No Marriage for everyone! (Huckabee, middle east, spokesman, soldiers)

[arizona sunset]

Originally Posted by NintendoTogepi

Again you keep contradicting yourself very badly.

I'm not sure how to break this down any other way for you. This is not that complicated. The homosexual community makes a valid argument that, because in their population a man/man and woman/woman can love each other, the exact same way that heterosexuals can love each other, and they are thereby legally endowed with the same rights. This has been their primary argument from the very start. An argument in which the heterosexual population has not been able to easily ignore. No doubt that there are large amounts of homosexuals that want it for the legal rights that come along with a marriage certificate. But I also believe that in today’s world, that is a major cause for heterosexual marriages too. But in any case, we are saying, that the two are justified because they love each other the same way. I doubt you disagree with me at this point---

Now, why is it so complex to imagine that there are groups of people in this world, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, that wish to be legally married to each other, for no other reason than they love each other. How can you even begin to argue that? (You can quickly see how the term love can become a quantitative and even qualitative issue for the courts.) According to the studies that I have seen, most plural marriages in the US are not for religious reasons. Polygamists have also shown that they can raise happy, healthy families that end up being positive, contributing members to society. The FLDS fiasco this summer was only a small part of an ever larger way of living. The only thing that is contradictory about this, is your obvious dislike for this type of lifestyle. Well, unfortunately, liberals never gave conservatives that right, so why should people that wish to live in plural marriages have any sympathy for the homosexual population when it comes to their rights as a legal "couple." If we are going to legally put in the books, that marriage is not given the stipulations to just one man and one woman, I would be interested to know, if you were the opposing lawyer, what evidence you give that would dismiss polygamy, but allow for gay marriage. If you cannot understand this (although, yes, the situations involved are different) they fall under the same heading; civil rights!, than you have no case.

As for you second issue, I do not follow at all. I have never read, nor been exposed to this alternative history that you allude to. Do you honestly believe that when food and shelter became a problem for the cave men, they simply threw up there arms, and became gay, as a way to "simply" their population for awhile. I call foul on every part of that argument! Now you are the one making it sound like homosexuality can simply be shut off and on like a light switch. It isn't that simple! Besides, why do you think society has been such an avid supporter of large families up until recent memory? Because they were able to help, and contribute to the family and village as a whole. I'm not calling you a complete idiot here. But it is erroneous comments like this that only further make life long, VERY heterosexual people, even more confused, and suspect to the real intentions of homosexuality and whether or not it is indeed real, or simply nothing better than a fashion statement that will eventually pass.

In response to your last statement, I can only say, "Where have you been?" Have you heard of Amsterdam aka, the city where everything goes? Sure it isn't a country, but it is very large capital city. How about San Francisco? You know, the city that has been trying for sometime to legalize prostitution in the name of what is fair and right. I honestly don't have a list at the ready to give you, but there are large populations where more goes on then would first appear. Also, keep in mind that the "vast coming out" of homosexuals has only been happening in mainstream culture for the past century at best. The societies that allow for this, want simply go from a pro-hetero approach, to an Amsterdam approach over night. Civil rights take time. Like I have already mentioned, there are organizations like NAMBLA, whose sole purpose as a group is to convince the general public that little boys are sexually mature the moment of birth, and that we as a society are holding them back from fully expressing their sexuality. This is real my friend!!! (I’M NOT SAYING THAT HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD BE COMPARED TO CILD MOLESTERS IN ANY WAY!!) These people, and others like them are lobbying in Washington right now, with loud voices. Now no, I do not believe that our society, at least within my grandchildren’s lifetime will take these people seriously. But who is to say that the age of consent won’t be lowered to 16. You see, once you take the biological meaning, out of the word love, you open the door for lots of other interpretations. Many of which aren’t so pleasant. You live in a very naive and young world if you do not agree with that, I'm sorry! As far as bestiality goes, I have already spoken on that in previous posts. Perhaps you should go back ad read it. While there are some sick, sick, sick, people out there that even promote it through their porn filth, I do not believe that the US is collectively, that far to the absolute. But like I stated, sexuality is not the only reason that one could want to "be legally wed" to their pet. I repeat again; Once you take the biological out of the word love, you open up the argument for all those that now deem it fitting to their own definition. You cannot deny that simple fact.

The only thing that I'm really trying to drive home here, is that I have no problem with gay marriage, as long as the inclusiveness of allowing them this right, does not become an exclusionary for others. It can't work both ways, and I ask you again; Is this the world that you want to leave for your children?
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]

[sto1986]

Heterosexual marriage is already exclusionary. Marriage between TWO consenting adults is different from anything that you've mentioned otherwise. Do you want to your children a world that discriminates against people that are different than them but pose no harm to them whatsoever?

[Geography Freak]

Originally Posted by sto1986

Heterosexual marriage is already exclusionary. Marriage between TWO consenting adults is different from anything that you've mentioned otherwise. Do you want to your children a world that discriminates against people that are different than them but pose no harm to them whatsoever?

Incestuous people pose no harm to me either, yet you're not allowed to marry your sister regardless of how much you love her.

[arizona sunset]

Originally Posted by sto1986

Heterosexual marriage is already exclusionary. Marriage between TWO consenting adults is different from anything that you've mentioned otherwise. Do you want to your children a world that discriminates against people that are different than them but pose no harm to them whatsoever?

......(and around and around we go). Listen, I do agree with you that heterosexual marriage is an exclusionary measure to everyone, not just homosexuals. (I will get to this later.) But isn't homosexual marriage/heterosexual marriage exclusionary to polygamists, and taken to the next level incest, and then taken to the next level people in NAMBLQ!? "Do you want to[leave] your children a world that discriminates against people that are different than them but pose no harm to them whatsoever?" Well if it is against NAMBLA THAN HECK YES!!!! Call me a bigot now! What if it was a polygamist group made from homosexuals? Would you have problems then?
Indeed, if your neighbors next door were involved in polygamy right now, would it really change your life that much?


Once again, I find it mind-boggling those homosexuals and their "marriage right" supporters, of all people, would be a road block for this. Another reason why most far right wing conservatives believe the word liberal is synonymous with the word hypocrisy. Your point only proves this more. You can sit here all day and shout that "well gay marriage is between TWO consenting adults." But when I shout back something just as "baseless" like "marriage should only be between TWO consenting heterosexual adults," you can see how this argument will never end unless homosexuals make some concessions.

If you couldn't already tell, I’m not for polygamy, or incest, or even gay marriage. I'm really not! But like I have said before, you can still be against something, but understand its objectivity. Operative word here is objectivity; something that liberals don't get! They only want the right to come over to them. But ask the left to cross the line, well now you’re a racist and a homophobe.

But have you ever stopped, and taken a good hard look at what makes the foundation for most to of the Christian right, and why they do many of the things they do? It is because their foundation is Christianity. Do you understand that in ALL Christian beliefs (Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, and Reformist) they all teach a sound, basic principle that if our world embraces gay marriage, God will destroy us. Has that ever crossed your mind? I know the last thing the left wants in this argument is for some conservative wacko to bring up the "G-word", but in all honesty, surprise!, that is what make the base platform for the right! Yes, you can call me zealot, but I do truly believe that God is real, and Jesus is my Savior. I am sure of that, just as sure that I am typing this.

So, since liberals have all the answers, and are so enlightened beyond what modern religion can ever hope to achieve for the average citizen; how would you approach this topic? Because the way that I see it, if I, as a Christian put out a vote for gay marriage than I am in the wrong, and if I put out a vote against gay marriage I'm still in the wrong. So how do homosexuals even begin to appease us in that? Liberals don't have this foundation, so they constantly have to redefine what is liberal, and how far they can push it. I guarantee you that in a hundred years (if gay marriage becomes national policy, which I bet it will) the same type of people that you put your trust in now, will be making the same argument, only this time for people that want marriage that falls outside your "TWO consenting adults" mantra You know this already!

I know the last part there sounds a little too, “preachy religious”, but in the end, I feel much better putting my argument in the hands of a higher being, than a group of people that through a child-like tantrum in the streets of LA when they don’t get their way.

[Toxic Toast]

bread makes me poop

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by DC 38

bread makes me poop

Now THAT was random!

[sto1986]

I believe that I get your point, at least some of it. I get that your Christian. I've lived in the South my whole life, believe me I get Christianity. The way I see it though, is that marriage in a legal sense and a religious sense should be different. I think it is unfair of you to insinuate that someone can't be liberal and Christian, but you wouldn't be the first to make that assumption. Not all Christian churches are entirely against gay marriage, I know that Episcopalians perform some gay union/marriage ceremonies. The Bible says a lot of things, a lot of things that Christians don't follow everyday. People eat shellfish, people lie, people wear shirts made from two different fabrics. These are sins that you can find in the bible. I don't know how many Christians are repenting over eating pork and shellfish, but I'll bet you it's not that many. Well you might say homosexuality is more like adultery or something. Well I would disagree, I would say that it's more like when the Bible says things about women and how they should be subordinate to men/their husbands, etc. What I am trying to say is that certain things written in the Bible are a reflection of the time they were written in. Because in the end, the Bible was written by men that while they had the intention of spreading the word of God may have put some of their own personal bias in there. I would hope that modern day Christians in America don't still believe that women are to be completely submissive to their husbands wishes. I know some do, but not all. I think you have to buy in to this whole idea of exactly what the Bible says or buy into that the Bible is open to interpretation. Maybe the Bible is really a guide to the way we should live our lives opposed to strict rules. Besides that Bible has been translated so many times since it was written, there is no telling what was translated or interpreted wrong. They didn't even have a word for homosexuality when the Bible was written. I believe that too often people do things in the name of God that God would disagree with, that is just my belief I don't think that either you or I really know what God intentions are. I believe that God created me just as he created everyone else, and that we all have a purpose.

I don't believe that incest or pedophilia is right in anyway, there is scientific proof that it is harmful.

I think it's absurd and unAmerican that accuse people who are trying to fight for what they believe is right in a free country to be a child-like tantrum. Do you feel the same way about the black civil rights movement in the 1960s? or women's suffrage?

[arizona sunset]

Originally Posted by sto1986

I believe that I get your point, at least some of it. I get that your Christian. I've lived in the South my whole life, believe me I get Christianity. The way I see it though, is that marriage in a legal sense and a religious sense should be different. I think it is unfair of you to insinuate that someone can't be liberal and Christian, but you wouldn't be the first to make that assumption. Not all Christian churches are entirely against gay marriage, I know that Episcopalians perform some gay union/marriage ceremonies. The Bible says a lot of things, a lot of things that Christians don't follow everyday. People eat shellfish, people lie, people wear shirts made from two different fabrics. These are sins that you can find in the bible. I don't know how many Christians are repenting over eating pork and shellfish, but I'll bet you it's not that many. Well you might say homosexuality is more like adultery or something. Well I would disagree, I would say that it's more like when the Bible says things about women and how they should be subordinate to men/their husbands, etc. What I am trying to say is that certain things written in the Bible are a reflection of the time they were written in. Because in the end, the Bible was written by men that while they had the intention of spreading the word of God may have put some of their own personal bias in there. I would hope that modern day Christians in America don't still believe that women are to be completely submissive to their husbands wishes. I know some do, but not all. I think you have to buy in to this whole idea of exactly what the Bible says or buy into that the Bible is open to interpretation. Maybe the Bible is really a guide to the way we should live our lives opposed to strict rules. Besides that Bible has been translated so many times since it was written, there is no telling what was translated or interpreted wrong. They didn't even have a word for homosexuality when the Bible was written. I believe that too often people do things in the name of God that God would disagree with, that is just my belief I don't think that either you or I really know what God intentions are. I believe that God created me just as he created everyone else, and that we all have a purpose.

I don't believe that incest or pedophilia is right in anyway, there is scientific proof that it is harmful.

I think it's absurd and unAmerican that accuse people who are trying to fight for what they believe is right in a free country to be a child-like tantrum. Do you feel the same way about the black civil rights movement in the 1960s? or women's suffrage?

Let me start by responding to your last statement, because that seems to be where you have a significant problem with me. I'm actually glad that you brought up the events of the 1960's. They are a vital reason, of why I find homosexuals to be in the right, when asking for marital rights. I think it is fantastic that people express their rights to free SPEACH as the homosexual population has. It only confirms how lucky we really do have it here in America. I doubt you disagree.

But there is a difference between peaceful protest, and a riot. I actually happen to believe that the government, as long as the protest does not interfere with other's daily lives, should not even need a permit. But what the homosexual community in this country did to the LDS church was wrong, and anything but peaceful. The church did nothing illegal, and should not come off as a shocker. The only thing that was illegal was the vandalism that happened all over this country to LDS temples and chapels. So yes, if you are asking me if I would also be opposed to the Rodney King Riots, and the like, than yes. Not because their message was wrong, but because their delivery was indeed "a tantrum." You can protest, but you don't have the right to infringe on other's rights along the way.

As far as the rest of your religious rhetoric goes, all I can say is that I am happy that you seem comfortable in your religious views. Good for you. There are lots of people in this world that aren't so happy. If you are looking for me to point-by-point debate you on the issues you present, I'm not going to do it. I have no interest in degrading other's beliefs, or turning this into a Holy War. Plus, I don’t have the time. But what I will comment on is your confusion on liberal Christianity. Yes, there are religious liberals in this world, and yes, even Christians that voted for Obama. Again, that is their right; I can disagree, but not interfere. However, I strongly question the validity of one's Christian convictions, when they also believe themselves to be a liberal. They contradict each other on a massive scale!!!! I'm not saying that voting a straight blue ticket does not make you a follower of Christ. But then again, the terms liberal and Christian hardly fall under the sub-categories of Democrat and Republican. Actually, that goes almost triple for conservative/Republicans.

The reason why I would question ones ability to be an avid supporter of Obama/his liberal allies, and a Christian are really quite obvious. Obama is a hardcore supporter of all forms of abortion, including partial and infanticide. Talk about things that separate himself from Christianity. Obama is also believes in the fully institutionalized version of FDR's New Deal. Something that the vast majority of Christianity don't follow. Liberals also have adopted gay marriage as their national policy it seems. You guessed it, something most conservatives wouldn't begin to touch. It goes on and on and on, but the point is, liberalism and Christianity aren't exactly bosom buddies, and should not be looked at as such. I'm glad that you have found them to work well combined in your life. But for me, I cannot implement one in my life, without causing conflict with the other.

[Gtownoe]

Originally Posted by arizona sunset

Let me start by responding to your last statement, because that seems to be where you have a significant problem with me. I'm actually glad that you brought up the events of the 1960's. They are a vital reason, of why I find homosexuals to be in the right, when asking for marital rights. I think it is fantastic that people express their rights to free SPEACH as the homosexual population has. It only confirms how lucky we really do have it here in America. I doubt you disagree.

But there is a difference between peaceful protest, and a riot. I actually happen to believe that the government, as long as the protest does not interfere with other's daily lives, should not even need a permit. But what the homosexual community in this country did to the LDS church was wrong, and anything but peaceful. The church did nothing illegal, and should not come off as a shocker. The only thing that was illegal was the vandalism that happened all over this country to LDS temples and chapels. So yes, if you are asking me if I would also be opposed to the Rodney King Riots, and the like, than yes. Not because their message was wrong, but because their delivery was indeed "a tantrum." You can protest, but you don't have the right to infringe on other's rights along the way.

As far as the rest of your religious rhetoric goes, all I can say is that I am happy that you seem comfortable in your religious views. Good for you. There are lots of people in this world that aren't so happy. If you are looking for me to point-by-point debate you on the issues you present, I'm not going to do it. I have no interest in degrading other's beliefs, or turning this into a Holy War. Plus, I don’t have the time. But what I will comment on is your confusion on liberal Christianity. Yes, there are religious liberals in this world, and yes, even Christians that voted for Obama. Again, that is their right; I can disagree, but not interfere. However, I strongly question the validity of one's Christian convictions, when they also believe themselves to be a liberal. They contradict each other on a massive scale!!!! I'm not saying that voting a straight blue ticket does not make you a follower of Christ. But then again, the terms liberal and Christian hardly fall under the sub-categories of Democrat and Republican. Actually, that goes almost triple for conservative/Republicans.

The reason why I would question ones ability to be an avid supporter of Obama/his liberal allies, and a Christian are really quite obvious. Obama is a hardcore supporter of all forms of abortion, including partial and infanticide. Talk about things that separate himself from Christianity. Obama is also believes in the fully institutionalized version of FDR's New Deal. Something that the vast majority of Christianity don't follow. Liberals also have adopted gay marriage as their national policy it seems. You guessed it, something most conservatives wouldn't begin to touch. It goes on and on and on, but the point is, liberalism and Christianity aren't exactly bosom buddies, and should not be looked at as such. I'm glad that you have found them to work well combined in your life. But for me, I cannot implement one in my life, without causing conflict with the other.

You can't be kidding me when you believe that being a Christian and being a liberal do not synch up!

First of all, christianity has many, many different sects and denominations. "Christians" can't even agree on what is right or wrong. So you can't paint things as strictly Christian or not. It's not one movement, its actually several different movements linked together by some common characteristics. Each sect or denomination has their own interpretations of the bible.

So as a conservative christian do you believe in the death penalty? War? Both involve murder. If you oppose both, then you can make a valid argument against abortion.

One thing that I find astounding is that the Bible was written at a time when homosexuality was a common practice. It was ingrained into Greek culture. The Spartans were notorious for their homosexual and bisexual tendacies.

Yet, you never hear Jesus condone homosexuality in the bible. Nor is it a major or minor topic in the bible.

I'd like to hear your take on my points. I'm always open for constructive dialogue.

[CMDallas]

Originally Posted by Joe Bama!

Brooklyn has nothing to do with this or Uber liberal or Conservative. I am a registered Democrat, but first and foremost I am an American.
It has to do with being American and adhering to the laws that make this nation great.
I admire your ability to be a Conservative and agree that Homosexuals should have the same rights.

Well most of New York is liberal, just as most of DFW (minus Dallas proper) is conservative....
I supposed we should all put being an American first...
haha, I've actually met GAY conservatives...
that is admirable...
i knew a gay Hispanic Male...who was wildly for McCain....