-gay rights movement if you like. If you do choose to be active in that community, I'm not sure that posting on a writing forum is necessarily the most efficient thing you could do to that ends. Check the web, I'm sure there is a rally somewhere that you could help prepare for. You could try the Westborough Baptist Church website.  They seem to be in the forefront on that battle.

    2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      But Brenda, if you're challenging a non believer to live a God fearing life aren't you then imposing your value and belief system on them? I wouldn't dream of challenging a believer to live and believe as an atheist because I have no right, I just respect the decisions and beliefs of others, who are, and should be, entitled to worship and live as they choose, providing that they are not hurting others.

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        When anyone tries to make anyone else legally sanction perversion,  when they insult and accuse, they ARE trying to challenge "a believer to live and believe as an atheist."    Not only that, they're setting a precedent for future children who want to be able to choose right from wrong.   Sorry, but you cannot legally condone a wrong and then think that it puts no pressure on an innocent person to be a part of that wrong.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And the believer is indeed trying to force their own beliefs onto someone else.  There is no other way to look at it.  The believer is also setting a precedent for future children to do the same - declare that their own belief system is the only one appropriate  and that everyone must follow it.

          From your own post, but spoken by the "perverts":
          "WE have the right to welcome you and love you but to say NO when you try to change our principles."  You need to listen to your own words...

        2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          But Brenda, what you see as a perversion others see as a loving relationship between two people, and not wrong at all. Whilst you might find homosexuality unpalatable, which is your right, other's have the right to disagree. Yes?

          So whilst you might not agree with same sex relationships, you are not being forced to enter one. You still have the choice to live as you see fit. Whereas, if laws are created around your beliefs, eg. only marriage or relationships between the opposite sexes, then we are all forced to enter into relationships that only you agree with. Is that not an imposition of your beliefs?

    3. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The problem, as I see it, is that while you love and care for your gay family/friends, you won't let them alone to live their lives, either.  There is a continual effort to force them into your mold; to become whatever it is you deem "right".  The huge Mormon effort in California over gay marriage is an excellent example.

      Allowing others to live "wrongly" needn't and seldom does affect you or your children, but even when it does to some small extent it still doesn't give you the right to not only disagree with what is right and wrong, but to use force of law to apply those moral declarations onto others.

      Gays aren't trying to change your principles (except that of tolerance) but your are certainly trying to change theirs.  Christians as a group, and particularly the far right ones, need badly to take a good look at your post and apply the principles espoused there for others, but to their own actions and lives. 

      For they are good principles, applicable to all.  "Don't try to change my principles", "Love everyone regardless of belief", "The burden of tolerance and acceptance is on everyone (not just you)", "Do not treat others inhumanely simply because you don't agree with their values, belief system or morals".

      You've got some really good ideals in your post, mostly boiling down to the Golden Rule - if everyone, including far right Christians, would just accept them as applying equally to them as to everyone else the world would be a far better place.

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        As I thought, you don't even try.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No, Brenda, it is you that isn't trying.  I agree with very nearly everything you wrote - I just feel it needs to apply to everyone and not just the non-believers.

          I fully understand you accept and love individuals, particularly those close to you, but I also understand you will never accept that they have just as much right to their beliefs as you do.

          Do understand, too, that I refer to "you" as not necessarily you personally but all the far right Christians promoting the idea that those with other beliefs are "perverts" and that they must be controlled and their "perversions" kept out of sight.

  6. Tom Koecke profile image61
    Tom Koeckeposted 3 years ago

    What many people seem to not realize is that a marriage certificate is merely a government issued piece of paper that is filed. Having one on file does not necessarily mean you are married. There are many things that can challenge the validity of that filed piece of paper, i.e. incorrect information, a non-sanctioned person performing the wedding, an earlier one on file that has not been legally dissolved, etc.

    Not allowing gay people to file these pieces of paper makes about as much sense as not allowing gay people to file building permits or deeds. It will not make your home nicer if gay people have to live in crappy houses or are forbidden to own one.

    A marriage is a commitment. You are more in a marriage without the piece of paper by living as if married than if living as if not married with the piece of paper. Perhaps that is not true legally, but it is true spiritually.

    However, if someone still believes that gays should not marry, more power to them. If it is about the sanctity of marriage, let them never divorce. If it is about giving the children legitimacy, let no one who is unable to bear children marry. If those rules go too far, then it is not about those things, and let them do what they will and allow others the same freedoms.