Bobby Jindal: I’m Holding Firm Against Gay Marriage

[Skylar]

Anti gay marriage = curmudgeon.

But I somehow doubt Jindal, like Obama, is anti gay marriage. Hes smarter than at least THAT.

His base needs him to be against it sort of like Obama needed some of those independents who were against it...so was against it.

No pragmatic human is against gay marriage. Not 1.

Jindal has nothing that the other candidates don't have more of. So he needs a way to distinguish himself from the presidental contender pack. Its a risk free proposition for him. If it works (unlikely), he gains the Republican nod. If it fails (likely), it still plays well in LA.

So why not double down on gay marriage. Sure, it fucks the party as a whole by helping the democrats refocus the campaign on an issue that Republicans don't do well in. But GOP politicians fucking the party for their own political advantage is part and parcel to the new GOP.

 

[Nutz]

Anti gay marriage = curmudgeon.

But I somehow doubt Jindal, like Obama, is anti gay marriage. Hes smarter than at least THAT.

His base needs him to be against it sort of like Obama needed some of those independents who were against it...so was against it.

No pragmatic human is against gay marriage. Not 1.

Jindal has nothing that the other candidates don't have more of. So he needs a way to distinguish himself from the presidental contender pack. Its a risk free proposition for him. If it works (unlikely), he gains the Republican nod. If it fails (likely), it still plays well in LA.

So why not double down on gay marriage. Sure, it fucks the party as a whole by helping the democrats refocus the campaign on an issue that Republicans don't do well in. But GOP politicians fucking the party for their own political advantage is part and parcel to the new GOP.

really, honestly...I don't think gay marriage is really that big of an issue that will give an advantage for one opinioin or the other. Truth be told, those who are passionate about t are voting one side no matter what and those on the fence don't really care about gay marriage.

In other words, it doesn't really matter. Jindal's position on gay marriage will have no effect on his electablity.

 

[Skylar]

Looks like you and ISIS have something in common, then.

Your opinion means less than nothing to me.

It baffles me as to why you guys are so proud that you've got ISIS on your side when it comes to the gays.

Why else would you bring it up in every thread about gays?

Teapers. Always talking about smaller government and less taxes.

Teapers...the ISIS of North America.

That ain't gonna save ya scamp. When you idiots finally crank off the looming civil war, not a sngle one of you idiots are going to survive. .

Look at you- another faux Conservative champing for civil and the murder of everyone who disagrees with you.

You are not just a loon- you are a murderous loon.

Yup. Its a sadly common trait among those who 1) Are absolutely certain they are right 2) Believe they speak for God.

As once you've convinced yourself that your word is God's word, then anyone who disagrees with you is evil. And you can take any steps necessary to combat evil. And you'll see that exact sentiment reflected in Keyes posts.

There's one saving grace though: the chickenshit factor. More specifically, the unwillingness to bleed. Folks like Keyes are more than happy to hurt people if they don't have to get hurt themselves. That's why he's always going on about a civil war he won't be fighting in. Or attacks on gays when they aren't protected.

And that cowardice protects us and them. It stops them from ever actually acting on their delusion of moral infallibility. And it stops us from having to put them down like rabid animals when they start killing cops, fighter fighters and soldiers in the 'name of the revolution'. Leaving them with the palid veneer of empty rhetoric.

Cowardice is as good as uncertainty in keep people from doing really stupid shit.

 

[Skylar]

Anti gay marriage = curmudgeon.

But I somehow doubt Jindal, like Obama, is anti gay marriage. Hes smarter than at least THAT.

His base needs him to be against it sort of like Obama needed some of those independents who were against it...so was against it.

No pragmatic human is against gay marriage. Not 1.

Jindal has nothing that the other candidates don't have more of. So he needs a way to distinguish himself from the presidental contender pack. Its a risk free proposition for him. If it works (unlikely), he gains the Republican nod. If it fails (likely), it still plays well in LA.

So why not double down on gay marriage. Sure, it fucks the party as a whole by helping the democrats refocus the campaign on an issue that Republicans don't do well in. But GOP politicians fucking the party for their own political advantage is part and parcel to the new GOP.

really, honestly...I don't think gay marriage is really that big of an issue that will give an advantage for one opinioin or the other. Truth be told, those who are passionate about t are voting one side no matter what and those on the fence don't really care about gay marriage.

In other words, it doesn't really matter. Jindal's position on gay marriage will have no effect on his electablity.

On a one issue note, you're probably right. But as a narrative of how backward and anti-freedom the GOP is, the optics on this are a partisans wet dream. Elections aren't won or lost among liberals or conservatives. But among moderates and independents. Both of which support gay marriage.

Consider it another voice in the chorus. Yet another example of how the GOP's values don't line up with the voters they need to win the presidency.

 

[G.T.]

Anti gay marriage = curmudgeon.

But I somehow doubt Jindal, like Obama, is anti gay marriage. Hes smarter than at least THAT.

His base needs him to be against it sort of like Obama needed some of those independents who were against it...so was against it.

No pragmatic human is against gay marriage. Not 1.

Jindal has nothing that the other candidates don't have more of. So he needs a way to distinguish himself from the presidental contender pack. Its a risk free proposition for him. If it works (unlikely), he gains the Republican nod. If it fails (likely), it still plays well in LA.

So why not double down on gay marriage. Sure, it fucks the party as a whole by helping the democrats refocus the campaign on an issue that Republicans don't do well in. But GOP politicians fucking the party for their own political advantage is part and parcel to the new GOP.

really, honestly...I don't think gay marriage is really that big of an issue that will give an advantage for one opinioin or the other. Truth be told, those who are passionate about t are voting one side no matter what and those on the fence don't really care about gay marriage.

In other words, it doesn't really matter. Jindal's position on gay marriage will have no effect on his electablity.

I think that it's a little bit deeper than that. It shows a severe lack of common decency to be anti gay marriage, and it's even more egregious today in 2015 than it was in 2008 when Obama did it

 

[Skylar]

Your opinion means less than nothing to me.

It baffles me as to why you guys are so proud that you've got ISIS on your side when it comes to the gays.

Why else would you bring it up in every thread about gays?

Teapers. Always talking about smaller government and less taxes.

Teapers...the ISIS of North America.

That ain't gonna save ya scamp. When you idiots finally crank off the looming civil war, not a sngle one of you idiots are going to survive. And all of the "SEE THEY"RE JUST LIKE THEM" in the world is not going to change that.

If you presented any evidence of being bright enough to understand the distinction, I'd explain it to ya.

But ... sadly, ya don't.

Keyes, your 'evidence' is just your personal rants.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Uh-huh. You've just given us your tell. What you say when you've lost and you know you've lost.......you bizarrely declare victory and run with your tail between your legs. Why?

Because you know I'm right. You've presented nothing but your personal opinion. Not 'evidence'. Even you're not willing to bleed for your 'revolution'. Its always someone else that has to fight. Someone else that has to sacrifice. But never you.

And your ilk feel the same way. Which is why there will be no 'civil war'. You can't fight a revolution without bleeding. And the folks that are fighting age don't agree with you. The folks that do aren't willing to kill their kids and grandkids over gay marriage. And the millennial aren't willing to kill anyone because you don't like gay marriage. You don't have the numbers.

All of which you know. But really hope we don't.

 

[Skylar]

I don't understand why people are so scared of two males or females getting married, unless you're a religious nut or homophobic bigot.

You mean like the Islamists? Scared? scared of what? I notice there aren't too many "gay marriages" within ISIS, are there? Looks like your disagreement is with them, right?

What the fuck.

Well, it's not rocket science. You, and those like you, claim that the "world supports the gays" (pun intended). Prove it.

The only people who don't support gays are religious extremists and homophobic bigots like yourself.

Its a bit more complicated than that. But not much more.

 

[Skylar]

Well, he is going against the majority of Americans (60%) who support gay marriage.

Of the other 40%, many are the "indifferent."

Keep failing on wedge issues Bobby.

I admire the man for sticking to his guns. It's about damned time someone stood up for what they believe. And your stats are pure nonsense. I am NOT indifferent. I'm against - so there you go.

But the cause he is 'sticking to his guns' for is an unworthy cause at best, anti-American at its extreme.

There is no harm posed by marriage equality. No heterosexual marriages are at jeopardy. Denial of equal rights means everyone's rights are being denied. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a contract. If churches chose not to sanctify a marriage, it is then the province of that church, not contract law established by the state.

Can anyone demonstrate the actual harm that would befall this nation once the last 14 states accept marriage equality?

It is immoral and a threat to our traditional values. Same sex marriage is an abomination to society.

How is it 'immoral'? Or a threat to our 'traditional values'?

Conservatives are looking at this all wrong. They've been arguing for decades the value of family, the value of commitment, the value of monogamy and marriage. And they're right. Its a great message and very persuasive. So persuasive in fact that the gays want in on it. All the benefits you described will help them too.

This is a clear 'W' for conservatives. Take your victory lap. As its an expansion of monogamy. And can only help our society.

Without a bit of sarcasm, thank you conservatives. You were right on this one. And I appreciate you advocating monogamy and marriage. Its a laudable value.

 

[guno]

Why doesn't Jindal use his real first name, and no, its not Bobbie his name is: Piyush Jindal, an anchor baby. Why is he ashamed of his real name?

 

[g5000]

I'm not sure that bragging about how firm you are about gay men is a good idea...

"I'm gonna come down hard on these men!"

What!

 

[Pheonixops]

It is great to see sound leadership again. It's becoming something that appears will soon be lost to Western Civilization... .

"BATON ROUGE, La. — THE debate over religious liberty in America presents conservatives and business leaders with a crucial choice.

In Indiana and Arkansas, large corporations recently joined left-wing activists to bully elected officials into backing away from strong protections for religious liberty. It was disappointing to see conservative leaders so hastily retreat on legislation that would simply allow for an individual or business to claim a right to free exercise of religion in a court of law.

Our country was founded on the principle of religious liberty, enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Why shouldn’t an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony that violates a sincerely held religious belief?

That is what Indiana and Arkansas sought to do. That political leaders in both states quickly cowered amid the shrieks of big business and the radical left should alarm us all.

As the fight for religious liberty moves to Louisiana, I have a clear message for any corporation that contemplates bullying our state: Save your breath.

Photo

Gov. Bobby Jindal, front, with his family during a prayer at the opening session of the Louisiana State Legislature in April. CreditPool photo by Gerald Herbert
In 2010, Louisiana adopted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits government from unduly burdening a person’s exercise of religion. However, given the changing positions of politicians, judges and the public in favor of same-sex marriage, along with the potential for discrimination against Christian individuals and businesses that comes with these shifts, I plan in this legislative session to fight for passage of the Marriage and Conscience Act.

The legislation would prohibit the state from denying a person, company or nonprofit group a license, accreditation, employment or contract — or taking other “adverse action” — based on the person or entity’s religious views on the institution of marriage.

Some corporations have already contacted me and asked me to oppose this law. I am certain that other companies, under pressure from radical liberals, will do the same. They are free to voice their opinions, but they will not deter me. As a nation we would not compel a priest, minister or rabbi to violate his conscience and perform a same-sex wedding ceremony. But a great many Americans who are not members of the clergy feel just as called to live their faith through their businesses. That’s why we should ensure that musicians, caterers, photographers and others should be immune from government coercion on deeply held religious convictions.

The bill does not, as opponents assert, create a right to discriminate against, or generally refuse service to, gay men or lesbians. The bill does not change anything as it relates to the law in terms of discrimination suits between private parties. It merely makes our constitutional freedom so well defined that no judge can miss it.

I hold the view that has been the consensus in our country for over two centuries: that marriage is between one man and one woman. Polls indicate that the American consensus is changing — but like many other believers, I will not change my faith-driven view on this matter, even if it becomes a minority opinion."

Continue reading the main storyContinue

LOL, he won't get anywhere in the Presidential race except for maybe last place or second to last place.

 

[Skylar]

It is great to see sound leadership again. It's becoming something that appears will soon be lost to Western Civilization... .

"BATON ROUGE, La. — THE debate over religious liberty in America presents conservatives and business leaders with a crucial choice.

In Indiana and Arkansas, large corporations recently joined left-wing activists to bully elected officials into backing away from strong protections for religious liberty. It was disappointing to see conservative leaders so hastily retreat on legislation that would simply allow for an individual or business to claim a right to free exercise of religion in a court of law.

Our country was founded on the principle of religious liberty, enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Why shouldn’t an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony that violates a sincerely held religious belief?

That is what Indiana and Arkansas sought to do. That political leaders in both states quickly cowered amid the shrieks of big business and the radical left should alarm us all.

As the fight for religious liberty moves to Louisiana, I have a clear message for any corporation that contemplates bullying our state: Save your breath.

Photo

Gov. Bobby Jindal, front, with his family during a prayer at the opening session of the Louisiana State Legislature in April. CreditPool photo by Gerald Herbert
In 2010, Louisiana adopted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits government from unduly burdening a person’s exercise of religion. However, given the changing positions of politicians, judges and the public in favor of same-sex marriage, along with the potential for discrimination against Christian individuals and businesses that comes with these shifts, I plan in this legislative session to fight for passage of the Marriage and Conscience Act.

The legislation would prohibit the state from denying a person, company or nonprofit group a license, accreditation, employment or contract — or taking other “adverse action” — based on the person or entity’s religious views on the institution of marriage.

Some corporations have already contacted me and asked me to oppose this law. I am certain that other companies, under pressure from radical liberals, will do the same. They are free to voice their opinions, but they will not deter me. As a nation we would not compel a priest, minister or rabbi to violate his conscience and perform a same-sex wedding ceremony. But a great many Americans who are not members of the clergy feel just as called to live their faith through their businesses. That’s why we should ensure that musicians, caterers, photographers and others should be immune from government coercion on deeply held religious convictions.

The bill does not, as opponents assert, create a right to discriminate against, or generally refuse service to, gay men or lesbians. The bill does not change anything as it relates to the law in terms of discrimination suits between private parties. It merely makes our constitutional freedom so well defined that no judge can miss it.

I hold the view that has been the consensus in our country for over two centuries: that marriage is between one man and one woman. Polls indicate that the American consensus is changing — but like many other believers, I will not change my faith-driven view on this matter, even if it becomes a minority opinion."

Continue reading the main storyContinue

LOL, he won't get anywhere in the Presidential race except for maybe last place or second to last place.

I agree. But he wasn't going anywhere in the Presidential race before anyway. So what does it cost him?

 

[Nutz]

Anti gay marriage = curmudgeon.

But I somehow doubt Jindal, like Obama, is anti gay marriage. Hes smarter than at least THAT.

His base needs him to be against it sort of like Obama needed some of those independents who were against it...so was against it.

No pragmatic human is against gay marriage. Not 1.

Jindal has nothing that the other candidates don't have more of. So he needs a way to distinguish himself from the presidental contender pack. Its a risk free proposition for him. If it works (unlikely), he gains the Republican nod. If it fails (likely), it still plays well in LA.

So why not double down on gay marriage. Sure, it fucks the party as a whole by helping the democrats refocus the campaign on an issue that Republicans don't do well in. But GOP politicians fucking the party for their own political advantage is part and parcel to the new GOP.

really, honestly...I don't think gay marriage is really that big of an issue that will give an advantage for one opinioin or the other. Truth be told, those who are passionate about t are voting one side no matter what and those on the fence don't really care about gay marriage.

In other words, it doesn't really matter. Jindal's position on gay marriage will have no effect on his electablity.

On a one issue note, you're probably right. But as a narrative of how backward and anti-freedom the GOP is, the optics on this are a partisans wet dream. Elections aren't won or lost among liberals or conservatives. But among moderates and independents. Both of which support gay marriage.

Consider it another voice in the chorus. Yet another example of how the GOP's values don't line up with the voters they need to win the presidency.

Moderates and independents don't overwhelmingly support gay marriage. And the ones who do...It isn't anywhere near their number one issue. Independents and moderates understand that supporting traditional family values is not far right as some like to portray it. Regretfully, westboro baptist and teaper types have defined pro-life beliefs as fanatic and that is all some people see.

 

[Skylar]

Anti gay marriage = curmudgeon.

But I somehow doubt Jindal, like Obama, is anti gay marriage. Hes smarter than at least THAT.

His base needs him to be against it sort of like Obama needed some of those independents who were against it...so was against it.

No pragmatic human is against gay marriage. Not 1.

Jindal has nothing that the other candidates don't have more of. So he needs a way to distinguish himself from the presidental contender pack. Its a risk free proposition for him. If it works (unlikely), he gains the Republican nod. If it fails (likely), it still plays well in LA.

So why not double down on gay marriage. Sure, it fucks the party as a whole by helping the democrats refocus the campaign on an issue that Republicans don't do well in. But GOP politicians fucking the party for their own political advantage is part and parcel to the new GOP.

really, honestly...I don't think gay marriage is really that big of an issue that will give an advantage for one opinioin or the other. Truth be told, those who are passionate about t are voting one side no matter what and those on the fence don't really care about gay marriage.

In other words, it doesn't really matter. Jindal's position on gay marriage will have no effect on his electablity.

On a one issue note, you're probably right. But as a narrative of how backward and anti-freedom the GOP is, the optics on this are a partisans wet dream. Elections aren't won or lost among liberals or conservatives. But among moderates and independents. Both of which support gay marriage.

Consider it another voice in the chorus. Yet another example of how the GOP's values don't line up with the voters they need to win the presidency.

Moderates and independents don't overwhelmingly support gay marriage.

Moderates and Independents do support gay marriage:

Moderates and independents support gay marriage at higher rates than the general public. And the general public already supports gay marriage by 13 points. Moderates have moved almost as much on gay marriage as liberals have.

And the ones who do...It isn't anywhere near their number one issue. Independents and moderates understand that supporting traditional family values is not far right as some like to portray it.

I never said it was their number one issue. I said "on a one issue note, you're probably right. But as a narrative of how backward and anti-freedom the GOP is, the optics on this are a partisan's wet dream. Elections aren't won or lost among liberals or conservatives. But among moderates and independents. Both of which support gay marriage.".

This issue is a voice in the chorus, one issue among many where the views of republicans don't mesh with the values of the folks conservatives need to win the presidency: namely, independents and moderates.

Especially when self identified liberals are at an all time high. While self identified conservatives are one point off an all time low.

 

[Nosmo King]

Well, he is going against the majority of Americans (60%) who support gay marriage.

Of the other 40%, many are the "indifferent."

Keep failing on wedge issues Bobby.

I admire the man for sticking to his guns. It's about damned time someone stood up for what they believe. And your stats are pure nonsense. I am NOT indifferent. I'm against - so there you go.

But the cause he is 'sticking to his guns' for is an unworthy cause at best, anti-American at its extreme.

There is no harm posed by marriage equality. No heterosexual marriages are at jeopardy. Denial of equal rights means everyone's rights are being denied. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a contract. If churches chose not to sanctify a marriage, it is then the province of that church, not contract law established by the state.

Can anyone demonstrate the actual harm that would befall this nation once the last 14 states accept marriage equality?

It is immoral and a threat to our traditional values. Same sex marriage is an abomination to society.

Traditional values must be erased and rewritten from time to time. Once, traditional values held that Blacks were inferior to Whites. They held that a woman's place is in the home. They held that children should work in sweatshops.

Thank God we evolve and not become hopelessly chained to 'traditional values'.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, he is going against the majority of Americans (60%) who support gay marriage.

Of the other 40%, many are the "indifferent."

Keep failing on wedge issues Bobby.

I admire the man for sticking to his guns. It's about damned time someone stood up for what they believe. And your stats are pure nonsense. I am NOT indifferent. I'm against - so there you go.

But the cause he is 'sticking to his guns' for is an unworthy cause at best, anti-American at its extreme.

There is no harm posed by marriage equality. No heterosexual marriages are at jeopardy. Denial of equal rights means everyone's rights are being denied. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a contract. If churches chose not to sanctify a marriage, it is then the province of that church, not contract law established by the state.

Can anyone demonstrate the actual harm that would befall this nation once the last 14 states accept marriage equality?

It is immoral and a threat to our traditional values. Same sex marriage is an abomination to society.

Traditional values must be erased and rewritten from time to time. Once, traditional values held that Blacks were inferior to Whites. They held that a woman's place is in the home. They held that children should work in sweatshops.

Thank God we evolve and not become hopelessly chained to 'traditional values'.

It's also a very traditional value that we don't have sex with children.. but there are some that think that is antiquated...

 

[Skylar]

Well, he is going against the majority of Americans (60%) who support gay marriage.

Of the other 40%, many are the "indifferent."

Keep failing on wedge issues Bobby.

I admire the man for sticking to his guns. It's about damned time someone stood up for what they believe. And your stats are pure nonsense. I am NOT indifferent. I'm against - so there you go.

But the cause he is 'sticking to his guns' for is an unworthy cause at best, anti-American at its extreme.

There is no harm posed by marriage equality. No heterosexual marriages are at jeopardy. Denial of equal rights means everyone's rights are being denied. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a contract. If churches chose not to sanctify a marriage, it is then the province of that church, not contract law established by the state.

Can anyone demonstrate the actual harm that would befall this nation once the last 14 states accept marriage equality?

It is immoral and a threat to our traditional values. Same sex marriage is an abomination to society.

Traditional values must be erased and rewritten from time to time. Once, traditional values held that Blacks were inferior to Whites. They held that a woman's place is in the home. They held that children should work in sweatshops.

Thank God we evolve and not become hopelessly chained to 'traditional values'.

It's also a very traditional value that we don't have sex with children.. but there are some that think that is antiquated...

Most don't. The point being that just because a value is 'traditional' doesn't mean its right. You'll have to weight it and measure it to determine its utility. Gay marriage has plenty of utility. Sex with kids, none that I can see.

 

[Nosmo King]

Well, he is going against the majority of Americans (60%) who support gay marriage.

Of the other 40%, many are the "indifferent."

Keep failing on wedge issues Bobby.

I admire the man for sticking to his guns. It's about damned time someone stood up for what they believe. And your stats are pure nonsense. I am NOT indifferent. I'm against - so there you go.

But the cause he is 'sticking to his guns' for is an unworthy cause at best, anti-American at its extreme.

There is no harm posed by marriage equality. No heterosexual marriages are at jeopardy. Denial of equal rights means everyone's rights are being denied. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a contract. If churches chose not to sanctify a marriage, it is then the province of that church, not contract law established by the state.

Can anyone demonstrate the actual harm that would befall this nation once the last 14 states accept marriage equality?

It is immoral and a threat to our traditional values. Same sex marriage is an abomination to society.

Traditional values must be erased and rewritten from time to time. Once, traditional values held that Blacks were inferior to Whites. They held that a woman's place is in the home. They held that children should work in sweatshops.

Thank God we evolve and not become hopelessly chained to 'traditional values'.

It's also a very traditional value that we don't have sex with children.. but there are some that think that is antiquated...

That's not a "value". It's a social more. It is also a crime. Is homosexuality a criminal offense? Should a victimless crime like consensual homosexual sex be criminalized?

Your reach exceeded its grasp on this one. Bad examples are so easy to deflate, don't you think?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I admire the man for sticking to his guns. It's about damned time someone stood up for what they believe. And your stats are pure nonsense. I am NOT indifferent. I'm against - so there you go.

But the cause he is 'sticking to his guns' for is an unworthy cause at best, anti-American at its extreme.

There is no harm posed by marriage equality. No heterosexual marriages are at jeopardy. Denial of equal rights means everyone's rights are being denied. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a contract. If churches chose not to sanctify a marriage, it is then the province of that church, not contract law established by the state.

Can anyone demonstrate the actual harm that would befall this nation once the last 14 states accept marriage equality?

It is immoral and a threat to our traditional values. Same sex marriage is an abomination to society.

Traditional values must be erased and rewritten from time to time. Once, traditional values held that Blacks were inferior to Whites. They held that a woman's place is in the home. They held that children should work in sweatshops.

Thank God we evolve and not become hopelessly chained to 'traditional values'.

It's also a very traditional value that we don't have sex with children.. but there are some that think that is antiquated...

That's not a "value". It's a social more. It is also a crime. Is homosexuality a criminal offense? Should a victimless crime like consensual homosexual sex be criminalized?

Your reach exceeded its grasp on this one. Bad examples are so easy to deflate, don't you think?

No, no I did not... the point is that there are some things that some people find it just that offensive. BTW.. homosexuality used to be a crime... and still is in some areas.

Just say'n.

 

[Skylar]

But the cause he is 'sticking to his guns' for is an unworthy cause at best, anti-American at its extreme.

There is no harm posed by marriage equality. No heterosexual marriages are at jeopardy. Denial of equal rights means everyone's rights are being denied. Marriage, in the eyes of the state, is a contract. If churches chose not to sanctify a marriage, it is then the province of that church, not contract law established by the state.

Can anyone demonstrate the actual harm that would befall this nation once the last 14 states accept marriage equality?

It is immoral and a threat to our traditional values. Same sex marriage is an abomination to society.

Traditional values must be erased and rewritten from time to time. Once, traditional values held that Blacks were inferior to Whites. They held that a woman's place is in the home. They held that children should work in sweatshops.

Thank God we evolve and not become hopelessly chained to 'traditional values'.

It's also a very traditional value that we don't have sex with children.. but there are some that think that is antiquated...

That's not a "value". It's a social more. It is also a crime. Is homosexuality a criminal offense? Should a victimless crime like consensual homosexual sex be criminalized?

Your reach exceeded its grasp on this one. Bad examples are so easy to deflate, don't you think?

No, no I did not... the point is that there are some things that some people find it just that offensive. BTW.. homosexuality used to be a crime... and still is in some areas.

Just say'n.

Not in this country. Homosexuality fell firmly in the category of things that were wrong because we said they were. Like cheeseburgers. Or wearing cotton with leather.

Traditional values should be weighted and measured to see if they have actual utility. And when put to that test, gay marriage bans fail.