Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on April 23, 2015, 04:00:48 PM
-
Well said.
Bobby Jindal: I’m Holding Firm Against Gay Marriage
By BOBBY JINDAL
APRIL 23, 2015
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.
(http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/04/23/opinion/23jindalWEB/23jindalWEB-master315.jpg)
Gov. Bobby Jindal, front, with his family during a prayer at the opening session of the Louisiana State Legislature in April. Credit Pool 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.
A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us. That’s why religious freedom laws matter — and why it is critical for conservatives and business leaders to unite in this debate.
If we, as conservatives, are to succeed in advancing the cause of freedom and free enterprise, the business community must stand shoulder to shoulder with those fighting for religious liberty. The left-wing ideologues who oppose religious freedom are the same ones who seek to tax and regulate businesses out of existence. The same people who think that profit making is vulgar believe that religiosity is folly. The fight against this misguided, government-dictating ideology is one fight, not two. Conservative leaders cannot sit idly by and allow large corporations to rip our coalition in half.
Since I became governor in 2008, Louisiana has become one of the best places to do business in America. I made it a priority to cut taxes, reform our ethics laws, invigorate our schools with bold merit-based changes and parental choice, and completely revamp work-force training to better suit businesses.
Our reforms worked because they were driven by our belief in freedom. We know that a nation in which individuals, and companies, are protected from the onerous impulses of government is one that will thrive and grow. That’s the intellectual underpinning of America, and in Louisiana we defend it relentlessly.
Conservatism faces many challenges in today’s America. Hollywood and the media elite are hostile to our values and they tip the scales to our liberal opponents at every opportunity. Yet the left has lost repeatedly in state elections all over America. Republicans control 31 governorships. We control nearly 70 percent of state legislative chambers, the highest proportion since at least 1900.
Liberals have decided that if they can’t win at the ballot box, they will win in the boardroom. It’s a deliberate strategy. And it’s time for corporate America to make a decision.
Those who believe in freedom must stick together: If it’s not freedom for all, it’s not freedom at all. This strategy requires populist social conservatives to ally with the business community on economic matters and corporate titans to side with social conservatives on cultural matters. This is the grand bargain that makes freedom’s defense possible.
Bobby Jindal, a Republican, is the governor of Louisiana.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/opinion/bobby-jindal-im-holding-firm-against-gay-marriage.html?_r=1
-
Congrats for standing by his personal beliefs no matter how out of sync they are with the country and even with the majority of young voters in his own party
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/10/61-of-young-republicans-favor-same-sex-marriage/
61% of young Republicans favor same-sex marriage
BY JOCELYN KILEY
Young people continue to be the strongest proponents of same-sex marriage. And as public support for same-sex marriage continues to grow, the gap between young and old is nowhere more striking than within the Republican coalition.
Today, 61% of Republicans and Republican leaners under 30 favor same-sex marriage while just 35% oppose it. By contrast, just 27% of Republicans ages 50 and older favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry.
-
Congrats for standing by his personal beliefs no matter how out of sync they are with the country and even with the majority of young voters in his own party
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/10/61-of-young-republicans-favor-same-sex-marriage/
That the difference between libs and repubs. Most repubs stick to higher morals and standards while libs are brainwashed to go with the flow. They're unable to think for themselves.
-
That the difference between libs and repubs. Most repubs stick to higher morals and standards while libs are brainwashed to go with the flow. They're unable to think for themselves.
Didn't I congratulate him for standing by his beliefs no matter how out of sync his is with the country and the young voters in his own party?
-
Allowing gay marriage is a higher moral.
Allowing any discrimination based on religious beliefs is a lower developed standard.
-
Allowing gay marriage is a higher moral.
Allowing any discrimination based on religious beliefs is a lower developed standard.
::)
-
Allowing gay marriage is a higher moral.
Allowing any discrimination based on religious beliefs is a lower developed standard.
I honestly don't understand how Repubs (who think they are the last bastion of freedom and liberty in this country) would have a problem with other people having freedom and liberty
All they have to do is mind their own fucking business. Who gives a shit if some gay people want to get married.
Why do they make this an issue.
All it ever does is fire up an ever shrinking segment of their voters while turning away everyone else
Why not just say something like - I don't personally believe it in but this country is all about freedom and pursuit of happiness so to each his own
They can stand by their religious beliefs while not turning off the majority of voters and actually be consistent in their beliefs about freedom and liberty
-
I've said for years that homosexual marriage was inevitable, but I do like his opinion piece. Very well put together.
Allowing discrimination based on religious beliefs is in many instances permissible under the First Amendment and there is no higher standard in this country than the U.S. Constitution.
For example, we allow religious organizations to discriminate when it comes to hiring. A Christian church shouldn't have to hire an atheist, etc.
-
Most repubs stick to higher morals and standards
Most republicans support gay marriage, as we see in this poll, Coach.
Do you equate gay marriage with higher morals and standards, Coach?
-
Most republicans support gay marriage, as we see in this poll, Coach.
Do you equate gay marriage with higher morals and standards, Coach?
Were these polls conducted by the same pollsters who predicted that the Democrats were running "neck and neck" with Republicans throughout last year's election cycle?
Big difference between what politicians claim to support and what people not running for office actually believe.
-
Were these polls conducted by the same pollsters who predicted that the Democrats were running "neck and neck" with Republicans throughout last year's election cycle?
Big difference between what politicians claim to support and what people not running for office actually believe.
Pew research is pretty reliable. FOX quotes them all the time.
it doesn't surprise me that 61% of young repubs support gay marriage. I see a lot of same-sex couples and in this day of busy, busy people... what goes on in others' legal marital status doesn't seem to bother/concern most young people. They're more concerned with making money, hooking up, raising kids, going to school, etc.
So that might explain why 61% of young repubs don't care. They're just so busy.
-
Pew research is pretty reliable. FOX quotes them all the time.
it doesn't surprise me that 61% of young repubs support gay marriage. I see a lot of same-sex couples and in this day of busy, busy people... what goes on in others' legal marital status doesn't seem to bother/concern most young people. They're more concerned with making money, hooking up, raising kids, going to school, etc.
So that might explain why 61% of young repubs don't care. They're just so busy.
young republicans are "too busy" to not like gay marriage so they support it instead?
how much effort does it take to say yes or no to a question on a poll?
how about the more logical conclusion that they have grown up seeing it and are comfortable with it.
basically just like different generations that grew up in the south have different views on racism
-
Pew research is pretty reliable. FOX quotes them all the time.
it doesn't surprise me that 61% of young repubs support gay marriage. I see a lot of same-sex couples and in this day of busy, busy people... what goes on in others' legal marital status doesn't seem to bother/concern most young people. They're more concerned with making money, hooking up, raising kids, going to school, etc.
So that might explain why 61% of young repubs don't care. They're just so busy.
I didn't see the source at first. The number still surprises me, but I guess like others have said, it may be more of a "generational" thing involved.
-
I've said for years that homosexual marriage was inevitable, but I do like his opinion piece. Very well put together.
Allowing discrimination based on religious beliefs is in many instances permissible under the First Amendment and there is no higher standard in this country than the U.S. Constitution.
For example, we allow religious organizations to discriminate when it comes to hiring. A Christian church shouldn't have to hire an atheist, etc.
It's too subjective to cite religeous discrimination in hiring. Too many variables. But when it comes to discrimination or refusal of services based on sexual orientation or religeous beliefs it's straight up discrimination. I don't think that's allowed in any amendment.
-
It's too subjective to cite religeous discrimination in hiring. Too many variables. But when it comes to discrimination or refusal of services based on sexual orientation or religeous beliefs it's straight up discrimination. I don't think that's allowed in any amendment.
It's not subjective. It's the law. Religious organizations can discriminate.
Refusal or denial of services sort of depends on the entity involved from my view.
That said, and Jindal's good commentary notwithstanding, this issue is over already. We have been steamrolled by pound for pound the most powerful lobby of my lifetime. What concerns me is where we are setting the outer limits; where even preachers are under attack for expressing faith-based viewpoints.
-
That the difference between libs and repubs. Most repubs stick to higher morals and standards while libs are brainwashed to go with the flow. They're unable to think for themselves.
Apparently from that graph, Republican attitudes are changing. More young Republicans favor gay marriage then not.
-
That the difference between libs and repubs. Most repubs stick to higher morals and standards while libs are brainwashed to go with the flow. They're unable to think for themselves.
Actually if you stick to a set of morals or standards that IS going with the flow not the other way around. I didnt think it was possible to contradict yourself so badly with so few words but you pulled it of Coach.
-
It is kind of a mute point whether someone supports or does not support gay marriage in the U.S. 37 states have legal same sex marriage, 13 do not.
-
Most republicans support gay marriage, as we see in this poll, Coach.
youre right. I should have said conservatives. Most of the repubs are inching their way to the lib bottom feeders
Do you equate gay marriage with higher morals and standards, Coach?
-
youre right. I should have said conservatives. Most of the repubs are inching their way to the lib bottom feeders
at some point, we're going to have to admit that 51% of this nation are liberal now.
-
at some point, we're going to have to admit that 51% of this nation are liberal now.
Doesn't mean it right. It just means there's a lot of naive and desperate people in this country. Very low information people.
-
She has dyslexia, so....
TI TIH DLUOW I ,SEY
-
It is kind of a mute point whether someone supports or does not support gay marriage in the U.S. 37 states have legal same sex marriage, 13 do not.
That's a little misleading. Almost every state that has legal homosexual marriage had a law on the books preserving traditional marriage that was struck down by the courts.
-
That's a little misleading. Almost every state that has legal homosexual marriage had a law on the books preserving traditional marriage that was struck down by the courts.
Semantics
-
Semantics
Hardly. We're talking about likely millions of voters as opposed to a literal handful of judges making decision on this issue.
-
Hardly. We're talking about likely millions of voters as opposed to a literal handful of judges making decision on this issue.
My post isn't about how gay marriage was made legal. I was citing statistics. 37 states have gay marriage and 13 don't. This is a fact regardless of how gay marriage was legalized.
-
My post isn't about how gay marriage was made legal. I was citing statistics. 37 states have gay marriage and 13 don't. This is a fact regardless of how gay marriage was legalized.
I just put your facts in context, because they are misleading without context. It's a fact that voters and legislators in more than 30 states voted to preserve traditional marriage, and that those laws were overturned by a handful of judges.
Your initial post, without context, makes it sound like voters made these sweeping changes. That's not what happened.
-
Doesn't mean it right. It just means there's a lot of naive and desperate people in this country. Very low information people.
Good lord you're a fucking idiot
yes, people who don't share you idiotic religious beliefs on this topic (which is now a majority of the country) are "very low information people"
makes perfect sense
jesus fuck sometimes I just can't believe that you actually believe the shit you type on this board
-
It's not subjective. It's the law. Religious organizations can discriminate.
Refusal or denial of services sort of depends on the entity involved from my view.
That said, and Jindal's good commentary notwithstanding, this issue is over already. We have been steamrolled by pound for pound the most powerful lobby of my lifetime. What concerns me is where we are setting the outer limits; where even preachers are under attack for expressing faith-based viewpoints.
Yes it is subjective. Not all laws are clear cut, some are subjective. It can be argued that this church choose another over an atheist because the other person fit in better with the purpose of the institution.
Which is not really what i was referring to anyway and i suspect that a person's religion isn't something an employer can legally ask for. But i could be wrong.
For a religion to discriminate based on religious beliefs regarding sexual orientation is absolutely wrong. So a hospital, food bank, or shelter owned by a church can turn away people simply because they are gay? That's a lower standard and not in any amendment.
You fucking homophobe conservatives, (not you BB), better face the facts: The world is passing you by.
I remember having an epic battle with a military guy on this board in 2008 over gays in the military. I told him then to face the facts that a day will come in his life time when gays can openly serve. It happened 20 years before i thought it would happen.
You thumpers can take your anti gay shit and shove it up your ass.
-
I just put your facts in context, because they are misleading without context. It's a fact that voters and legislators in more than 30 states voted to preserve traditional marriage, and that those laws were overturned by a handful of judges.
Your initial post, without context, makes it sound like voters made these sweeping changes. That's not what happened.
You mean your version of context.
-
Yes it is subjective. Not all laws are clear cut, some are subjective. It can be argued that this church choose another over an atheist because the other person fit in better with the purpose of the institution.
Which is not really what i was referring to anyway and i suspect that a person's religion isn't something an employer can legally ask for. But i could be wrong.
For a religion to discriminate based on religious beliefs regarding sexual orientation is absolutely wrong. So a hospital, food bank, or shelter owned by a church can turn away people simply because they are gay? That's a lower standard and not in any amendment.
You fucking homophobe conservatives, (not you BB), better face the facts: The world is passing you by.
I remember having an epic battle with a military guy on this board in 2008 over gays in the military. I told him then to face the facts that a day will come in his life time when gays can openly serve. It happened 20 years before i thought it would happen.
You thumpers can take your anti gay shit and shove it up your ass.
You have to wonder why they care so much. If you don't like gay people, don't become friends with them. Of course not all gay folk fit the homophobe's stereotypical concept of a gay person. So it's possible they have gay friends and don't know it. I think that is amusing.
-
Yes it is subjective. Not all laws are clear cut, some are subjective. It can be argued that this church choose another over an atheist because the other person fit in better with the purpose of the institution.
Which is not really what i was referring to anyway and i suspect that a person's religion isn't something an employer can legally ask for. But i could be wrong.
For a religion to discriminate based on religious beliefs regarding sexual orientation is absolutely wrong. So a hospital, food bank, or shelter owned by a church can turn away people simply because they are gay? That's a lower standard and not in any amendment.
You fucking homophobe conservatives, (not you BB), better face the facts: The world is passing you by.
I remember having an epic battle with a military guy on this board in 2008 over gays in the military. I told him then to face the facts that a day will come in his life time when gays can openly serve. It happened 20 years before i thought it would happen.
You thumpers can take your anti gay shit and shove it up your ass.
I agree that some laws are subjective. What I'm trying to say is the laws that expressly exclude religious organizations from anti-discrimination laws are not subjective. Those are pretty clear.
I don't think hospitals, food banks, etc. turn away gay people. Have you heard of that happening? It would surprise me.
Society is definitely changing. Pretty amazing how fast things have happened.
But again, my concern is where we draw the line.
-
You mean your version of context.
No, I mean the facts. You can argue with the facts (or try and spin them), but you cannot change them. Not the historical ones anyway.
-
You have to wonder why they care so much. If you don't like gay people, don't become friends with hem. Of course not all gay folk fit the homophobe's stereotypical concept of a gay person. So it's possible they have gay friends and don't know it. I think that is amusing.
I'm sure there are those who don't like gay people, but there are plenty of people who simply disagree with their lifestyle choices. Just like you can disagree with smoking without disliking or hating the smoker himself/herself.
-
I'm sure there are those who don't like gay people, but there are plenty of people who simply disagree with their lifestyle choices. Just like you can disagree with smoking without disliking or hating the smoker himself/herself.
yep and people like you will keep telling yourself being gay is a choice
on the other hand being a bigoted fundamentalist christian is without a doubt a choice
-
I'm sure there are those who don't like gay people, but there are plenty of people who simply disagree with their lifestyle choices. Just like you can disagree with smoking without disliking or hating the smoker himself/herself.
I can understand that. But, unlike smoking, a gay lifestyle doesn't hurt anybody else and as far as I'm concerned the government should have no right to tell them they can't marry.
-
I can understand that. But, unlike smoking, a gay lifestyle doesn't hurt anybody else and as far as I'm concerned the government should have no right to tell them they can't marry.
I agree that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms doesn't hurt anyone. The difference is we're using the government to force things on people and society, so we're not talking about a purely private matter.
I guess the next question becomes what harm does it do to society if we redefine marriage? The answer is TBD. We are undermining one of bedrocks of our society (marriage between and a man and woman). I don't think good things will happen at the end of the day when the dust settles. We've seen some of the fallout already, with some small business owners being attacked.
But one thing is certain: it's coming. I've been saying that for years. Society has changed.
-
I agree that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms doesn't hurt anyone. The difference is we're using the government to force things on people and society, so we're not talking about a purely private matter.
I guess the next question becomes what harm does it do to society if we redefine marriage? The answer is TBD. We are undermining one of bedrocks of our society (marriage between and a man and woman). I don't think good things will happen at the end of the day when the dust settles. We've seen some of the fallout already, with some small business owners being attacked.
But one thing is certain: it's coming. I've been saying that for years. Society has changed.
In the context of marriage, government is being used to block gay people, not forcing something on others.
If it comes to things such as forcing the Catholic church to marry gay people, then I think it's a legit argument and gay people should have to find another avenue.
I doubt there is an effective argument for undermining traditional marriage. Gay people getting married isn't likely to cause divorce increases amongst heteros, or change the marriage rates amongst heteros, or change the way heteros rear their children, buy homes, or do anything else for that matter.
-
In the context of marriage, government is being used to block gay people, not forcing something on others.
If it comes to things such as forcing the Catholic church to marry gay people, then I think it's a legit argument and gay people should have to find another avenue.
I doubt there is an effective argument for undermining traditional marriage. Gay people getting married isn't likely to cause divorce increases amongst heteros, or change the marriage rates amongst heteros, or change the way heteros rear their children, buy homes, or do anything else for that matter.
Marriage laws always applied to one man and woman. What we're doing is (judicially) changing the definition of marriage. I guess you could argue we were "blocking" gay people from getting married, just like we "block" people from marrying more than one person.
I don't think changing the definition of marriage will disrupt heterosexual marriages. I think one of the things it does (in addition to normalizing abnormal behavior) is open the door to polygamy, etc. For example, we really will not have a solid ground to stop a "bisexual" from marrying a man and a woman. Is that really where we want our society headed?
I also think it creates confusion, particularly with kids.
-
Agree 100% on it being a slippery slope, but I don't think the fact that it's a slippery slope is sufficient justification to deny marriage. Hell, I'm not even sure I have a problem with polygamy really, but I haven't really thought it through.
-
I can understand that. But, unlike smoking, a gay lifestyle doesn't hurt anybody else and as far as I'm concerned the government should have no right to tell them they can't marry.
Keep in mind that in this case the government is carrying out the will of the people who voted to ban gay marriage. Marriage Laws are determined by the State. therefore what is legal in one state may not be in another.
-
Agree 100% on it being a slippery slope, but I don't think the fact that it's a slippery slope is sufficient justification to deny marriage. Hell, I'm not even sure I have a problem with polygamy really, but I haven't really thought it through.
I never bought the idea that we are denying marriage. A man could always marry a woman and woman could always marry a man. But I get that we are way beyond that now in society.
I like a lot of what libertarians believe in, but I don't embrace that pure form of essentially anything goes. We should draw bright lines in some areas. We should promote and protect things that are healthiest for kids and families. I don't think there is any question that a male-female two-parent household is the ideal way to raise kids. Not everyone can take advantage of that (including me who grew up with divorced parents), but from a public policy standpoint, we ought to promote things that we know are most beneficial to kids and families.
Men and women are different. We bring different qualities to the table. Boys need fathers. Women need mothers. Kids need both parents. But there is no denying that genders provide different, positive things that kids need. What we are doing now is saying those things don't matter.
-
I never bought the idea that we are denying marriage. A man could always marry a woman and woman could always marry a man. But I get that we are way beyond that now in society.
I like a lot of what libertarians believe in, but I don't embrace that pure form of essentially anything goes. We should draw bright lines in some areas. We should promote and protect things that are healthiest for kids and families. I don't think there is any question that a male-female two-parent household is the ideal way to raise kids. Not everyone can take advantage of that (including me who grew up with divorced parents), but from a public policy standpoint, we ought to promote things that we know are most beneficial to kids and families.
Men and women are different. We bring different qualities to the table. Boys need fathers. Women need mothers. Kids need both parents. But there is no denying that genders provide different, positive things that kids need. What we are doing now is saying those things don't matter.
News flash for you Bum - gay people (and straight people) don't need to get married to have kids and many straight people get married who have no intention of having kids
Kids need good parents and it doesn't matter if they are both men or both women
There are plenty of fucked up kids who were raised by fucked up hetero couples just like there are plenty of well adjusted, normal and even highly achieving kids who were raised by two gay parents or.....get this, even one parent gay or straight
-
News flash for you Bum - gay people (and straight people) don't need to get married to have kids and many straight people get married who have no intention of having kids
Kids need good parents and it doesn't matter if they are both men or both women
There are plenty of fucked up kids who were raised by fucked up hetero couples just like there are plenty of well adjusted, normal and even highly achieving kids who were raised by two gay parents or.....get this even one parent gay or straight
Would you say it's preferable that the parents be a man and a woman, with all else the same?
-
Would you say it's preferable that the parents be a man and a woman, with all else the same?
I have no preference and of course who gives a shit if I did (i.e. who gives a shit what I think is "right" for them)
-
Would you say it's preferable that the parents be a man and a woman, with all else the same?
Parents are also role models. Ideally a female and a male role model is the best scenario. Unfortunately, this is becoming more and more rare. Often both parents work and have little time for their kids. Divorce and single parenting is rampant.
When I was still working I saw so many "blended" families. If a kid tried to explain his relationship to the other kids in the house, anyone would get completely lost. There's a lot of single parents trying to be there for their children and not succeeding very well. Kids often are raising themselves with no parenting at all.
These are the real problems. By comparison a child with two moms or two dads isn't so bad off if their parents actually do a good job of being positive role models and teachers. Children of same sex marriages are rarely an afterthought. The hoops these people go through to become parents is much more involved and expensive then a night of careless passion that sometimes results in an unwanted child.
Men, many of them posting on Getbig, express their disdain for single moms and yet they see no reason why they should participate in taking care of the resulting child. One wonders what cave these morons crawl out of. What kind of parenting did they get that allows them to be so indifferent and often hateful towards women.
-
Ideally a female and a male role model is the best scenario.
:o
-
Why do you find this shocking?
Our kids and grandchildren were raised by my wife and I, our son and daughter-in-law and our daughter and son-in-law. We are all traditional couples, as in married men and a woman. There have been no divorces and no separations. This is sadly somewhat of a rarity these days.
-
Why do you find this shocking?
Our kids and grandchildren were raised by my wife and I, our son and daughter-in-law and our daughter and son-in-law. We are all traditional couples, as in married men and a woman. There have been no divorces and no separations. This is sadly somewhat of a rarity these days.
I didn't expect to hear that from you. I absolutely agree that a male/female two-parent household is the ideal situation for kids. It's something I've said a number of times. There are different things that mothers and fathers bring to parenting that kids need.
But we're at the point now where people are actually trying to eliminate gender distinctions.
-
I didn't expect to hear that from you. I absolutely agree that a male/female two-parent household is the ideal situation for kids. It's something I've said a number of times. There are different things that mothers and fathers bring to parenting that kids need.
But we're at the point now where people are actually trying to eliminate gender distinctions.
You'd be surprised at what a traditional guy I am.
-
You'd be surprised at what a traditional guy I am.
Cool. We probably have a lot in common.
Except for that whole sleeping with dudes thing. lol :D
-
I never bought the idea that we are denying marriage. A man could always marry a woman and woman could always marry a man. But I get that we are way beyond that now in society.
I like a lot of what libertarians believe in, but I don't embrace that pure form of essentially anything goes. We should draw bright lines in some areas. We should promote and protect things that are healthiest for kids and families. I don't think there is any question that a male-female two-parent household is the ideal way to raise kids. Not everyone can take advantage of that (including me who grew up with divorced parents), but from a public policy standpoint, we ought to promote things that we know are most beneficial to kids and families.
Men and women are different. We bring different qualities to the table. Boys need fathers. Women need mothers. Kids need both parents. But there is no denying that genders provide different, positive things that kids need. What we are doing now is saying those things don't matter.
So, to play devils advocate, let's assume I accept your premise, then why try to legislate the 'ideal'. You've noted you didn't grow up with the ideal. I didn't grow up with the ideal. Why try to force it on others? You seem to have turned out fine. I think I'm ok, lol.
As long as two gay people are loving and caring to each other and the children, I don't see an issue. It might not be ideal, but having loving parents is certainly better than nothing.
-
I never bought the idea that we are denying marriage. A man could always marry a woman and woman could always marry a man. But I get that we are way beyond that now in society.
I like a lot of what libertarians believe in, but I don't embrace that pure form of essentially anything goes. We should draw bright lines in some areas. We should promote and protect things that are healthiest for kids and families. I don't think there is any question that a male-female two-parent household is the ideal way to raise kids. Not everyone can take advantage of that (including me who grew up with divorced parents), but from a public policy standpoint, we ought to promote things that we know are most beneficial to kids and families.
Men and women are different. We bring different qualities to the table. Boys need fathers. Women need mothers. Kids need both parents. But there is no denying that genders provide different, positive things that kids need. What we are doing now is saying those things don't matter.
yeah
great point
gay people just can't marry the person that they love and want to be with but that's not "denying them marriage"
I wonder why gay people can't understand this
all they have to to is be heterosexual and then they can get married
problem solved
-
So, to play devils advocate, let's assume I accept your premise, then why try to legislate the 'ideal'. You've noted you didn't grow up with the ideal. I didn't grow up with the ideal. Why try to force it on others? You seem to have turned out fine. I think I'm ok, lol.
As long as two gay people are loving and caring to each other and the children, I don't see an issue. It might not be ideal, but having loving parents is certainly better than nothing.
Your first mistake is thinking I turned out fine. I'm crazy. lol :D
Seriously, I think we should always try and promote the "ideal" in public policy. That doesn't there are no other paths to success. Sure there are. Some are more difficult than others.
I do think two homosexual parents can raise a perfectly normal, healthy child. But from a public policy standpoint, is that something we want to encourage?
-
Your first mistake is thinking I turned out fine. I'm crazy. lol :D
Seriously, I think we should always try and promote the "ideal" in public policy. That doesn't there are no other paths to success. Sure there are. Some are more difficult than others.
I do think two homosexual parents can raise a perfectly normal, healthy child. But from a public policy standpoint, is that something we want to encourage?
yes, why wouldn't we want to encourage both gay and straight couples to raise perfectly normal, healthy children
it's not like public policy is making them gay
God did that
-
yeah
great point
gay people just can't marry the person that they love and want to be with but that's not "denying them marriage"
I wonder why gay people can't understand this
all they have to to is be heterosexual and then they can get married
problem solved
There are legal reasons and some advantages for two people to marry, regardless whether it is a gay or straight marriage.
-
There are legal reasons and some advantages for two people to marry, regardless whether it is a gay or straight marriage.
yep, and according to Bum gay people are not being denied those legal reason and advantages (i.e. not being denied the ability to marry)
so there is no problem
-
Your first mistake is thinking I turned out fine. I'm crazy. lol :D
Seriously, I think we should always try and promote the "ideal" in public policy. That doesn't there are no other paths to success. Sure there are. Some are more difficult than others.
I do think two homosexual parents can raise a perfectly normal, healthy child. But from a public policy standpoint, is that something we want to encourage?
I'm thinking the ideal in public policy really only works when it's truly applicable to everyone. For example, everybody should brush & floss, everybody should avoid morbid obesity, everybody should have regular eye exams.
But, not everybody should marry a member of the opposite sex.
-
I'm thinking the ideal in public policy really only works when it's truly applicable to everyone. For example, everybody should brush & floss, everybody should avoid morbid obesity, everybody should have regular eye exams.
But, not everybody should marry a member of the opposite sex.
That's actually a good example. Our public policy should promote brushing, flossing, healthy diets, and preventive medicine. That said, some people who never floss and don't brush regularly can still have healthy teeth and gums. People who eat lots of junk food and don't train regularly can still be in decent physical condition. There are some who never go to the doctor for anything and are still healthy as a horse.
That doesn't mean we should start promoting those things.
-
That's actually a good example. Our public policy should promote brushing, flossing, healthy diets, and preventive medicine. That said, some people who never floss and don't brush regularly can still have healthy teeth and gums. People who eat lots of junk food and don't train regularly can still be in decent physical condition. There are some who never go to the doctor for anything and are still healthy as a horse.
That doesn't mean we should start promoting those things.
nor do we make them illegal or prevent people from choosing them and next time you turn on your TV see if you think we having any shortage of the promotion of eating lots of junk food (not just in our commercials but in our TV shows)
-
I agree that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms doesn't hurt anyone. The difference is we're using the government to force things on people and society, so we're not talking about a purely private matter.
I guess the next question becomes what harm does it do to society if we redefine marriage? The answer is TBD. We are undermining one of bedrocks of our society (marriage between and a man and woman). I don't think good things will happen at the end of the day when the dust settles. We've seen some of the fallout already, with some small business owners being attacked.
But one thing is certain: it's coming. I've been saying that for years. Society has changed.
When you say "we" you mean heterosexual christians with a divorce rate of over 50% right? I think the argument is lost for the "bedrock of society" when divorce is more likely than staying married and republican law makers get caught cheating. Time to put that argument in the closet.. no pun intended
-
When you say "we" you mean heterosexual christians with a divorce rate of over 50% right? I think the argument is lost for the "bedrock of society" when divorce is more likely than staying married and republican law makers get caught cheating. Time to put that argument in the closet.. no pun intended
When I say "we" I mean Amercicans, both religious and non-religious.
The divorce rate doesn't diminish the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, and all of the benefits it provides to kids. It just shows that people sometimes do a poor job of selecting their life partner.
-
When I say "we" I mean Amercicans, both religious and non-religious.
The divorce rate doesn't diminish the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, and all of the benefits it provides to kids. It just shows that people sometimes do a poor job of selecting their life partner.
or
the divorce rate among all kinds of couples most definitely diminishes the "institution" of marriage where as merely letting gay people also get married does nothing to diminish the institution of marriage one iota
failed marriages diminish the institution
more people getting married does not harm it and may actually strengthen it
-
When I say "we" I mean Amercicans, both religious and non-religious.
The divorce rate doesn't diminish the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, and all of the benefits it provides to kids. It just shows that people sometimes do a poor job of selecting their life partner.
Did you mean to say often times and not sometimes?
About 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher.
Howard is a prime example of the divorce rate in subsequent marriages. -No offense to Howard.
-
Did you mean to say often times and not sometimes?
About 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher.
Howard is a prime example of the divorce rate in subsequent marriages. -No offense to Howard.
don't forget that devout, vertically and intellectually challenged tire flipper
-
Did you mean to say often times and not sometimes?
About 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher.
Howard is a prime example of the divorce rate in subsequent marriages. -No offense to Howard.
Sometimes, oftentimes, doesn't really matter. The point is people make mistakes when it comes to marriage. Those mistakes don't diminish the institution itself and all that it has to offer.
I don't know who Howard is or why his marriage says anything about the institution of marriage itself.
-
Sometimes, oftentimes, doesn't really matter. The point is people make mistakes when it comes to marriage. Those mistakes don't diminish the institution itself and all that it has to offer.
I don't know who Howard is or why his marriage says anything about the institution of marriage itself.
If you don't know who Howard is, why are you commenting on his many marriages and what they say or don't say about the institution of marriage?
-
If you don't know who Howard is, why are you commenting on his many marriages and what they say or don't say about the institution of marriage?
What you talkin bout Willis? Who the heck is Howard?
-
What you talkin bout Willis? Who the heck is Howard?
Being as how you're a moderator, you should know how to look him up. He's been a member of Getbig since 2003. Howard is his handle.
-
Being as how you're a moderator, you should know how to look him up. He's been a member of Getbig since 2003. Howard is his handle.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. I have no idea who Howard is. I did not mention anyone named Howard. I have no idea how many times Howard has been married, nor do I care. Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?
-
Being as how you're a moderator, you should know how to look him up. He's been a member of Getbig since 2003. Howard is his handle.
Bum is of course lying
not sure why, but he seems very comfortable when doing so
-
....I did not mention anyone named Howard....
You're right about that. I brought him up because he's somewhat known for his many marriages. I don't remember exactly how many. He seems happy with his current wife and that's what counts, I guess.
-
That's actually a good example. Our public policy should promote brushing, flossing, healthy diets, and preventive medicine. That said, some people who never floss and don't brush regularly can still have healthy teeth and gums. People who eat lots of junk food and don't train regularly can still be in decent physical condition. There are some who never go to the doctor for anything and are still healthy as a horse.
That doesn't mean we should start promoting those things.
Nope. If you don't floss, you won't have healthy teeth. If you lot's of junk food, you won't be healthy (sounds like a fat acceptance argument). May take time to catch up to a person, but the result is the same.
Again, promoting the ideal generally only works if it's truly applicable to everyone. And one man, one woman is not truly applicable to everyone.
-
You're right about that. I brought him up because he's somewhat known for his many marriages. I don't remember exactly how many. He seems happy with his current wife and that's what counts, I guess.
No worries.
-
Nope. If you don't floss, you won't have healthy teeth. If you lot's of junk food, you won't be healthy (sounds like a fat acceptance argument). May take time to catch up to a person, but the result is the same.
Again, promoting the ideal generally only works if it's truly applicable to everyone. And one man, one woman is not truly applicable to everyone.
Not necessarily. I'm sure there are people who don't floss who have healthy teeth. Not everyone who eats a lot of junk food is unhealthy.
-
Louisiana religious liberty bill goes down in defeat as Republicans side with LGBT activists
By Todd Starnes
Published May 19, 2015
FoxNews.com
UPDATE: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal issued an Executive Order late Tuesday to protect religious liberty and prevent the state from discriminating against those with deeply held religious beliefs.
“In Louisiana, the state should not be able to take adverse action against a person for their belief in traditional marriage,” Jindal said. “That’s why I’m issuing an Executive Order to prevent the state from discriminating against people, charities and family-owned businesses with deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Earlier story:
Louisiana Republican lawmakers sided with Democrats, big business and LGBT activists to kill a bill that would have protected individuals and religious institutions opposed to same-sex marriage.
In doing so, lawmakers defied the objections of an overwhelmingly majority of voters and handed Gov. Bobby Jindal a significant defeat for his legislative agenda.
A house legal committee voted 10-2 on Tuesday to shelve the Louisiana Marriage and Conscience Act – a measure that critics said could sanction discrimination against same-sex couples.
However, the proposed law clearly stated its sole purpose was to prevent the government from discriminating against a person or a non-profit because of their support for traditional marriage.
“These ten legislators voted today against freedom and against two-thirds of Louisianans who support the Marriage and Conscience Act,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and a supporter of the bill. “This is a failure of leadership and goes to the heart of what’s wrong with American politics today.”
Perkins was referring to a WPA poll commissioned by the Louisiana Family Forum and FRC that indicated 67 percent of likely voters supported the bill. Even more shocking – 63 percent of Democrats supported the bill.
“These elected leaders effectively endorsed government discrimination against individuals and nonprofits simply for believing in marriage between a man and a woman,” Perkins said. “No person or nonprofit should lose tax exempt status, face disqualification, lose a professional license or be punished by the government simply for believing what President Obama believed just three years ago – that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.”
Among those strong-arming the bill was IBM – which is building a technology jobs center in Baton Rouge. An IBM executive penned a letter to The Times-Picayune warning that “IBM will find it much harder to attract talent to Louisiana if this bill is passed and enacted into law.”
Gov. Jindal scoffed at such threats in an April 23 op-ed published by The New York Times.
“I have a clear message for any corporation that contemplates bullying our state: save your breath,” he wrote.
He said he would not be deterred by corporations that were pressured by radical liberals.
“As a nation we would not compel a priest, minister or rabbi to violate his conscience and perform a same-sex wedding ceremony,” Jindal wrote. “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.”
Equality Louisiana accused Johnson of trying to bring discrimination to the state through the back door. They partnered with Louisiana Progress Action and other groups to oppose the bill.
“I remain convinced that the bill is bad for Louisiana – bad for our state’s economy and bad for our state’s people,” Equality Louisiana’s Matthew Patterson said in a statement.
State Rep. Mike Johnson authored the bill. The Republican, from Bossier City, took a beating not only from the Left – but also from fellow Republicans.
A Republican city councilman in Baton Rouge called him a “despicable bigot of the highest order.”
“It’s shameful,” Johnson told me. “He never met me before he said that. He never read the legislation. People will say what they say – I can’t control that.”
However, it appears that Republican lawmakers bought into the lies and distortions propagated by activists and big business.
“This bill is a simple measure to protect religious freedom,” Johnson said. “A few well-funded activist groups have intentionally mischaracterized the bill – spreading fear and intimidation and misinformation.”
Johnson said he was not at all surprised by the survey that found even Louisiana Democrats supported his doomed measure.
“The people of Louisiana are at their heart very patriotic, very conservative – even in the Democrat party,” he said. “They understand that religious liberty ought to be protected.”
Johnson said he has seen the future of religious liberty in America – and it is grim.
He foresees a day when Christian churches could lose their tax-exempt status and Christian schools could lose their accreditation. He foresees a day when those who refuse to endorse same-sex marriage could be prohibited from practicing their profession.
That’s why he pushed the legislation.
“If society’s views on marriage are going to change – if the Supreme Court declares there is a right to same-sex marriage – we have to do all we can to ensure that religious liberty is not a casualty of that new and emerging idea,” he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/19/louisiana-religious-liberty-bill-goes-down-in-defeat-as-republicans-side-with-lgbt-activists.html