Mike Huckabee (1 Viewer)

[Pure Energy]

Huh. And yet nonbelievers often hear about how this is supposedly a Christian nation and if we don't like it we should just sit down and shut up while the Christians maneuver our laws more to suit them. The Constitution is specifically crafted to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

I know, what if there was this government set up to provide for the greatest amount of freedom for the greatest number of people. Where churches were free to marry or not marry anybody they chose. Man, that would be so cool.

Taurus, we've gone *** for tat on this before so I believe I know what you're referring to, but I just wanted to ensure the newbies to the party understand that you're basically advocating the removal of all boundaries from the marriage contract.

Therefore, brother/sister could marry as could brother/brother or sister/sister or brother/sister/brother or sister/sister/brother or mother/brother/sister or father/mother/brother/brother (assuming they were all over 18 or age of majority), etc..

And I applaud you for having a set of principles and sticking to them (even if I don't agree with them). People who want to put boundaries around marriage with an incoherent mishmosh of reasons present the greatest challenge to me in my understanding.

 

[Taurus]

Taurus, we've gone *** for tat on this before so I believe I know what you're referring to, but I just wanted to ensure the newbies to the party understand that you're basically advocating the removal of all boundaries from the marriage contract.

Therefore, brother/sister could marry as could brother/brother or sister/sister or brother/sister/brother or sister/sister/brother or mother/brother/sister or father/mother/brother/brother (assuming they were all over 18 or age of majority), etc..

And I applaud you for having a set of principles and sticking to them (even if I don't agree with them). People who want to put boundaries around marriage with an incoherent mishmosh of reasons present the greatest challenge to me in my understanding.

Then you've misunderstood me. I wouldn't advocate the removal of all restrictions on marriage. The State has valid reasons for limiting the number of parties, for instance. Or limiting the closeness of kin where free, informed consent can't be guaranteed. (As is the case with incest, for instance.) Mainly, if the State wants to limit the freedom of someone to enter into a contract and enjoy the benefits available to others, the State needs to show a valid reason for doing so. The internal plumbing of the parties involved isn't a valid reason to discriminate most anywhere else, it shouldn't be with marriage either.

Thus far (and you and others who feel as you do have been given ample opportunity) nobody has ever been able to describe a valid reason why two grown, freely consenting people shouldn't be barred from marriage just because their plumbing is the same. I've seen Scripture quoted ad nauseum, but as I would hope we all agree, there should be no religious test for marriage. So that objection is out the window. I've heard balderdash about children when it's quite plain that childless people and those well beyond the childbearing/rearing years get married all the time. All these social ills you describe have come at a time when gay marriage is still illegal, so it's ridiculous to think that merely keeping it illegal is going to fix them, even if keeping it illegal was a desirable end in itself.

When you speak of an incoherent mishmosh, I happen to think that our current marriage laws are as arbitrary and twisted as our current animal cruelty laws. They should both be torn down and rebuilt with some semblance of order and fairness.

 

[Shawn]

Taurus, we've gone *** for tat on this before so I believe I know what you're referring to, but I just wanted to ensure the newbies to the party understand that you're basically advocating the removal of all boundaries from the marriage contract.

Therefore, brother/sister could marry as could brother/brother or sister/sister or brother/sister/brother or sister/sister/brother or mother/brother/sister or father/mother/brother/brother (assuming they were all over 18 or age of majority), etc..

And I applaud you for having a set of principles and sticking to them (even if I don't agree with them). People who want to put boundaries around marriage with an incoherent mishmosh of reasons present the greatest challenge to me in my understanding.

Marriage is a religious designation. It should be recognized by the church, as it sees fit.

It needs to be abolished as a legal designation.

 

[LSSpam]

Marriage is a religious designation. It should be recognized by the church, as it sees fit.

It needs to be abolished as a legal designation.

I agree. We should simply do away with the term "marriage" and make them all "Civil Unions". It's a legal term that entails legal standing and legal protections. You can't deny equal protections and benefits to people just because of their sexual orientation.

If people want to apply a moral standard to "marriage" fine, we should leave it to the province of the moral arbitrators, churches and whatever other group or affiliation people want to come up with. They can issue "marriages" as they see fit under whatever conditions.

 

[Taurus]

Works for me. I'll be happy to perform the ceremony for any two people who want that kind of commitment and freely enter into it.

Of course, we'll still call it "marriage".

This desire of Americans to limit the freedom of other Americans for no good reason just bugs the heck out of me. Whatever happened to live and let live?

 

[Brandon13]

Anyone received any Huckabee spam emails? I've received a couple in the last few days.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Anyone received any Huckabee spam emails? I've received a couple in the last few days.

You call them spam?

Enjoy Hell.

 

[Brandon13]

You call them spam?

Enjoy Hell.

Lol.

 

[Taceo]

What I'm sensing from your post above is a sentiment that those who do not agree with you are in the category of ignorant, backwards or hate-mongers--but I could have misinterpreted your post.

A person who discriminates others for being of a certain sexual orientation is no different from a person who discriminates others for being of a different race, religion, gender, et al. What I'm sensing from your post is a sentiment that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. My parallel to that thought process is that your way of thinking is no better than if you were to believe blacks do not deserve the same rights as whites, jews the same rights as buddhists, or women the same rights as men. I hope that clears up your interpretation of my post.

 

[TPS]

"You don't like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag," Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, told supporters Thursday in Myrtle Beach, S.C.


"In fact, if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell 'em what to do with the pole, that's what we'd do," Huckabee said.

If you mike fun of ahr flaig main, you cain stick that flagpole strite up yur ayus. :17:

>>Au contraire...I have been paying attention...I see what is happening in American society. I've noticed the demise of the nuclear family, the high divorce rate...the spike in crime rates....the number of children in foster homes...

What is happening in American society? That all sounds like sound bytes to me. We could cure all that by forcing women back where they belong, into the kitchen. If they get out of line, we'll just slap them down and they'll have to deal with it because the man gets final say. :17:

TPS

 

[RebSaint]

I agree. We should simply do away with the term "marriage" and make them all "Civil Unions". It's a legal term that entails legal standing and legal protections. You can't deny equal protections and benefits to people just because of their sexual orientation.

If people want to apply a moral standard to "marriage" fine, we should leave it to the province of the moral arbitrators, churches and whatever other group or affiliation people want to come up with. They can issue "marriages" as they see fit under whatever conditions.

Completely agree here. Civilly, marraige is a CONTRACT, which is regulated by states. The argument that legalizing, or sanctioning gay civil unions will usher in dog-man, dog-woman marriages is silly. States have the right to limit or put restrictions on who can't enter a legal, binding contract.

Minors and animals can't and probably shouldn't enter a civil contract to be life-mates. The slippery-slope argument in this context is rather silly and designed to invoke fear.

Restricting same-sex unions is effectivelly denying them the rightful access to enter into a property-sharing contract and could be interpreted ans unconstitutional, but I'm happy to just leave up "standards" up to each individual state.

In other words, civil unions should be a state issue. Marriages should be spiritually sanctioned and regulated by churches.

 

[bclemms]

http://www.mikehuckabeeforum.com/index.php