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

[MACVSOG68]

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.

You make some good points Cyber.

Probably the best comparison with what is going on with the same-sex marriage issue happened with the miscegenation laws and with integration into our schools and businesses.  The transition is usually not pretty, and activists on both sides at times made these transitions violent and disgraceful.  Society, religion and the law do not always work at the same pace IMHO.

Freedom of association in publicly licensed businesses isn't all that free.  You cannot refuse to serve blacks in a  restaurant, nor in most cases can you discriminate based on gender, religion or other such reasons.  When Obama's IRS went after conservative organizations, it created quite a stir...and it's still not over.

Liberals have gone overboard on the same-sex marriage issue, by turning every gay and lesbian into national heroes.  The religious right wants to turn them all into villains.  The 14th Amendment wasn't passed to serve the majority, but to protect the minority.  We'll get through it and our Country won't come crashing down...at least not as a result of same-sex marriage.

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

I've missed you Luis.  We didn't part on the best of terms, IIRC, but in the fullness of time I've found everything you told me about the last President was true.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I did not mean to imply homosexuality doesn't exist in nature.  Rape and murder has always existed, and exists even in animals.  Perhaps I could have just said I find it personally disgusting and wrong.

Or maybe it's like being against racists, or serial killers, or democrats.   

Racism exists.  Racists vote.  They want to believe they are normal.  Should I smile and tell them I like their shiny head and swastika tattoos?  That's just the way Darwin intended them to be?  No

"Racists" have a constitutionally protected right to be racists. The people that they have those racists opinions against have constitutionally-protected legal rights to stop government or people or groups of people from basing government policy and/or commercial enterprise policies on their racist beliefs.

Daniel Carver's rights to stand up and yell "WAKE UP WHITE PEOPLE" while wearing his Klan finery is constitutionally protected. He thinks he's normal and you're not.

What you each think of each other's opinions is totally irrelevant. The only relevant fact is that in THIS society, and under our system of governance, you are both able to espouse your opinions without having to either like each other, or concede that one opinion is "more right" than the other.

"Rape and murder has always existed..."

Sigh...

There's a sea of difference between the violation of another person's natural property rights to their life and body and mutually consensual acts of sex between two willing adult participants of sound minds and bodies.

If you don't see that difference, nothing I can say will help you see it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I've missed you Luis.  We didn't part on the best of terms, IIRC, but in the fullness of time I've found everything you told me about the last President was true.

Wow...

I appreciate your candor.

In retrospect, I would have voted for a third Bush term over a second Obama term.

[Cyber Liberty]

Liberals have gone overboard on the same-sex marriage issue, by turning every gay and lesbian into national heroes.  The religious right wants to turn them all into villains.  The 14th Amendment wasn't passed to serve the majority, but to protect the minority.  We'll get through it and our Country won't come crashing down...at least not as a result of same-sex marriage.

That's what concerns me about the battles to come.  The liberals have gone hog-wild about gay rights because they've discovered a winning formula.  What happens when they turn the technique to something really appalling, like euthanasia?

[Cyber Liberty]

Wow...

I appreciate your candor.

In retrospect, I would have voted for a third Bush term over a second Obama term.

Me too.  It didn't take an Abacus to calculate the horrors of Obama.

[Cyber Liberty]

Wow...

I appreciate your candor.

In retrospect, I would have voted for a third Bush term over a second Obama term.

Oh, I forgot:  You also taught me 'Gators are delicious.   

[Luis Gonzalez]

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?

No to all of the above.

There no "better angels of our nature" on either side of this fight.

Those who have been long condemned as "deviants" and "sick perverts" and "unnatural" have been given an ax to swing at those who they perceive have been doing the name calling in the past.  War is Hell.

These issues will work themselves out in the laboratory of the States in due time.

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.

You missed several steps in that sequence.

It should really begin with "first we make a behavior unacceptable then we make it a sin then we make it illegal, shouldn't it?

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's what concerns me about the battles to come.  The liberals have gone hog-wild about gay rights because they've discovered a winning formula.  What happens when they turn the technique to something really appalling, like euthanasia?

I have a somewhat unpopular view of liberal vs. conservative ideology.

Liberals spend most of their time trying to force people into doing things they don't want to do while conservatives spend most of theirs trying to stop people from doing things they want to do.

That's the optics of it anyway.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Oh, I forgot:  You also taught me 'Gators are delicious.   

 

[Cyber Liberty]

No to all of the above.

There no "better angels of our nature" on either side of this fight.

Those who have been long condemned as "deviants" and "sick perverts" and "unnatural" have been given an ax to swing at those who they perceive have been doing the name calling in the past.  War is Hell.

We did give them the ax, so I shouldn't be shocked if they wield it with gusto and glee in their hearts.  Doesn't stop me from losing all respect for them when they do.

These issues will work themselves out in the laboratory of the States in due time.

I'm afraid not.  The Federal Government is in the process of short-circuiting that, as they did with abortion.  The SCOTUS seized the abortion issue from the states in 1973, and we're still fighting that war.

You missed several steps in that sequence.

It should really begin with "first we make a behavior unacceptable then we make it a sin then we make it illegal, shouldn't it?

Yes, I did leave those out.  Brevity is my only excuse.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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

The conservative perspective on that fight Bigun is that NO ONE should be expected to pay for the results of ANYONE'S behavior.

I pay a far greater amount of money for the irresponsible behavior of heterosexual unwed mothers in the black community than I do for the fallout from the actions of the homosexual community.

That's not to say that either doesn't have the right to engage in the behavior that they engage in.

[Cyber Liberty]

I have a somewhat unpopular view of liberal vs. conservative ideology.

Liberals spend most of their time trying to force people into doing things they don't want to do while conservatives spend most of theirs trying to stop people from doing things they want to do.

That's the optics of it anyway.

That is an interesting distillation of it.  Explains why a lot of us end up libertarian.

[Luis Gonzalez]

We did give them the ax, so I shouldn't be shocked if they wield it with gusto and glee in their hearts.  Doesn't stop me from losing all respect for them when they do.

I'm afraid not.  The Federal Government is in the process of short-circuiting that, as they did with abortion.  The SCOTUS seized the abortion issue from the states in 1973, and we're still fighting that war.

Yes, I did leave those out.  Brevity is my only excuse.

We gave them the ax and both the reason and the overwhelming desire to swing it.

Insofar as abortion is concerned, the Feds simply made government neutral in the abortion issue. Had Roe never been decided the way it was decided, or should Roe ever be overturned, legal abortion to several (even extreme) degrees would exist in America, since the more liberal States would allow for legal abortions to exist and getting an abortion would simply mean that the person seeking that abortion may have to travel across State lines to get one.

The fight against abortion is won in the home. If you're raised to believe that abortion is murder, you won't have or support an abortion

[Luis Gonzalez]

That is an interesting distillation of it.  Explains why a lot of us end up libertarian.

 

[Cyber Liberty]

We gave them the ax and both the reason and the overwhelming desire to swing it.

Maybe, but they're not winning converts to their side for doing so.  But I'm not going to argue tactics with them.  Strike that, I will point that out to them every chance I get.

Insofar as abortion is concerned, the Feds simply made government neutral in the abortion issue. Had Roe never been decided the way it was decided, or should Roe ever be overturned, legal abortion to several (even extreme) degrees would exist in America, since the more liberal States would allow for legal abortions to exist, and getting an abortion would simply mean that the person seeking that abortion may have top travel across State lines to get one.

The Federal government by and large took that debate away from the states.  As you describe life without Roe, that would be fine with me, always was.  As things stand, the States try to restrict it, and they are usually kicked to the curb for trying.  As a result, the debate has been nationalized and I think it suffers for that.  This business of gay marriage is locked on that same path, and I'm surprised the Roberts court didn't find a way to blanket legalize it last week, in the same manner as they did Roe v Wade.

Your bottom line: 

The fight against abortion is won in the home. If you're raised to believe that abortion is murder, you won't have or support an abortion

It's true for a lot of things, large and small.  I wish I had had a chance to teach my son that, but he left before the job was finished.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You make some good points Cyber.

Probably the best comparison with what is going on with the same-sex marriage issue happened with the miscegenation laws and with integration into our schools and businesses.  The transition is usually not pretty, and activists on both sides at times made these transitions violent and disgraceful.  Society, religion and the law do not always work at the same pace IMHO.

Freedom of association in publicly licensed businesses isn't all that free.  You cannot refuse to serve blacks in a  restaurant, nor in most cases can you discriminate based on gender, religion or other such reasons.  When Obama's IRS went after conservative organizations, it created quite a stir...and it's still not over.

Liberals have gone overboard on the same-sex marriage issue, by turning every gay and lesbian into national heroes.  The religious right wants to turn them all into villains.  The 14th Amendment wasn't passed to serve the majority, but to protect the minority.  We'll get through it and our Country won't come crashing down...at least not as a result of same-sex marriage.

Generally speaking, our rights are individual in nature.

Both liberals and conservatives want to argue in favor of the notion of the collective nature of rights when it comes to the society, with their arguments faulting to the defense of each side's particular set of core beliefs. In truth, rights are neither collective or commercial, they are individual. We certainly believe that the Creator endowed us each individually with inalienable rights, and that the opinion of the world entire can only serve to violate them, but never to eradicate them.

Freedom of association is not a commercial right. Commerce is a licensed and regulated activity.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The Federal government by and large took that debate away from the states.  As you describe life without Roe, that would be fine with me, always was.  As things stand, the States try to restrict it, and they are usually kicked to the curb for trying.  As a result, the debate has been nationalized and I think it suffers for that.  This business of gay marriage is locked on that same path, and I'm surprised the Roberts court didn't find a way to blanket legalize it last week, in the same manner as they did Roe v Wade.

Took it away from the States and handed it to the people.

It became an individual decision with no one standing in judgement of that individual's decision other than their Creator.

[Cyber Liberty]

Freedom of association is not a commercial right. Commerce is a licensed and regulated activity.

The issue of regulation of commerce is a huge topic in and of itself.  I'd save that for another day simply because my fingers are getting tired....John Stossel on Fox talks about that almost exclusively. 

My bringing it up here is because commerce is being used as a tool to bash one side or another into compliance over a social issue.

(For those who are not familiar with the discussions Luis and I have had in the early days of FR, we used to go on for many hours on a variety of topics, sometimes in person, which was a heck of a trick because we live about 2,500 miles apart.)

[Cyber Liberty]

Took it away from the States and handed it to the people.

It became an individual decision with no one standing in judgement of that individual's decision other than their Creator.

It took it away from the states and simply kept it.  But in spite of that (not because of it), you are correct about it being a matter of the heart at the end of the day.  It always was, really, and that's the bottom line.  No matter what the State says or does, the final judgement will be from one's Creator, however one perceives that to be.

[MACVSOG68]

Generally speaking, our rights are individual in nature.

Both liberals and conservatives want to argue in favor of the notion of the collective nature of rights when it comes to the society, with their arguments faulting to the defense of each side's particular set of core beliefs. In truth, rights are neither collective or commercial, they are individual. We certainly believe that the Creator endowed us each individually with inalienable rights, and that the opinion of the world entire can only serve to violate them, but never to eradicate them.

Freedom of association is not a commercial right. Commerce is a licensed and regulated activity.

For the most part I agree with you, which is why the 14th Amendment has been and is so controversial.  As to freedom of association, while I agree it's not all that free, loaded with state controls, nonetheless, the owners of those businesses have or should have certain rights.  It's a very tricky minefield as the baker found out.  Recognition of the rights of one can sometimes hinder the rights of another. 

[aligncare]

Liberals spend most of their time trying to force people into doing things they don't want to do

Yeah, like recycling!!!

To get my deposit back I have to separate the cans, glass and plastic bottles, store them, haul them out to the car, drive miles to the store just to stick them one by one in a machine.

Or, just throw them away and considerate it one more tax!

So who pays for my gas and time?

And then they condescend and tell me somehow I'm saving planet earth?

Oh, sorry...never mind. You were saying?

[Cyber Liberty]

Yeah, like recycling!!!

To get my deposit back I have to separate the cans, glass and plastic bottles, store them, haul them out to the car, drive miles to the store just to stick them one by one in a machine.

Or, just throw them away and considerate it one more tax!

So who pays for my gas and time?

And then they condescend and tell me somehow I'm saving planet earth?

Oh, sorry...never mind. You were saying?

I hope you're washing the ant attracting sugar out of all those cans and bottles...(Ducking)

 :broc:

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yeah, like recycling!!!

To get my deposit back I have to separate the cans, glass and plastic bottles, store them, haul them out to the car, drive miles to the store just to stick them one by one in a machine.

Or, just throw them away and considerate it one more tax!

So who pays for my gas and time?

And then they condescend and tell me somehow I'm saving planet earth?

Oh, sorry...never mind. You were saying?

Move to where I live.

They come pick it up from my curb every Saturday.

I even got a "special trash bin" for it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The issue of regulation of commerce is a huge topic in and of itself.  I'd save that for another day simply because my fingers are getting tired....John Stossel on Fox talks about that almost exclusively. 

My bringing it up here is because commerce is being used as a tool to bash one side or another into compliance over a social issue.

(For those who are not familiar with the discussions Luis and I have had in the early days of FR, we used to go on for many hours on a variety of topics, sometimes in person, which was a heck of a trick because we live about 2,500 miles apart.)

The RFK way.