Nephele wrote:The fact that Bachmann has openly called the LGBT community "part of Satan" (religious hyperbole of the most repugnant sort) kind of precludes any need to "set her up" for political destruction. She's done a good enough job of setting herself up, without help from anyone else.
sgath92 wrote:She's also one of the three candidates who have signed the National Organization For Marriage pledge to [if elected] investigate gay rights activists who have opposed those opposing gay marriage [link].
Bob Vander Plaats wrote:Paul finishes last because he’s simply not a social conservative’s cup of tea. That said, one has to admire Paul’s honesty and willingness to tell the head of the National Organization of Marriage why he doesn’t support a federal marriage amendment. Paul had some supporters in the audience, but he is going to struggle to earn the support of a lot of social conservatives in the state.
Paul knows this, and it is admirable of him to attend events that are not necessarily in his wheelhouse. Whether or not you agree with him, you have to give him one thing – he’s consistent. I have no doubt about what Paul believes and why. He’s ranked on the bottom of the list because it’s clear he doesn’t have a Biblical worldview. He has a libertarian worldview.
ThePaganMafia wrote:The saddest thing about this is that this IS an actual issue. This country is falling apart at the seams yet we worry about gay people getting married. This issue should have been settled a long time ago. It's absolute lunacy.
Nephele wrote:ThePaganMafia wrote:The saddest thing about this is that this IS an actual issue. This country is falling apart at the seams yet we worry about gay people getting married. This issue should have been settled a long time ago. It's absolute lunacy.
We worry about civil liberties in this nation, which include freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to be free from unreasonable searches of one's home, the right to a fair court trial, the right to vote, and last but not least, the right to marry.
And we worry about civil rights which are meant to protect all citizens against unequal treatment based on race, religion, disability, national origin, gender, etc. The issue is whether or not sexual orientation should be included under the protections of civil rights.
There shouldn't be anything to "settle" regarding "gay people getting married," as the government should not be interfering in the voluntary associations of others, or in defining the limits of those associations.
Wolfmammy wrote:I agree with Pagan. Gay marriage should've never been an issue in the first place. His stance is normally that the government shouldn't go poking its nose in the private affairs of law-abiding citizens. That's something I'm on board with. There are other things politicians could be focusing on instead. Like taxing the rich.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest