Jindal- If SCOTUS strikes down Gay Marriage bans, amend the Constitution-

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jindal-gay-marriage-amend-constitution


Now there are two interpretations-

1. "Bobby" knows this is just bulls*** pandering to the homophboc GOP Base to try to woo them for his obvious Presidential bids. If Nominated, he'd quickly drop the idea.....given the polls.

2. He IS this stupid and actually thinks he and the homophobes could pass a Constitutional Amendment bringing back the bans. He is ignoring the polls and is honestly and seriously this much of a bigot as well as a fantasist.

 

It's hard to tell with right-wingers. They repeat the stuff that they know is complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*) so many times and for so long that it becomes a truth to them.

 

It's like the really really venomous and fascist Rightwing blog posters.....are they real? Or a liberal posing as one to make the Right look bad?

"Poe's Law".


In Jindal's case, is he pandering and knows no such Amendment will pass....or is he truly nuts and thinks it would?

 

he doth protests very loudly, I wonder if he is trying to hide his own inner feelings, kinda like the preacher Ted Haggard

when will the right get it, biblical\sharia law is not the law of the land.....

.

 

The problem is that sexual orientation isn't as obvious as race. While I do believe there is more evidence that being gay is natural, it's not as clear. And therefore, I believe gay marriage and rights should be determined by the states and their legislative process. Not by the courts - and especially not the Supreme Court.

 

Jindal is an Indian-American raised a Hindu....ergo, in his mind, to "not panic" the Far Right (who are xenophobic and racist) he has to be EXTREMELY Far Right on a number of issues so that they'll "trust" him.

When the 2016 Republican Primaries start? NOBODY will be more anti-Muslim or pro-fundamentalist Christianity than Bobby Jindal.....more than John Bolton on Muslims or Huckabee on Rightwing Christianity.

He HAS to be.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't have individual rights determined by the States, Channe......Jim Crow proved that.

 

well, again - that individual rights you speak of usually attain to things a person cannot control - at least in the context of marriage or even rights to discriminate.

there is no denying that a person who is born black had no choice in that matter. And the logic goes that to deny someone anything because of a factor they couldn't chose is immoral and illegal. And while I believe being gay is natural, I admit that proving so is not as easy as proving that race is natural. Especially because, in theory, a straight person can chose to engage in a homosexual act or fake being in love with a person of the same sex.

 

So you believe being gay is genetic....but you still want to discriminate against gays.

 

What are the chances of them getting 2/3 of the votes in the House and Senate, let alone 38 states (3/4) to ratify it? What are the chances of them getting 33 states (2/3) to call a Constitutional convention (which has never happened for any amendment to date)?

Thing is, you can't go by the polls that indicate a slight majority of Americans now favor allowing same-sex marriage. You have to consider who will actually turn out to vote if it goes to the states/state legislatures. Opponents are for more motivated to vote than supporters.

Still, I don't think they can do it. I think this is all posturing for 2016. I hope whoever jumps on this bandwagon postures themselves right out of contention.

And I seriously doubt they can even muster the votes in Congress to send it to the states.

 

As a Christian he is duty bound to not support homosexual sex.

With respect to amending the Constitution; it would never get ratified by the states

The heterophobe/Christianophobe movement is too powerful

 

You like talking about gay sex even if the thread has nothing to do with it. That's strange for somebody that seems to have such hang ups about it

 

again with the false narrative which the movement wants to push

in order to be a plumber, one must do some plumbing

the action is the identifier/qualifier. I could claim to live the homosexual lifestyle but until such time as I start receiving and making deliveries to the rear, then it would be all bluster.

 

sec, there are Christians who don't believe in drinking alcohol (in any amount)....there are Christians whoo do.

There are Christians who are pacifists....there are Christians who believe in a "just war" and joining the military to fight one.

There are Christians who don't believe in using contraception.....there a lot of Christians who do.


And there are Christians who see nothing wrong with homosexuality.....and YOU nor your interpretation of Christianity is any more "better or worse" than those people. Neither are you.

 

This is just Jindal and Cruz throwing out phony panders to the antipathetic-to-gays Right.....Jindal and Cruz know there will never be such an Amendment.....hell, almost all of the Right know that.

It's just "Bobby" and "Ted" trying to woo Social Cons, siphon them off of Huckabee and Santorum, by making phony promises of returning "traditional marriage to America" (if the SCOTUS rules against them).......

and then going on Rush Limbaugh and talking about how nice it was to meet Rush's FOURTH WIFE.

 

Notice, sec's back to this "theory" again......he's saying "You're not really gay, unless you are having (currently) gay sex" (BTW, notice it's never lesbian sex?).

Which means if IN THE PAST, a person had had gay sex, even is still sexually attracted to the same gender....but doesn't have homosexual sex today?...."they're not gay either."

That about it, sec???

 

the Bible discusses drinking wine aka alcohol

the Bible also discusses gay sex as a no no

try again please

no Christian condones gay sex. They can call themselves a Christian but they are not if they condone gay sex.

>>>MOD EDIT Quoted Post and Reply Deleted<<<

 

That's YOUR interpretation of Christianity.......Jesus said turn the other cheek and love thine enemies....yet few Christians are pacifists and refuse to fight in wars. (less Quakers, etc.).

1. So what do you all it when lesbians have sex? "Heterosexual sex"???

2. By your logic, a person could have engaged in homosexual sex in the past....currently be sexually attracted to the same gender.....but if he is currently not having homosexual sex, he can claim he is "not homosexual"....right? A man could even claim he's a Christian who thinks homosexuality is evil, right?.....as long as he's not currently having sex with another man. Right?

 

what is the homosexual lifestyle?

 

Again, consider "Sec's Theory Of Homosexuality"....

if you engaged in homosexual sex in the past....but currently do not....

and even if you are currently sexually attracted to the same gender....according to him?

You're "not a homosexual".

So "homosexual lifestyle" only means having homosexual sex ...and presently. Being attracted to the same gender and having "only" had homosexual sex in the past....means you are NOT in the "homosexual lifestyle".


BTW, still love for him to tell us what he calls the sex that lesbians have with each other if it's not "gay sex"?!?!?

 

Well I guess I'm not homosexual unless I'm having sex with my spouse.

As far as lifestyle, I don't really live a lifestyle dictated by my sexuality.

 

That really depends on which interpretive translation you are using as has already been shown to you .. despite that fact you continue to ignore the reality of it.

That is nothing more than you opinion based on your lack of information due to only using a single interpretive bible version. I would also expect that those Christian people who do support SSM would say you are the one who is not really a Christian. I would suggest you research the numerous interpretations and translations of the bible but it would fall onto deaf ears, as they say "there are none so blind as those who won't see" - http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/There's+none+so+blind+as+those+who+will+not+see

 

If they are dumb enough to try to amend the constitution....they will simply have one more defeat hanging over their heads.

 

Jindal is Roman Catholic...........

 

Having something legal does not mean you support it. Pornography is legal right now, does that mean you and others support it because it is legal? Of course not. There are lots of legal things that Christians and Roman Catholics do not support. Legality does not equate to moral.

Also, he is Roman Catholic.

Nope, he wouldn't because most people believe in freedom, unlike the anti-SSM folks.

There is nothing of the sort, but you continue to post lies since that is all you have to offer anymore in this debate.