Huckabee: GOP Needs To Fight Gay Marriage Even More Or I'm Leaving

[aligncare]

I'm sorry, but at the time the Bible was written scientific knowledge was, shall we say, a bit lacking.  Homosexuality is not a choice, and I would invite anyone who can point to evidence, a study, anything, to support the notion that it is a choice.

[MACVSOG68]

Many, over the centuries, have fought their inclinations (no matter where they came from), because they knew they were wrong.

Or more than likely because they feared reprisals up to and including hanging.

I don't believe for a minute the zeitgeist emanating from the left that our individual behaviors don't matter to society as a whole, and I see conservatives' arguing that 'it doesn't matter,' as a ramification of a very successful campaign by the left to convince people that, in the words of Cole Porter, "anything goes."

Conservatives in general want to see smaller government and more freedom.  But when that freedom harms others, then conservatives lean to law and order.  Whether anyone likes it or not, homosexuality to the best of my knowledge harms no one but those who feel traumatized at the thought of gay sex...and that really doesn't count.  I think Hollywood and violent computer games do far more harm to society than two people who love each other.


 

[musiclady]

I'm sorry, but at the time the Bible was written scientific knowledge was, shall we say, a bit lacking.  Homosexuality is not a choice, and I would invite anyone who can point to evidence, a study, anything, to support the notion that it is a choice.

That's an old argument, aligncare, but one still frequently espoused.

At the time the Bible was written, scientific knowledge among humans may have been limited, but the Bible is God's word, and He's the one who created science............and scientists.

The Bible is not a science book, granted, but it is also not inconsistent with anything that is scientific fact.  Nothing accurately interpreted in Scripture has ever been proven scientifically false.

And if you are honest about science, you will admit that things that are supposedly 'proven' science one day, are dismissed as false the next.

There is no scientific proof that homosexuality is, or is not, a choice.

[musiclady]

Or more than likely because they feared reprisals up to and including hanging.

Extremist rhetoric, and entirely off the point.

Conservatives in general want to see smaller government and more freedom.  But when that freedom harms others, then conservatives lean to law and order.  Whether anyone likes it or not, homosexuality to the best of my knowledge harms no one but those who feel traumatized at the thought of gay sex...and that really doesn't count.  I think Hollywood and violent computer games do far more harm to society than two people who love each other.

The Republican platform has always included traditional morality.  You are not describing conservatism, but rather libertarianism, which is a mixture of conservatism and liberalism.

I know your position that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, and you know mine, that it most definitely does.  Once again, your rhetoric about "traumatized at the thought of gay sex" diminishes the strength of your argument.

Why not cool the extremism and just use logic, OK?

[musiclady]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people there are who call themselves conservatives but are willing to carry water for Obama to the end of the earth!

To me it's remarkable that those espousing homosexual marriage refuse to admit that they are on the same side of the debate as Obama is.

They ARE.

And just for the record............. I don't like Mike Huckabee.   ^-^

[DCPatriot]

I'm sorry, but at the time the Bible was written scientific knowledge was, shall we say, a bit lacking.  Homosexuality is not a choice, and I would invite anyone who can point to evidence, a study, anything, to support the notion that it is a choice.

Totally agree.

It's fascinating that we cam all accept that lower testosterone levels translate to a lower focus on sexual intercourse...to the point elderly people show absolutely no interest in "the chase"....but we can't accept the fact young virile men (and women) may be wired differently from birth.

The fact that homosexuality exists in virtually every species on the planet is outright dismissed with those that are quick to call it an act of free will. And therefore, a 'sin'.

[musiclady]

Totally agree.

It's fascinating that we cam all accept that lower testosterone levels translate to a lower focus on sexual intercourse...to the point elderly people show absolutely no interest in "the chase"....but we can't accept the fact young virile men (and women) may be wired differently from birth.

The fact that homosexuality exists in virtually every species on the planet is outright dismissed with those that are quick to call it an act of free will. And therefore, a 'sin'.

In every case, it's a choice to act on the behavior, is it not?  Or do we, as human beings, not have the will to behave in the way we choose, for good or for bad?

As I mentioned in my post above, I have the inclination to do all sorts of things that I choose not to do because they are wrong.  The idea that we are will-less people driven by desires and not able to control our behavior is rather disturbing, is it not?

It has not been scientifically proven that homosexuality is, or is not, a choice.  Therefore dismissing the concept of sin based on science, is not a viable argument.

[MACVSOG68]

Extremist rhetoric, and entirely off the point.

Well you said that  "Many, over the centuries, have fought their inclinations (no matter where they came from), because they knew they were wrong."  I simply said that more likely they feared reprisals including death.  Why is that off point?  Even today, homosexuals are hanged, decapitated, stoned, imprisoned, flogged.  Wonder how many of them recanted their "choice" because they knew it was wrong?

The Republican platform has always included traditional morality.  You are not describing conservatism, but rather libertarianism, which is a mixture of conservatism and liberalism.

Morality is a wonderful virtue, but definitely not one to be regulated or controlled by the state.  You say it's libertarian. Perhaps, but there's quite a crossover between libertarianism and conservatism.  I'm not a social conservative, but conservatism is much broader than a handful of social/religious issues.

I know your position that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, and you know mine, that it most definitely does.  Once again, your rhetoric about "traumatized at the thought of gay sex" diminishes the strength of your argument.

Why not cool the extremism and just use logic, OK?

Can't help it.  I just don't know how to debate without extremist comments.  Still at the risk of once again being labeled as a supporter of Obama, what exactly is the harm of two people who love each other living together for life?

[aligncare]

Think also of bisexuality. How does one incorporate that phenomenon into their understanding of heterosexuality and homosexuality? I considerate bisexuality as part of the wide ranging variability of genetic expression.

And have you considered the fact that there are also those who are asexual? Does anyone have any curiosity about how that fits into this discussion?

[musiclady]

Well you said that  "Many, over the centuries, have fought their inclinations (no matter where they came from), because they knew they were wrong."  I simply said that more likely they feared reprisals including death.  Why is that off point?  Even today, homosexuals are hanged, decapitated, stoned, imprisoned, flogged.  Wonder how many of them recanted their "choice" because they knew it was wrong?

Personal testimony to the fact indicates that even in today's anything goes culture, there are many who seek help to change themselves.  By your extremist example, you tried to dismiss my point entirely, rather than confront it head on.  In war, I think that's called a 'diversion.'

Morality is a wonderful virtue, but definitely not one to be regulated or controlled by the state.  You say it's libertarian. Perhaps, but there's quite a crossover between libertarianism and conservatism.  I'm not a social conservative, but conservatism is much broader than a handful of social/religious issues.

I appreciate the condescension, but when I talk about conservatism, I'm including far more than "a handful of social/religious issues."  Anyone who has thought about it at all, understands that there is an entire range of conservatism, and that there are actually SOME of us who are conservative from stem to stern.....including fiscal conservatism and social conservatism.  You, who are libertarian, dismiss social issues, such as abortion, as irrelevant.  In that, IMO, you are liberal.

Can't help it.  I just don't know how to debate without extremist comments.  Still at the risk of once again being labeled as a supporter of Obama, what exactly is the harm of two people who love each other living together for life?

I have already discussed with you the detriment to society of the destruction of the moral fabric that includes sexual behavior.  You choose not to agree.  So be it.  But my voicing it again is not going to change your mind.

It's made up, and no amount of logic on my part will change it.  You ARE on the side of Obama on this particular issue.

[aligncare]

In every case, it's a choice to act on the behavior, is it not?  Or do we, as human beings, not have the will to behave in the way we choose, for good or for bad?

As I mentioned in my post above, I have the inclination to do all sorts of things that I choose not to do because they are wrong.  The idea that we are will-less people driven by desires and not able to control our behavior is rather disturbing, is it not?

It has not been scientifically proven that homosexuality is, or is not, a choice.  Therefore dismissing the concept of sin based on science, is not a viable argument.

Fine. Except that sex is a biological imperative. Quite different from every day choices of whether to steal or not steal, cheat or not cheat, betray or not betray. Coupling is a primal instinct, if you will.  That makes it quite different.

[DCPatriot]

In every case, it's a choice to act on the behavior, is it not?  Or do we, as human beings, not have the will to behave in the way we choose, for good or for bad?

And herein, lies the foundation...where the 'problem' exists.

In essence, a person who can't fathom being attracted sexually to a member of the opposite sex is therefore condemned by society. Either become abstinent or be labeled a perversion on society....regardless of them strictly limiting their behavior with 'their own kind'.

As I mentioned in my post above, I have the inclination to do all sorts of things that I choose not to do because they are wrong.  The idea that we are will-less people driven by desires and not able to control our behavior is rather disturbing, is it not?

And I submit, we're comparing apples to oranges.  You should not apply use our God-given "free will", when it comes to sexual attraction...as if it were a case, "should I steal that apple or should I go up to the counter and pay for it?"

It has not been scientifically proven that homosexuality is, or is not, a choice.  Therefore dismissing the concept of sin based on science, is not a viable argument.

Let's all be honest.   One day, red wine can kill you.  The next day, it helps reduce the risk of coronary disease.  Which is it?

I submit that many of us, because of our own upbringing, wouldn't accept a scientific finding that it was a case of being wired differently.

[DCPatriot]

Fine. Except that sex is a biological imperative. Quite different from every day choices of whether to steal or not steal, cheat or not cheat, betray or not betray. Coupling is a primal instinct, if you will.  That makes it quite different.

You said it so much better than I was attempting.   

[xfreeper]

My proposed amendment to the United States Constitution:
============

What's your strategy once you realize your proposal is DOA?

[MACVSOG68]

Personal testimony to the fact indicates that even in today's anything goes culture, there are many who seek help to change themselves.  By your extremist example, you tried to dismiss my point entirely, rather than confront it head on.  In war, I think that's called a 'diversion.'

I didn't dismiss you point music, but if your point was meant to end the discussion of why people decide to cast aside their homosexuality, I missed it.  Homosexuals have been tortured, executed, imprisoned and otherwise penalized, and it continues today.  That's not extremist talk, it's the truth, whether you like it or not.  Yes, some may have tried to purge their feelings, especially if they are daily hammered with the "sin" they're committing, but given the alternatives I've mentioned, I don't blame them.

I appreciate the condescension, but when I talk about conservatism, I'm including far more than "a handful of social/religious issues."  Anyone who has thought about it at all, understands that there is an entire range of conservatism, and that there are actually SOME of us who are conservative from stem to stern.....including fiscal conservatism and social conservatism.  You, who are libertarian, dismiss social issues, such as abortion, as irrelevant.  In that, IMO, you are liberal.

So outside of your concern for my condescension, I'm an extremist, a libertarian, a liberal and carrying Obama's water for him.  WADR, I think you have missed out on some very important points about conservatism.

I have already discussed with you the detriment to society of the destruction of the moral fabric that includes sexual behavior.  You choose not to agree.  So be it.  But my voicing it again is not going to change your mind.

Nor my voice yours.  It's not a good reason for debating.  As for the moral fabric, I once again ask if the 50% divorce rate is part of that destruction?  How about single parent households?  What about the "sins" committed in the bedrooms of all the moral God-fearing "conservatives"?  Yet we are destroying the moral fabric by encouraging and supporting monogamous relationships and families?

It's made up, and no amount of logic on my part will change it.  You ARE on the side of Obama on this particular issue.

And I'm the one who's condescending?   

[MACVSOG68]

DC wrote:

I submit that many of us, because of our own upbringing, wouldn't accept a scientific finding that it was a case of being wired differently.

I think for most of us who are up there age-wise, we have a lot of trouble suddenly disinheriting our upbringing.  Even today I am repulsed by the sight of men holding hands, never mind other activities.  But I've also tried to challenge my own beliefs and feelings about things.  I don't like gay marriage!  Having said that, I've tried to justify that emotion with some type of supporting evidence, and can't.  When I was on TOS and engaging in the marriage amendment debates, I looked at each argument in favor of the amendment, and found them completely lacking...and ignoring what was happening in the heterosexual community.

And I don't measure my principles or beliefs on whether one of them might agree with BHO.

[Luis Gonzalez]

And herein, lies the foundation...where the 'problem' exists.

In essence, a person who can't fathom being attracted sexually to a member of the opposite sex is therefore condemned by society. Either become abstinent or be labeled a perversion on society....regardless of them strictly limiting their behavior with 'their own kind'.

And I submit, we're comparing apples to oranges.  You should not apply use our God-given "free will", when it comes to sexual attraction...as if it were a case, "should I steal that apple or should I go up to the counter and pay for it?"

Religionists, authoritarians and collectivists (three-sided coin) all say the same thing: "You have a choice, and we've made it for you."

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm sorry, but at the time the Bible was written scientific knowledge was, shall we say, a bit lacking.  Homosexuality is not a choice, and I would invite anyone who can point to evidence, a study, anything, to support the notion that it is a choice.

Isn't religion and adherence to religious beliefs and dogma also a choice?

What the Bible may or may not say on the subject is only relevant to those who have made the choice to follow its teachings.

It's a fine and significant thing that they have the freedom to make the choice to adhere to Christian beliefs and teachings. They should allow others to have the same ability to chose to either believe and follow those teachings and beliefs or not.

They should also see how closely related the condemnation of acting outside those beliefs is to being condemned for following them.

Having the freedom to follow your religious beliefs does not mean that you now have somehow acquired the power to demand that others live by your religious beliefs.

[olde north church]

I do not believe homosexuality is a choice and I have no doubt that many if not most homosexuals would push the button (if one existed) that could make their sexual orientation "normal."  But it doesn't, and they can't.

I think it's nature in some and a choice to others.  I've heard that magic button thing and it goes to more self-focus and personal drama than anything.  "Oh, don't you think if I could I would be normal?" cries out the Drama Queen?  Ummm, no, then you wouldn't be the center of attention or were trying to be.
I don't think Rosie O'Donnell is lesbian by birth.  I think she get's better quality women by being a dyke, then men if she were straight.
I also believe the homosexuality of the ancients had different causes than homosexuality of today.  See, "absent father", "overbearing mother".
I wish I had the luxury in my life to be concerned with the behavior of others that doesn't affect me. 

[aligncare]

You said it so much better than I was attempting.   

It was just a fluke. 

[aligncare]

I think for most of us who are up there age-wise, we have a lot of trouble suddenly disinheriting our upbringing.  Even today I am repulsed by the sight of men holding hands, never mind other activities.  But I've also tried to challenge my own beliefs and feelings about things.  I don't like gay marriage!  Having said that, I've tried to justify that emotion with some type of supporting evidence, and can't.  When I was on TOS and engaging in the marriage amendment debates, I looked at each argument in favor of the amendment, and found them completely lacking...and ignoring what was happening in the heterosexual community.

And I don't measure my principles or beliefs on whether one of them might agree with BHO.

Excellent post. 

[Cyber Liberty]

I think thousands of threads could be written on whether homosexuality is "right" or "wrong," "free choice" or otherwise, but I'm asking something different:  Is it morally correct for homosexuals to target businesses like bakers and photographers who do have issues with the behavior and don't want to participate in their "marriages?"  Do these people deserve to be driven out of their livelihoods for their beliefs?  Should they be forced to do things they think are immoral because they're bigots?

Did Brendan Eich deserve to be fired from Mozilla because he donated to a proposition campaign to prohibit gay marriage in California?  Should Chik-Fil-A be likewise driven out of business because of what the CEO believed (back when he was alive)?  Back when these were news stories, people like George Takei were dancing in the streets in glee.  Were they right to gloat?

My questions are related to public policy, and are apart from the question of the morality of homosexuals.   How should the state involve itself in these questions, in light of the fact we've been regulating the denial of service rights of businesses since the sixties and the Civil Rights Act?  I maintain Freedom of Association has been a dead letter for decades, so isn't it a natural extension of the Civil Rights laws to force people into whatever commerce the state approves?  Perhaps, after we get the euthanasia laws passed (they will eventually), we should force doctors to kill their patients, even if they don't want to.

I don't see it primarily as a social conservative issue as much as a commercial one, and I think we've been going to commerce Hell in a handbasket for a very long time.  Just MHO.

First we make a behavior legal, then we make it acceptable, then we make it customary, then we ostracize people with moral objections as "bigots,"  then we force them to participate or go out of business.  I think of that every time I see someone call someone else a bigot for not agreeing with the sequence.

[Bigun]

I think thousands of threads could be written on whether homosexuality is "right" or "wrong," "free choice" or otherwise, but I'm asking something different:  Is it morally correct for homosexuals to target businesses like bakers and photographers who do have issues with the behavior and don't want to participate in their "marriages?"  Do these people deserve to be driven out of their livelihoods for their beliefs?  Should they be forced to do things they think are immoral because they're bigots?

Did Brendan Eich deserve to be fired from Mozilla because he donated to a proposition campaign to prohibit gay marriage in California?  Should Chik-Fil-A be likewise driven out of business because of what the CEO believed (back when he was alive)?  Back when these were news stories, people like George Takei were dancing in the streets in glee.  Were they right to gloat?

My questions are related to public policy, and are apart from the question of the morality of homosexuals.   How should the state involve itself in these questions, in light of the fact we've been regulating the denial of service rights of businesses since the sixties and the Civil Rights Act?  I maintain Freedom of Association has been a dead letter for decades, so isn't it a natural extension of the Civil Rights laws to force people into whatever commerce the state approves?  Perhaps, after we get the euthanasia laws passed (they will eventually), we should force doctors to kill their patients, even if they don't want to.

I don't see it primarily as a social conservative issue as much as a commercial one, and I think we've been going to commerce Hell in a handbasket for a very long time.  Just MHO.

First we make a behavior legal, then we make it acceptable, then we make it customary, then we ostracize people with moral objections as "bigots,"  then we force them to participate or go out of business.  I think of that every time I see someone call someone else a bigot for not agreeing with the sequence.

I think you have hit upon the nub of the matter!  I personally don't care what two people decide to do in private but when they decide to make an issue of it in public, and thus involve me in it, I get real concerned real fast!

[Luis Gonzalez]

I think you have hit upon the nub of the matter!  I personally don't care what two people decide to do in private but when they decide to make an issue of it in public, and thus involve me in it, I get real concerned real fast!

As I've told so many liberals in my lifetime, the right to not be offended by the visible legal actions of others simply does not exist.

[Bigun]

As I've told so many liberals in my lifetime, the right to not be offended by the visible legal actions of others simply does not exist.

It goes WAY beyond that Luis and you know it! They  don't just want tho engage in the behavior they want someone else to have to pay for the result of that behavior!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/feedarticle/11585144