I understand that this won't change anyone who's already formed an opinion on abortion but lying about your opposition shows a weakness in your position.

To some people, Planned Parenthood aborts fetuses. To other people, Planned Parenthood murders babies. I personally am much more in the former camp than the latter. But would you want the people who believe the latter to get you fired from your job because they read your Hacker News comment and plaster it all over conservative newspapers that "wavefunction is an apologist for baby murderers!"? I certainly wouldn't.

The nuance that always gets lost in these discussions is that different people have different points of view, and the same words may mean different things to them. Combine that with the lynch mob mentality and you have a powder keg.

Would you be opposed to pregnant women taking this drug?

There is no legitimate argument against gay marriage.

So, what makes an argument legitimate? In order for one to suggest that there is no legitimate argument against gay marriage, you'd have to rationalize what it is that we in the west know better than those living in less-wealthy, less-industrialized societies outside our corner of the globe.

Using that as a rulestick, no one will be negatively impacted by homosexuals getting married. Studies have been done, plenty of places around the globe have tried it with no negative consequences. The courts agree. There's no government interest in preventing gay marriage.

Most of those other societies incorporate substantial religious influence in their legislative and/or judicial processes. It doesn't require "rationalization" to demonstrate that this is harmful to human progress.

EDIT: Apparently that's a little contentious -- only 47% self-declared atheist (http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-pres...), but given that 9% of those surveyed did not respond to the question, the majority of respondents to this specific survey question did self-proclaim themselves as atheists.

Even today -- decades after the state/social pressures against religious affiliation disappeared -- most former soviet states still have very large atheist populations.

Yes, I think people, in a position where PR is a part of their role such as CEO, that work toward things that cause substantial outcry that prevent him from doing his job, should probably not be in that position.

Or are you saying that you'd think someone working against the ideals of Planned Parenthood in their own time would be suited to lead it?

You might disagree with the reasons, but the reality is, he couldn't do his job because of the outcry. So, the fundamental question becomes: Do you think someone should get fired for not being able to do their job?