bail on the whole country because your son wants a special benefit?
Nice work, Portman...
What I said on an earlier thread:
The notion that we must endorse the sin of someone we love is a reversal of all morality.
Rob Portman, and indeed most of Western civilization, will continue to decline—rapidly—if the population doesn’t get this concept correct.
We can love our children, but not their behavior.
What if I were an alcoholic, or what if I were inclined to abuse someone who angers me? I was “born” that way, you know. I can’t help myself, it is just the way I am!
Well, Mr. Portman (and the rest of the West!), you are just going to have to accept me. More than that, you’re going to have to pass laws that ENDORSE my actions!
There is such a thing as “right” and “wrong”.
We are calling good “evil” and evil “good”, something the sages from Moses to Jesus to Paul to Aquinas to Calvin and Luther warned against. And we do this to our detriment.
Seems to me a parent can love a child without supporting their bad choices.
This reversal by Portman seems politically motivated to avoid tough questions from the media that Portman does not have the moral fiber to answer. Now, he is amoral - there is no right or wrong.
“For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” - 2 Timothy 3:2-5
Once again, God gets it right, Senator Portman.
Men on Men is particularly offensive and downright dangerous and risky.
Its like seeing how many cheap hookers you can find for unprotected action.
A "gay" caller asked him "what if your son was gay? What would you do?". Of course this question is the classic one designed to make you tongue-tied, if not shut you up completely.
Reggie answered "I would still love my son, but have him seek help and guidance" or words to that effect.
The most simple of answers, yet I have seldom hear anyone, at least in the public eye, respond this simply and cogently. Instead, you get responses like Portman ("you're right, now I must change my views"), or the person actually does become flummoxed and not know how to answer such a simple question.
ok second thread,
Portman knew for years.
Romney’s vp selection committee knew.
Portman is compromised and was blackmail”able”
Portman should have kicked out his son.
Portman is trying to oppose preemptivly a constitutional amendment.
Portman is playing the “chritian means you have to be a sucker” card.
Portman is deluding himself with the born that way lie.
Logic and reason dictate why homsexuality and any marriage based on the fetish is illogical and unreasonable.
Portman should resign effective immediatly.