Thinking of other people's children, too
Options
Azdak
Posts: 8,281 Member
Today, Rob Portman, Senator from Ohio, announced that he was dropping his opposition to gay marriage. Ordinarily, I would be happy to hear such news--one more step on the road to a more moral and just society, yadayada......
And, I suppose a part of me can take an intellectual view and just look at the positive.
However, it struck me, after reading Portman's statement, that this was in many ways as selfish a gesture as his previous opposition.
Part of the statement:
So, basically, until this affected him personally, he didn't really give a cr@p.
Now, Portman is not the first or last conservative to change his mind after reality slapped him with an empathy stick. Even the Most Evil One, **** Cheney, was able to find a spark of human decency inside his black helmet when he discovered his daughter was gay. But, to me, their "enlightenment" would count for a lot more if it had occurred before either of them realized their families would benefit from the change of heart.
The revelation unleashed a number of Twitter comments from those thinking like me: e.g. if Republicans only gave birth to some poor, black, or latino babies, maybe we could make some progress in this country. Or lose their health insurance.
But it does raise a larger question about how we should look at society. Wouldn't we be better off if we regarded everyone's children as our own? Isn't the sign of a more moral, more just, more civilized society the level of empathy we show to others?
Actually that sounds like a good basis for a religion. I wonder if anyone has ever thought of that before?
I have been disappointed, although I guess not entirely surprised, at the reaction that has occurred in this country, starting on 9/11 and especially since the economic crash of 2008. The usual reaction of a society that is faced with those conditions is pretty much what we have seen--increased fear, increased polarization, people preoccupied with their well-being at the expense of everyone, people suspicious that everyone else is out to "steal their stuff". This has been a common pattern throughout history.
But I always wanted to think that Americans were better.
Yes, these are uncertain times, but rather than assuming that there are hordes of faceless people out there conspiring to take advantage of you, stop and think that everyone is somebody's child, and that they are all looking for the same things--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And, I suppose a part of me can take an intellectual view and just look at the positive.
However, it struck me, after reading Portman's statement, that this was in many ways as selfish a gesture as his previous opposition.
Part of the statement:
"I'm announcing today a change of heart on an issue that a lot of people feel strongly about," Portman said. "It has to do with gay couples' opportunity to marry. And during my career in the House and also last couple years here in the Senate, you know, I've taken a position against gay marriage, rooted in part in my faith and my faith tradition. And had a very personal experience, which is my son came to Jane, my wife, and I, told us that he was gay and that it was not a choice and that, you know he, that's just part of who he is, and he'd been that way ever since he could remember."
Portman said his son's revelation led him to drop his opposition to same-sex marriage. "
So, basically, until this affected him personally, he didn't really give a cr@p.
Now, Portman is not the first or last conservative to change his mind after reality slapped him with an empathy stick. Even the Most Evil One, **** Cheney, was able to find a spark of human decency inside his black helmet when he discovered his daughter was gay. But, to me, their "enlightenment" would count for a lot more if it had occurred before either of them realized their families would benefit from the change of heart.
The revelation unleashed a number of Twitter comments from those thinking like me: e.g. if Republicans only gave birth to some poor, black, or latino babies, maybe we could make some progress in this country. Or lose their health insurance.
But it does raise a larger question about how we should look at society. Wouldn't we be better off if we regarded everyone's children as our own? Isn't the sign of a more moral, more just, more civilized society the level of empathy we show to others?
Actually that sounds like a good basis for a religion. I wonder if anyone has ever thought of that before?
I have been disappointed, although I guess not entirely surprised, at the reaction that has occurred in this country, starting on 9/11 and especially since the economic crash of 2008. The usual reaction of a society that is faced with those conditions is pretty much what we have seen--increased fear, increased polarization, people preoccupied with their well-being at the expense of everyone, people suspicious that everyone else is out to "steal their stuff". This has been a common pattern throughout history.
But I always wanted to think that Americans were better.
Yes, these are uncertain times, but rather than assuming that there are hordes of faceless people out there conspiring to take advantage of you, stop and think that everyone is somebody's child, and that they are all looking for the same things--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
0
Replies
-
I just want to address the selfishness. I see how it appears selfish, and it would mean more if the change came from genuine compassion for his fellow man, but I want to give him the benefit of the doubt on this issue. Sometimes is just takes personal experience to change a person's deep-seated beliefs and this reaction was better than the possible alternatives. They could have denied it or disowned him, or accepted his homosexuality but still be against gay marriage. Parents have sent kids to gay treatment centers.
I also imagine this wasn't an easy position to come to as a religious person and a Republican. I hope that his change of heart, regardless of how it happened, will have a positive effect on the people who respect him.0 -
the man has become enlightened & seen that his previous stance on the subject was wrong. Isn't that the best we can expect from people?0
-
I just want to address the selfishness. I see how it appears selfish, and it would mean more if the change came from genuine compassion for his fellow man, but I want to give him the benefit of the doubt on this issue. Sometimes is just takes personal experience to change a person's deep-seated beliefs and this reaction was better than the possible alternatives. They could have denied it or disowned him, or accepted his homosexuality but still be against gay marriage. Parents have sent kids to gay treatment centers.
I also imagine this wasn't an easy position to come to as a religious person and a Republican. I hope that his change of heart, regardless of how it happened, will have a positive effect on the people who respect him.
exactly this.
OP, Im not even going to touch the rest of that foolishness that you wrote.0 -
I agree with your post, on the whole, OP. We're all in this together.0
-
I agree with your post, on the whole, OP. We're all in this together.
You support the part where op basically says republicans are evil? Typical liberal crap, just like conservatives social policies.0 -
the man has become enlightened & seen that his previous stance on the subject was wrong. Isn't that the best we can expect from people?
No way, he's damned if he do and damned if he don't. Death to conservatives! :huh:
OP, I disagree that their stance is less valuable because it came about when they realized how the topic affected them. If anything, I have a lot of respect for someone who has very loudly and publicly held one stance and then has the humility and gumption to not only identify that they were wrong, but to also confess that info publicly.
It takes a lot to confess you were wrong. It's hard to do in our own personal lives, how much more difficult is it when the whole world is hanging on your every word?0 -
So, basically, until this affected him personally, he didn't really give a cr@p.
Unfortunately, this is true for a lot of people regardless of position, political standing, whatever...
In my opinion though, it would have been worse if his son did come out to him and his wife and he STILL deny the freedom of consenting adults to partner with whomever they wish.0 -
Just saw a news story on Yahoo's home page, re: Hilary Clinton now accepts gay marriage. The descriptive line said that since her travels around the world have taught her so much, she has "thought anew" about gay marriage.
Now I am a cynical conservative, and my immediate thought is that she's trying to pander to 2016 voters......but then I wondered if OP would be skeptical of Hilary's new stance, or if she's allowed to change her mind and not have her motives questioned.....0 -
Just saw a news story on Yahoo's home page, re: Hilary Clinton now accepts gay marriage. The descriptive line said that since her travels around the world have taught her so much, she has "thought anew" about gay marriage.
Now I am a cynical conservative, and my immediate thought is that she's trying to pander to 2016 voters......but then I wondered if OP would be skeptical of Hilary's new stance, or if she's allowed to change her mind and not have her motives questioned.....
I think that is true amongst ones own idiology... because that person is a Political Party favorite. But hey they all pander by "changing their minds" or saying it's "above their paygrade" or some such like that... But Conservatives can't change their mind according to "Liberals" nor can "Liberals" according to Conservatives.
BTW: I use the term "Liberal" loosely because modern "Liberals" are not truly liberal, but progressive statists calling themselves liberals.... not going to discuss my opinion on this further just wanted to explain why I put the term liberals in qoutations.0 -
BTW: I use the term "Liberal" loosely because modern "Liberals" are not truly liberal, but progressive statists calling themselves liberals.... not going to discuss my opinion on this further just wanted to explain why I put the term liberals in qoutations.
"Liberal" is as loosely defined as "conservative" and everyone is statist to a certain degree, unless you're an anarchist. At least, that's what wikipedia tells me.0 -
I very strongly agree that we need to embrace other people's children as our own, mostly because I just read an amazing article on Mr. Rogers.
More realistically, though, people will always become involved in the causes that impact them directly. For example, no one thinks it's odd when a cancer survivor starts raising money for cancer research. If we follow OP's logic, they are being selfish because they didn't care when it was someone else who had cancer.0 -
The problem is that most of these people are not looking for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". They seek to take it away from everyone else.0
-
When you criticize people for changing their stance similar to what Rob Portman did you make it that much harder for the next guy to follow the same path. It is shocking how people that support equal rights for the LGBT community are willing to shoot themselves in the foot by not only not supporting Rob Portman but publicly bashing him.
Liberals were not voting for Portman before and they are not going to vote for him now. Most likely he will lose some conservative support. I would not be surprised to see an anti LGBT rights candidate put up against him during primaries. He basically committed political suicide in Ohio of all states. Is that what a selfish person does?
This article pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject.
http://tinyurl.com/cz9nsdx
Edit - The url was too long so I had to shorten it
0 -
When you criticize people for changing their stance similar to what Rob Portman did you make it that much harder for the next guy to follow the same path. It is shocking how people that support equal rights for the LGBT community are willing to shoot themselves in the foot by not only not supporting Rob Portman but publicly bashing him.
Liberals were not voting for Portman before and they are not going to vote for him now. Most likely he will lose some conservative support. I would not be surprised to see an anti LGBT rights candidate put up against him during primaries. He basically committed political suicide in Ohio of all states. Is that what a selfish person does?
This article pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject.
http://tinyurl.com/cz9nsdx
Edit - The url was too long so I had to shorten it
^^^ And that too.0 -
WOW!0
-
I have more respect for Portman than people like this:Republican state Sen. Roy Ashburn said Monday he is gay, ending days of speculation that began after his arrest last week for investigation of driving under the influence.
Ashburn, who consistently voted against gay rights measures during his 14 years in statewide office, came out in an interview with KERN radio in Bakersfield, the area he represents.
Ashburn said he felt compelled to address rumors that he had visited a gay nightclub near the Capitol before his DUI arrest.
"I am gay ... those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long," Ashburn told conservative talk show host Inga Barks.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/08/california-state-senator-announces-hes-gay-dui-arrest/#ixzz2O7BNTf9d0
This discussion has been closed.