Huckabee? IN the lead? Really?

Jarod said:
Just because the law reconizes something does not mean you have to... Check out how the Catholics handle divorce.... If you want a divorce in the Catholic church you have to pay the Pope, regardless if the LAW deems you to be diviorced or not.
Click to expand...
As pinheads constantly do, you're getting way off the mark Jughead...

Canon Law and Civil/Criminal Law are all different subjects....

One has nothing to do with the other.....Your comment only shows your obvious bigotry
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
so if an employee comes to me and says Fred is my spouse and I want insurance on him I won't have to recognize it?.....thanks, I thought it was the other way around.....
Click to expand...

If you are legally required to provide insurance for married employees, and they are legally married, yes.

But that does not mean you have to consider them married.
 
Jarod said:
If you are legally required to provide insurance for married employees, and they are legally married, yes.

But that does not mean you have to consider them married.
Click to expand...

Marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman. Gay unions are not "marriage" as much as you wish to pretend they are. All of your arguments are based on the false perception that a gay union is already defined as a marriage, and that simply isn't the case. Homosexuals are not denied the right to join in a union of a man and woman (i.e., marry). Many of them DO! They are also not prohibited from being in a gay union with each other, again, many of them DO!
 
Dixie said:
Marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman. Gay unions are not "marriage" as much as you wish to pretend they are. All of your arguments are based on the false perception that a gay union is already defined as a marriage, and that simply isn't the case. Homosexuals are not denied the right to join in a union of a man and woman (i.e., marry). Many of them DO! They are also not prohibited from being in a gay union with each other, again, many of them DO!
Click to expand...

Where do you get your defination of marriage?


But the main point it why do you care?

Why do you want to tell other people they cant get married? Why do you have the desire to set personal rules for other people?
 
Jarhead said:
Where do you get your defination of marriage?
Click to expand...

7,000 years of recorded human history!

But the main point it why do you care?

Why do you want to tell other people they cant get married? Why do you have the desire to set personal rules for other people?
Click to expand...

I've not told anyone they can't get married! I've also not told anyone they can't live in a gay union! Why do you have the desire to disrespect religious and cultural traditions of others?
 
Jarod said:
If you are legally required to provide insurance for married employees, and they are legally married, yes.

But that does not mean you have to consider them married.
Click to expand...

then you retract your earlier statement that I did not have to recognize their marriage?....
 
Dixie said:
7,000 years of recorded human history!



I've not told anyone they can't get married! I've also not told anyone they can't live in a gay union! Why do you have the desire to disrespect religious and cultural traditions of others?
Click to expand...

I am all for respecting others religous and cultural traditions until it interfears with how someone honestly wants to live there life.

Why do you care what others do and how they define it?

Why do you want to dictate how others define there relationship?
 
Dixie said:
7,000 years of recorded human history!



I've not told anyone they can't get married! I've also not told anyone they can't live in a gay union! Why do you have the desire to disrespect religious and cultural traditions of others?
Click to expand...

So, you are for legal polygamy and against legal divorce?
 
Jarod said:
I am all for respecting others religous and cultural traditions until it interfears with how someone honestly wants to live there life.
Click to expand...

How someone wants to live is not being interfered with. No one is banning homosexual relations. No one is banning homosexual unions! As I've often mentioned, I attended a Gay Wedding in 1986, in ALABAMA! The only thing that is being prevented, is a hijacking of traditional marriage, and redefining it on the basis of sexuality. Doing that, disrespects a religious and cultural tradition.

How someone wants to live their life, is very often restricted by our rules, boundaries, and limitations. Nudists don't get to live their lives the way they want to, running around in the buff in public. Why are they segregated from society that way? Because of respect for cultural (and religious) traditions.

Why do you care what others do and how they define it?
Click to expand...

I don't care what others do or how they define it. I do care about how the state or federal government defines it, because my tax dollars support state and federal governments. It's MY business!

Why do you want to dictate how others define there relationship?
Click to expand...

Why do you want to dictate how my tax-paid government defines it? That's the question! I don't care how anyone defines anything! I do care how my government defines things, because it represents ME! I have every right to care how they define things! I have every right to speak my mind and express my opinion about it, and it doesn't matter why I have my opinion! Whether it's based on my concern for legal precedent allowing a slippery slope, whether I hate gay people, whether I think God is angered by it... whatever my opinion is, I am entitled to it! Who the fuck are you to deny me the right to express my opinions?

Jarod said:
So, you are for legal polygamy and against legal divorce?
Click to expand...

WTF? How in the hell do you derive such ridiculous nonsense? This is a classic example of how devoid of integrity and honesty you are! Instead of having an intelligent conversation, you want to pervert things into some warped and twisted illogical derivative of what was said, and pretend that is a tenable position of your opponent. It's because you can't really address the points I have made, or come up with anything logical to say in response. I'm actually GLAD you do shit like this, it shows how fucking lost you are in this debate, and how pathetic and desperate your position has become.

Let's step back and examine this again... I support comprehensive Civil Unions reforms, where the government abandons issuance of "marriage" licenses completely, and replaces them with a generic two-party contract arrangement between any two consenting adults of legal age. This solution grants gay couples every right and benefit of a traditionally married couple in America, without usurping religious or cultural traditions, and solves the problem to everyone's mutual satisfaction. Why do you oppose that?
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
How someone wants to live is not being interfered with. No one is banning homosexual relations. No one is banning homosexual unions! As I've often mentioned, I attended a Gay Wedding in 1986, in ALABAMA! The only thing that is being prevented, is a hijacking of traditional marriage, and redefining it on the basis of sexuality. Doing that, disrespects a religious and cultural tradition.

How someone wants to live their life, is very often restricted by our rules, boundaries, and limitations. Nudists don't get to live their lives the way they want to, running around in the buff in public. Why are they segregated from society that way? Because of respect for cultural (and religious) traditions.



I don't care what others do or how they define it. I do care about how the state or federal government defines it, because my tax dollars support state and federal governments. It's MY business!



Why do you want to dictate how my tax-paid government defines it? That's the question! I don't care how anyone defines anything! I do care how my government defines things, because it represents ME! I have every right to care how they define things! I have every right to speak my mind and express my opinion about it, and it doesn't matter why I have my opinion! Whether it's based on my concern for legal precedent allowing a slippery slope, whether I hate gay people, whether I think God is angered by it... whatever my opinion is, I am entitled to it! Who the fuck are you to deny me the right to express my opinions?



WTF? How in the hell do you derive such ridiculous nonsense? This is a classic example of how devoid of integrity and honesty you are! Instead of having an intelligent conversation, you want to pervert things into some warped and twisted illogical derivative of what was said, and pretend that is a tenable position of your opponent. It's because you can't really address the points I have made, or come up with anything logical to say in response. I'm actually GLAD you do shit like this, it shows how fucking lost you are in this debate, and how pathetic and desperate your position has become.

Let's step back and examine this again... I support comprehensive Civil Unions reforms, where the government abandons issuance of "marriage" licenses completely, and replaces them with a generic two-party contract arrangement between any two consenting adults of legal age. This solution grants gay couples every right and benefit of a traditionally married couple in America, without usurping religious or cultural traditions, and solves the problem to everyone's mutual satisfaction. Why do you oppose that?
Click to expand...

You are the one who mentioned 7000 years of tradition... well, a signifigant portion of that 7000 years prohibited divorce and allowed men to have as many wifes as they choose.

It also provided for women to be treated as chattle.
 
Dixie said:
How someone wants to live is not being interfered with. No one is banning homosexual relations. No one is banning homosexual unions! As I've often mentioned, I attended a Gay Wedding in 1986, in ALABAMA! The only thing that is being prevented, is a hijacking of traditional marriage, and redefining it on the basis of sexuality. Doing that, disrespects a religious and cultural tradition.

How someone wants to live their life, is very often restricted by our rules, boundaries, and limitations. Nudists don't get to live their lives the way they want to, running around in the buff in public. Why are they segregated from society that way? Because of respect for cultural (and religious) traditions.



I don't care what others do or how they define it. I do care about how the state or federal government defines it, because my tax dollars support state and federal governments. It's MY business!



Why do you want to dictate how my tax-paid government defines it? That's the question! I don't care how anyone defines anything! I do care how my government defines things, because it represents ME! I have every right to care how they define things! I have every right to speak my mind and express my opinion about it, and it doesn't matter why I have my opinion! Whether it's based on my concern for legal precedent allowing a slippery slope, whether I hate gay people, whether I think God is angered by it... whatever my opinion is, I am entitled to it! Who the fuck are you to deny me the right to express my opinions?



WTF? How in the hell do you derive such ridiculous nonsense? This is a classic example of how devoid of integrity and honesty you are! Instead of having an intelligent conversation, you want to pervert things into some warped and twisted illogical derivative of what was said, and pretend that is a tenable position of your opponent. It's because you can't really address the points I have made, or come up with anything logical to say in response. I'm actually GLAD you do shit like this, it shows how fucking lost you are in this debate, and how pathetic and desperate your position has become.

Let's step back and examine this again... I support comprehensive Civil Unions reforms, where the government abandons issuance of "marriage" licenses completely, and replaces them with a generic two-party contract arrangement between any two consenting adults of legal age. This solution grants gay couples every right and benefit of a traditionally married couple in America, without usurping religious or cultural traditions, and solves the problem to everyone's mutual satisfaction. Why do you oppose that?
Click to expand...

You are the one who mentioned 7000 years of tradition... well, a signifigant portion of that 7000 years prohibited divorce and allowed men to have as many wifes as they choose.

It also provided for women to be treated as chattle.

My point is that the "traditional" defination of marriage has been changing, evolving for the entire 7000 years, and will continue to do so.
 
Jarod said:
You are the one who mentioned 7000 years of tradition... well, a signifigant portion of that 7000 years prohibited divorce and allowed men to have as many wifes as they choose.

It also provided for women to be treated as chattle.

My point is that the "traditional" defination of marriage has been changing, evolving for the entire 7000 years, and will continue to do so.
Click to expand...

did government force or recognize the change?........
 
Jarod said:
In the sence you are describing, ya... over and over again.

Goverment banned plogamy!
Goverment legalized no fault divorce!
Government ceased to define a woman as chattle.
Click to expand...

actually, I believe all of those things were accomplished through the democratic process rather than through a court order.....people wanted them to happen, votes occurred......that route won't work for gay marriage because they keep losing.....
 
Jarod said:
You are the one who mentioned 7000 years of tradition... well, a signifigant portion of that 7000 years prohibited divorce and allowed men to have as many wifes as they choose.

It also provided for women to be treated as chattle.

My point is that the "traditional" defination of marriage has been changing, evolving for the entire 7000 years, and will continue to do so.
Click to expand...

The Judeo-Christian definition of "marriage" (which is what we have always had in America) has been the same since the time of Martin Luther. Polygamy has never been endorsed by the US government, and divorce has never been outlawed by the US government. The definition of "marriage" has always been recognized in America, as the union of one man and one woman, and it hasn't ever mattered if they were gay, bi, or straight.

But this thread isn't about Gay Marriage, or the very reasonable and tenable solution I offered and you ignored, which would resolve that issue for every party involved... it's supposed to be about Mike Huckabee, and his viewpoints. From your perspective, you seem to think his viewpoints should disqualify him from running for president. There are a great many people whom I disagree with their viewpoints, but I still respect the fact they have the freedom to seek the office of president. You, apparently don't feel that way.
 
Dixie said:
The Judeo-Christian definition of "marriage" (which is what we have always had in America) has been the same since the time of Martin Luther. Polygamy has never been endorsed by the US government, and divorce has never been outlawed by the US government. The definition of "marriage" has always been recognized in America, as the union of one man and one woman, and it hasn't ever mattered if they were gay, bi, or straight.

But this thread isn't about Gay Marriage, or the very reasonable and tenable solution I offered and you ignored, which would resolve that issue for every party involved... it's supposed to be about Mike Huckabee, and his viewpoints. From your perspective, you seem to think his viewpoints should disqualify him from running for president. There are a great many people whom I disagree with their viewpoints, but I still respect the fact they have the freedom to seek the office of president. You, apparently don't feel that way.
Click to expand...
Why would you endorse the religious definition of marriage if you don't believe or follow the practice? How bizarre is that? I think you are one confused bird!
 
Rana said:
Why would you endorse the religious definition of marriage if you don't believe or follow the practice? How bizarre is that? I think you are one confused bird!
Click to expand...

I didn't say I endorsed it, just that this is the definition we've used since the founding of our nation. You fucktards keep wanting to change the debate... you make some senseless point, and when it is addressed, you shift the goalposts and pretend we're debating something else! Stay on topic! The pinhead asked where I came up with the definition of marriage, and I told him. I'm sorry that the facts don't comport with your imagination, but that's not really my problem.

I'll take this opportunity to throw it out there one more time... I am the only one in this discussion who has offered a solution that works for everyone, that actually solves all the problems and puts the issue to rest.

“The most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow." ~Noam Chomsky

Why can't you people follow the philosophy of your hero Chomsky? Forcing Gay Marriage down the throats of Americans who oppose it, is NOT a solution!
 
Rana said:
Why would you endorse the religious definition of marriage if you don't believe or follow the practice? How bizarre is that? I think you are one confused bird!
Click to expand...

probably because its the same definition of marriage used by all religions and seculars as well.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top