Bobby Jindal: I知 Holding Firm Against Gay Marriage

[Primemuscle]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[OzmO]

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.  

[Primemuscle]

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.

[Primemuscle]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Straw Man]

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

[Skip8282]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.  

[Skip8282]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Skip8282]

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.

[Primemuscle]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Straw Man]

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

[Jack T. Cross]

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?

[Straw Man]

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)

[Primemuscle]

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.  

[Dos Equis]

Ideally a female and a male role model is the best scenario.

 

[Primemuscle]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Primemuscle]

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.