PDA

View Full Version : Huckabee's Fine With 5,000 Years of Marriage Definition Changing, but Not Anymore




Knightskye
12-10-2008, 04:49 PM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213349&title=mike-huckabee-pt.-2

He really just didn't make any sense. What do you think?

tonesforjonesbones
12-10-2008, 05:02 PM
Yes of course it made sense. He said exactly what Ron Paul has said in the past. Everyone knows what marriage means and it doesn't need to be re defined. Ron Paul agrees with Mike Huckabee!. i'm not necessarly supporting Huckabee, but I do agree with his assessment on that topic. Tones (just like I agree with Ron Paul on that topic.)

Tones

www.truthwarrior.ning.com

Bruno
12-10-2008, 05:40 PM
govt. should get out of the marriage business and it wouldn't be a problem anymore. leave it to the churches

tonesforjonesbones
12-10-2008, 05:42 PM
I totally agree with Bruno. tones


www.truthwarrior.ning.com

dannno
12-10-2008, 05:43 PM
Yes of course it made sense. He said exactly what Ron Paul has said in the past. Everyone knows what marriage means and it doesn't need to be re defined. Ron Paul agrees with Mike Huckabee!. i'm not necessarly supporting Huckabee, but I do agree with his assessment on that topic. Tones (just like I agree with Ron Paul on that topic.)

Tones

www.truthwarrior.ning.com

Doesn't huckabee want to prevent churches from having gay marriages?

Doesn't Ron Paul want to allow churches to marry gay people if they choose?

Seems diametrically opposed to me.

tonesforjonesbones
12-10-2008, 05:53 PM
Danno, I have never heard Huckabee say anything like that, but I haven't listened to him that much. you are really grabbing smoke out of your derieere. Ron Paul said there is NO reason to re define marriage. Ron Paul believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. YOU know it and I know..that he said this repeatedly...but leave it to the states. What you WANT to do, is make Ron Paul something he is not. Most of you want to re define Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a republican, a CHRISITAN (who actually goes to church), and against abortion, not a drug user, Ron Paul is NOT for gay marriage. Why dont you just accept that Ron Paul considers we must have a MORAL society...or we can NOT have liberty. If people can not govern themselves...there MUST be some government. Evidently, ya'll did not listen to Ron Paul's speech at the Rally for the Republic. He CLEARLY states that there MUST be a moral society in order to get MORAL politicans. Most of you BALK on morality..and don't give me this "what's your definition of moral" nonsense...it won't work. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Hate me all you want...but I will call you out on your folly. TONES (this is to the 99% of you who consider TONES the enemy)

www.truthwarrior.ning.com

dannno
12-10-2008, 06:06 PM
Danno, I have never heard Huckabee say anything like that,

You don't think Huckabee wants to define marriage as between a man and a woman, thus making it illegal for gay couples to be legally married?




but I haven't listened to him that much. you are really grabbing smoke out of your derieere. Ron Paul said there is NO reason to re define marriage. Ron Paul believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. YOU know it and I know..that he said this repeatedly...but leave it to the states. What you WANT to do, is make Ron Paul something he is not. Most of you want to re define Ron Paul.

I understand Ron Paul doesn't want to define marriage at the Federal level, but he also has said that he wants to leave it to the religion institution to decide. That doesn't mean he wants to force religions to not have gay marriage, that means that if a particular religion wants to marry gay people, he isn't going to stop them. That doesn't mean that his personal definition of marriage has to change. I'm not trying to make him into anybody except someone who understands liberty and doesn't want to force people to be moral.

newyearsrevolution08
12-10-2008, 06:20 PM
Doesn't huckabee want to prevent churches from having gay marriages?

Doesn't Ron Paul want to allow churches to marry gay people if they choose?

Seems diametrically opposed to me.

He was talking about the marriage definition itself I believe. I didn't see him expand on it as to which and what a church does with it.

TastyWheat
12-11-2008, 02:46 AM
Wow. John Stewart makes a ton of good points. I agree with him on pretty much every point he made, but both of them are misguided. Just make marriage a private issue and be done with it.

Brooklyn Red Leg
12-11-2008, 05:06 AM
Whats this 5,000 years horseshit? Marriage has not meant '1 man, 1 woman' for 5,000 years! Furthermore, modern marriage has almost zero in common with marriage in the pre-modern world.

newyearsrevolution08
12-11-2008, 05:56 AM
I think marriage is a personal liberty and should not be governed by the federal government. That in itself would be a great debating point against huckster. I would love to hear what he would have to say about that.

akihabro
12-11-2008, 06:09 AM
Yah I saw that show tonight. There was a proposition in my state to ban gay marriage, even though it was legal for 6 months. I can understand his personal views. Since when does government have a right to say who you can and can't marry? Last time I checked its popular to get married in a church not in your congress person's office or state capitol building, so separation of church and state sometimes?

tonesforjonesbones
12-11-2008, 10:23 AM
Marriage has ALWAYS been between a MAN and a WOMAN..you know it ..so stop with the nonsense. Huckabee and Ron Paul agree with NO RE DEFINING MARRIAGE. All the voters are doing is ESTABLISHING OFFICIALLY what ALL READY IS...by amending their state constitutions. Sure, there has always been homosexuality....but it was usually "in the closet". Fine, they are out of the closet...but we are not going to agree to RE DEFINE MARRIAGE to reflect something it NEVER HAS BEEN. Is that so difficult for ya'll to understand? Get OVER it!


Danno..please stop with the circular logic, I'm not playing it. Tones

tonesforjonesbones
12-11-2008, 10:30 AM
Furthermore, this folderol that Christians, or moral majority or whatever you want to call us politicized this issue needs to stop. We came to the defense...the gays are the ones who pushed and pushed and made it political. Their 'in your face' crap...has gotten them exactly the results they did not want. They should learn to leave well enough alone. Now, they have backed the MAJORITY..and I mean across the board...of people in this country into a corner..and we're not going to allow this to happen. We will continue to vote our concience. not THEIR concience. Also, the gays are not satisfied with civil unions...nope. That one word "marriage" is what has their pink panties in a wad...well..too bad. It's nothing more than jabbing the moral majority in the eyes. They have even takin to calling black people (believe me ...most black people are christians...and won't go for gay marriage..they are religious) ugly words. They are a bunch of hypocrites. Tones!

Sergeant Brother
12-11-2008, 02:34 PM
I would contend that nobody has the authority to define marriage in any way that is binding for anybody who does not accept said definition. There should therefor, be no such thing as a marriage legally speaking - defining marriage should be left up to individuals and churches and other private institutions, not the government. So if a Baptist church doesn't want to allow a gay marriage they don't have to but if a Unitarian church wants to allow a gay marriage they can.

Andrew-Austin
12-11-2008, 02:39 PM
Marriage has ALWAYS been between a MAN and a WOMAN..you know it ..so stop with the nonsense. Huckabee and Ron Paul agree with NO RE DEFINING MARRIAGE. All the voters are doing is ESTABLISHING OFFICIALLY what ALL READY IS...by amending their state constitutions. Sure, there has always been homosexuality....but it was usually "in the closet". Fine, they are out of the closet...but we are not going to agree to RE DEFINE MARRIAGE to reflect something it NEVER HAS BEEN. Is that so difficult for ya'll to understand? Get OVER it!


Danno..please stop with the circular logic, I'm not playing it. Tones

So government officials don't want to re-define marriage. But how can they keep the definition of marriage 'the same', while not recognizing gay people's right to get married?
(you did say you wanted government out of marriage)
...As long as the government is making marriage its business, we ought to let gays receive equal treatment yes? If their marriage is illegitimate under God why are you worried about what the government decrees?


We came to the defense...the gays are the ones who pushed and pushed and made it political. Their 'in your face' crap...has gotten them exactly the results they did not want.

They are the ones who have been denied the right to get married, yet you say they have pushed first? Bullshit hypocrite. Twenty years ago you would have denied their right to have sex, and had stormtroopers kick their door down. Sex is between a man and a women yes? What if the government held that as a legal definition now?

tonesforjonesbones
12-11-2008, 03:29 PM
Andrew..now that's bullcrap. No stormtroopers ever went to homes of gay people and kicked the doors down...gay people have been around since the beginning of time. I'm sure there are isolated incidents of abuse..but damn sure not like you're talking. You just make outrageous statements..that are, well...lies. If you want to vote against something like proposition 8..fine and dandy...just give me the right to RESPECT if I DON"T. This is the issue...I am going to vote MY way if it is put forth..and I resent criticism for it. It is MY dang vote. I am not going to change my mind about the marriage issue...and make no mistake andrew, you are outnumbered. TONES

inibo
12-11-2008, 05:19 PM
Marriage has ALWAYS been between a MAN and a WOMAN

Or A man and SEVERAL women.

Exodus 21:10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

And the ceremony itself has changed considerably as well

Gen 24:76 And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife.
Voilą, married.

Marriage is a contract. The only involvement for the state is to enforce contract law if the contract is violated.

Knightskye
12-11-2008, 07:50 PM
Yes of course it made sense. He said exactly what Ron Paul has said in the past. Everyone knows what marriage means and it doesn't need to be re defined.

Tones, everyone knew what marriage meant 50 years ago when black people couldn't marry white people. That was changed.

I don't think your problem is with Merriam Webster.

Freedom 4 all
12-11-2008, 09:38 PM
That may be the first time I've seen a pro and anti gay marriage person talk calmly without screaming things like GODLESS SODOMITE!!! or HOMOPOBIC BIGOT!!! Kudos to John and Mike for civility. This debate is unusal as I don't know of anyone truly capable of seeing both sides. I know I probably will never understand why people are anti gay but I'm not going to judge, or spout hate against anyone who is. I'd like to see more of that in these forums and elsewhere.

libertea
12-12-2008, 06:37 AM
Wow. John Stewart makes a ton of good points. I agree with him on pretty much every point he made, but both of them are misguided. Just make marriage a private issue and be done with it.

I was 7 when I decided not to be gay.

I agree with your last sentence.

brandon
12-12-2008, 06:45 AM
Wow! The definition of the word "marriage" is 4000 years older than the English language itself! You learn something new everyday!

Knightskye
12-12-2008, 06:57 AM
Wow! The definition of the word "marriage" is 4000 years older than the English language itself! You learn something new everyday!

:D


That may be the first time I've seen a pro and anti gay marriage person talk calmly without screaming things like GODLESS SODOMITE!!! or HOMOPOBIC BIGOT!!! Kudos to John and Mike for civility. This debate is unusal as I don't know of anyone truly capable of seeing both sides. I know I probably will never understand why people are anti gay but I'm not going to judge, or spout hate against anyone who is. I'd like to see more of that in these forums and elsewhere.

John seemed more equipped for the debate. You're right, though, it was nice seeing people civil while they argue. I would have preferred someone on the anti side who could defend their position without holding up a dictionary or a Bible as a shield.