Principles no longer important

[PsyOps]

Stunner: Sen. Rob Portman backs same-sex marriage - CBS News

Sen. Rob Portman says he now supports same-sex marriage because one of his sons is gay.
The Ohio Republican informed reporters from several newspapers in his home state of his reversal, which The Columbus Dispatch calls "stunning."

Portman told The Cincinnati Enquirer his evolution on the subject began in 2011 when his son, Will, then a freshman at Yale University, told his parents he was gay.

Now don’t misunderstand me here, I’m not speaking out against those who support gay marriage; I’m talking about folks that change their minds because of some event that, if it otherwise would not have happened they would not have changed their minds. This is called ‘unprincipled’. This has become the trademark of the GOP.

 

[PsyOps]

Additionally, Portman was one of Romney’s considerations for VEEP. We can’t sit around scratching our heads as to why the GOP keeps losing when we see no core principles within the party.

 

[Pushrod]

Could also be called loss of ignorance. Maybe he learned something from his son?

 

[PsyOps]

Could also be called loss of ignorance. Maybe he learned something from his son?

Let me understand… it takes learning that your son is gay to realize you support something you were against before you learned this? So, if Portman is a Christian and his son announces he is an atheist, does that mean Portman will now become an atheist? Are we really this weak-minded that our values are that easily changed? Portman was elected based on certain values and now he is doing a 180 on his constituents because of his son. I find this extremely self-centered and spits in the face of the reason he was elected. I see this as no different than running as a republican then changing parties after you got elected.

 

[GURPS]

Are we really this weak-minded that our values are that easily changed? Portman was elected based on certain values and now he is doing a 180 on his constituents because of his son.

YES

and ...
.... you can still love your gay son, but NOT Support Gay marriage or life style

if it was morally wrong and unnatural yesterday, that fact does not change today, because your son wants to live in sin with another man

same goes if your daughter wants to shack up. diddling the maid when the wife is out of town ....


still sexual sin, all are equal

 

[Pushrod]

Maybe, just maybe, his son convinced him that people in this country have equal protection under the law. If we are going to have governments in the marriage business, then they cannot discriminate.

My suggestion is to get all government out of marriages completely.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

What if something similar happened with guns?

What if an anti-gun politician was saved by someone with a CCW, or if they had to use a gun to defend themselves, or what if they didn;t have a gun and were attacked, etc.

After that, they changed their mind, and agree that citizens should have guns they want, and should have CCW permit.

Would it still be unprincipled?

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Could also be called loss of ignorance. Maybe he learned something from his son?

A lot of bigotry is ended when the bigot has an epiphany. It's actually incredibly principled to change your opinion after you realize you have been wrong. Particularly if you have been campaigning against that idea/thing/people.

 

[PsyOps]

Maybe, just maybe, his son convinced him that people in this country have equal protection under the law. If we are going to have governments in the marriage business, then they cannot discriminate.

My suggestion is to get all government out of marriages completely.

So, if you supported and voted for a candidate that was an avid 2nd amendment advocate, and his son was shot with a semi-auto rifle, and that person you voted for under the premise of his stance on gun rights decided he is now against certain guns, ammo, and clips because of this shooting and started proposing legislation to ban these things, you would be okay with this under the premise of ‘his son convinced him’. I now must abandon my principles to support my son, be damned the constituents that got me elected based on certain core principles?

It’s one thing to have citizens change their minds, that have no real wide-ranging power to influence all of our lives; it’s quite another when it’s someone that got elected based on certain understood principles. I completely get that Portman is human like the rest of us.

 

[PsyOps]

What if something similar happened with guns?

What if an anti-gun politician was saved by someone with a CCW, or if they had to use a gun to defend themselves, or what if they didn;t have a gun and were attacked, etc.

After that, they changed their mind, and agree that citizens should have guns they want, and should have CCW permit.

Would it still be unprincipled?

If that was large premise of how they got elected? Abolsutely!

And read my post above how I flipped your example the other way.

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Maybe, just maybe, his son convinced him that people in this country have equal protection under the law. If we are going to have governments in the marriage business, then they cannot discriminate.

My suggestion is to get all government out of marriages completely.

So, if you supported and voted for a candidate that was an avid 2nd amendment advocate, and his son was shot with a semi-auto rifle, and that person you voted for under the premise of his stance on gun rights decided he is now against certain guns, ammo, and clips because of this shooting and started proposing legislation to ban these things, you would be okay with this under the premise of ‘his son convinced him’. I now must abandon my principles to support my son, be damned the constituents that got me elected based on certain core principles?

It’s one thing to have citizens change their minds, that have no real wide-ranging power to influence all of our lives; it’s quite another when it’s someone that got elected based on certain understood principles. I completely get that Portman is human like the rest of us.

If you have had an epiphany and determined that your previous actions or ideals were wrong/unjust, a principled man wouldn't care that others who shared that bigoted ideal will be disappointed that he has changed his position.

A principled man would do what he knows is right and then let the voters decide at the ballot box

 

[SamSpade]

I heard this discussed on WMAL. And I understand the premise - it's not unlike believing that non-Christians will all burn in hell, until your daughter dies unsaved. I have people like this in my family - they're very sure of someone's destiny after death, until they have to face it themselves.

On the other hand - I also have changed my mind on the subject. But it's largely through similar means. When gay people were those folks over there that you tolerated politely, it was easy to dispute gay marriage. When they become part of your inner circle or family, and you deal with issues frequently, it's another matter. When you have to compare bitter divorce and infidelity among heterosexual friends and family, and compare it to gay couples you know, it's embarrassing to defend or attack it on the basis of morality.

(I've also similarly had a change of heart with regard to drug and alcohol addiction, having had over the past many years to deal with it directly. I wouldn't call my change more sympathetic, but more understanding).

Put simply, having the issue so close to you forces you to face it personally and compels you to try to understand, where previously you could just deal with the issue as an academic exercise.

I am a little surprised that the first ones out of the gate to criticize him are conservatives, as I am certain that his liberal opponents will no doubt greet his change of heart with less than loving arms.

 

[PsyOps]

I heard this discussed on WMAL. And I understand the premise - it's not unlike believing that non-Christians will all burn in hell, until your daughter dies unsaved. I have people like this in my family - they're very sure of someone's destiny after death, until they have to face it themselves.

On the other hand - I also have changed my mind on the subject. But it's largely through similar means. When gay people were those folks over there that you tolerated politely, it was easy to dispute gay marriage. When they become part of your inner circle or family, and you deal with issues frequently, it's another matter. When you have to compare bitter divorce and infidelity among heterosexual friends and family, and compare it to gay couples you know, it's embarrassing to defend or attack it on the basis of morality.

(I've also similarly had a change of heart with regard to drug and alcohol addiction, having had over the past many years to deal with it directly. I wouldn't call my change more sympathetic, but more understanding).

Put simply, having the issue so close to you forces you to face it personally and compels you to try to understand, where previously you could just deal with the issue as an academic exercise.

I am a little surprised that the first ones out of the gate to criticize him are conservatives, as I am certain that his liberal opponents will no doubt greet his change of heart with less than loving arms.

I’m not trying to make a moral point about gay marriage. This sort of thing Portman did applies to any issue: abortion, 2A, drugs, taxes… If a candidate is elected on a certain platform and violates that after being elected, his principles can be and should be called into question.

I will step back and make this caveat though… For a long time I was against abortion from a legal standpoint. I wanted laws to ban it. I was also against making drugs legal. I have changed my position on this – not based on any individual experience, And not based on acceptance of the practices; but based on the realization of individual liberty. I am still against abortion, drugs, etc…. but recognize government should not be banning these things. So my principles on the issue have not changed, but my view on how government should handle it has. So my caveat to Portman would be that if he is changing more on the angle of individual liberty but still disagrees with the practice, then I can accept that. But if he did a complete flip on whether he believes gay marriage is acceptable where he didn’t before, I find that bothersome; bothersome from a political position. I don’t care what he believes personally, except that it affects his decisions as a lawmaker, and that potentially affects all of our lives.

The question is, what other issues can we expect him to flip on?

 

[tommyjo]

Stunner: Sen. Rob Portman backs same-sex marriage - CBS News


I’m talking about folks that change their minds because of some event that, if it otherwise would not have happened they would not have changed their minds. This is called ‘unprincipled’. This has become the trademark of the GOP.

No its not called unprincipled.

The mark of a good leader, the mark of an intelligent person is that they change their opinions, they change their outlook, they change their solution set to a problem as the facts change.

Mr. Portman is not unprincipled...the facts changed for him and he changed his opinion.

"changing of minds" That is not at all the trademark of the GOP...the trademark of the GOP is an incomprehensible refusal to accept the basic premises that new information becomes does become available, that societal patterns and desires do change over time, that your "granpappys" way of doing things just may not fit in the modern world.

Even in the face of overwhelming public support for a position...the GOP refuses to consider even the slightest modification of its antiquated positions...

 

[Chris0nllyn]

No its not called unprincipled.

The mark of a good leader, the mark of an intelligent person is that they change their opinions, they change their outlook, they change their solution set to a problem as the facts change.

Mr. Portman is not unprincipled...the facts changed for him and he changed his opinion.

"changing of minds" That is not at all the trademark of the GOP...the trademark of the GOP is an incomprehensible refusal to accept the basic premises that new information becomes does become available, that societal patterns and desires do change over time, that your "granpappys" way of doing things just may not fit in the modern world.

Even in the face of overwhelming public support for a position...the GOP refuses to consider even the slightest modification of its antiquated positions...

Now, if only our dear leader would actually act like one we'd be in business!

 

[dontknowwhy]

Wirelessly posted




If you have had an epiphany and determined that your previous actions or ideals were wrong/unjust, a principled man wouldn't care that others who shared that bigoted ideal will be disappointed that he has changed his position.

A principled man would do what he knows is right and then let the voters decide at the ballot box

kinda like electing Obama on his priciples of not raising taxes on the middle class & the hope he would bring this Country closer together on racial unity his first time running.
Then he had an overnight epiphany that to hell with my promises...higher taxes for everybody & da debill whitey be damned...

I see exactly what you mean TOG

Oh, and a ballot box doesn't help when the Dems are rigging the elections like they do so well...

 

[PsyOps]

No its not called unprincipled.

The mark of a good leader, the mark of an intelligent person is that they change their opinions, they change their outlook, they change their solution set to a problem as the facts change.

Mr. Portman is not unprincipled...the facts changed for him and he changed his opinion.

"changing of minds" That is not at all the trademark of the GOP...the trademark of the GOP is an incomprehensible refusal to accept the basic premises that new information becomes does become available, that societal patterns and desires do change over time, that your "granpappys" way of doing things just may not fit in the modern world.

Even in the face of overwhelming public support for a position...the GOP refuses to consider even the slightest modification of its antiquated positions...

I’m not sure why I’m wasting my time with your drive-by drivel, but for sake of others reading…

If Portman had gone the other way (from pro-gay marriage to anti-gay marriage) with this you’d be having a hissy fit criticizing him for how uniformed, unintelligent, and unprincipled he is; and no doubt calling him a bigot.

We don’t expect the people we elect – especially when we vote for them on issues that MATTER TO US (you know that definition of representative government) – to violate our trust by taking personal experiences to affect what we thought was their ideological center.

 

[SamSpade]

Even in the face of overwhelming public support for a position...the GOP refuses to consider even the slightest modification of its antiquated positions...

The GOP doesn't have the market cornered on this kind of thinking. I'll grant you they are slow to innovate - which was the original reason I registered as a Democrat - but to their credit, they do try to err on the side of pragmatism: see if it works *here* before implementing everywhere.

(Case in point: wouldn't it have been more intelligent to test case Obamacare in states that wanted it - rather than implement a massive federal program that for good or bad, would be extremely difficult to undo?)

Democrats still have antiquated notions of job creation, economics, ending poverty, ending racism and so forth. They still try to solve these problems with programs that, after 50-70 years have barely moved the needle and in some cases have measurably made it worse. The amount of money we've spent to end poverty hasn't resulted in a lower level of poverty. Response? Keep doing it.

While the GOP frequently makes appeals to old-fashioned ideas to generate interest, the Democrats are famous for stirring pathos with no semblance of logic to gather support for their own ideas. You can always find them after some tragic event trying to whip up support for a cause, even if below the surface, there's no connection other than an emotional appeal.

 

[SamSpade]

We don’t expect the people we elect – especially when we vote for them on issues that MATTER TO US (you know that definition of representative government) – to violate our trust by taking personal experiences to affect what we thought was their ideological center.

I can't recall - or find supporting evidence - that gay marriage was ever a pivotal issue in any campaign of his, especially recently. Abortion seems to be the big social issue, for him.

He learned of his son's orientation about two years ago - and he has taken that long to reverse his opinion, so it can hardly be said that he just up and changed his mind on a whim.

 

[Ken King]

We don’t expect the people we elect – especially when we vote for them on issues that MATTER TO US (you know that definition of representative government) – to violate our trust by taking personal experiences to affect what we thought was their ideological center.

Hang on a minute, I always thought that one's elected representative in a representative government represents every constituent, not just those that voted for them. Sometimes doing what is best for a given situation isn't aways going to be what those that elected them thinks is the best. If you have someone lock step with those that elected them then they certainly aren't representing the interests of all they have a duty to represent.