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

[DCPatriot]

Quite a remarkable thread, guys and girls.

Just when you think it's run its course...another compelling debate begins.

Thank you all involved!   

[MACVSOG68]

Quite a remarkable thread, guys and girls.

Just when you think it's run its course...another compelling debate begins.

Thank you all involved!   

I think debating on forums is in the genes.  We just can't help ourselves...

[Bigun]

I think debating on forums is in the genes.  We just can't help ourselves...

I concur!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Did someone drop the Bill of Rights into a paper shredder when we weren’t looking? I can’t think of any other way to explain the news that the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division of the IRS (the same fair and objective squad of public servants that was once headed by Lois Lerner) has agreed to appease atheists by promising to “monitor” church sermons for any forbidden expression of opinions on matters of public morality. For instance, if a minister speaks out against gay marriage or Obamacare paying for abortion drugs, his church might lose its tax-exempt status, because those are political issues.

A couple of things.

Huck apparently has a different copy of the Bill of Rights than I have. I can't locate the Right to Tax Exemption in mine.

This is fear mongering, a strong and useful tool of the right (and the left, with different themes). Maybe if we removed all Tax Exempts statuses from all churches, black churches could not afford the buses to drive their congregations to the polling places during elections.

It is highly unlikely that homosexuals would ever reach the protected class status of blacks. Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status over its policies against interracial dating, but homosexuals do not have such protected class status. At least not yet, but religionists are working hard at giving it to them.

The religious right's activist wing is deeply rooted in the fear that the long and strong arm of government will interfere with Church teachings and theology, yet, they're forever seeking to strong arm government. It's an endless and counter-productive tit for tat.

BTW... the Catholic Church has long discriminated against women, denying them the right to become priests, and they've never had any reason to believe that they will lose their tax exempt status over that. 

[Bigun]

A couple of things.

Huck apparently has a different copy of the Bill of Rights than I have. I can't locate the Right to Tax Exemption in mine.

This is fear mongering, a strong and useful tool of the right (and the left, with different themes). Maybe if we removed all Tax Exempts statuses from all churches, black churches could not afford the buses to drive their congregations to the polling places during elections.

It is highly unlikely that homosexuals would ever reach the protected class status of blacks. Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status over its policies against interracial dating, but homosexuals do not have such protected class status. At least not yet, but religionists are working hard at giving it to them.

The religious right's activist wing is deeply rooted in the fear that the long and strong arm of government will interfere with Church teachings and theology, yet, they're forever seeking to strong arm government. It's an endless and counter-productive tit for tat.

BTW... the Catholic Church has long discriminated against women, denying them the right to become priests, and they've never had any reason to believe that they will lose their tax exempt status over that.

If we got rid of the current Marxist income tax code and replaced it with something more in keeping with the founders ideas (a point of retail sale only sales tax on NEW goods and services for example) a great many problems would be solved instantly! The ones you mention are only the beginning!

[olde north church]

A couple of things.

Huck apparently has a different copy of the Bill of Rights than I have. I can't locate the Right to Tax Exemption in mine.

This is fear mongering, a strong and useful tool of the right (and the left, with different themes). Maybe if we removed all Tax Exempts statuses from all churches, black churches could not afford the buses to drive their congregations to the polling places during elections.

It is highly unlikely that homosexuals would ever reach the protected class status of blacks. Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status over its policies against interracial dating, but homosexuals do not have such protected class status. At least not yet, but religionists are working hard at giving it to them.

The religious right's activist wing is deeply rooted in the fear that the long and strong arm of government will interfere with Church teachings and theology, yet, they're forever seeking to strong arm government. It's an endless and counter-productive tit for tat.

BTW... the Catholic Church has long discriminated against women, denying them the right to become priests, and they've never had any reason to believe that they will lose their tax exempt status over that.

I "un-Catholicced" because a woman read from the Bible during Mass.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I "un-Catholicced" because a woman read from the Bible during Mass.

HERESY!

[Luis Gonzalez]

If we got rid of the current Marxist income tax code and replaced it with something more in keeping with the founders ideas (a point of retail sale only sales tax on NEW goods and services for example) a great many problems would be solved instantly! The ones you mention are only the beginning!

Marxist?

I'm not sure that either Lincoln or Taft were Marxists, but if you say so.

[Bigun]

Marxist?

I'm not sure that either Lincoln or Taft were Marxists, but if you say so.

It's right there in the Communist Manifesto!  Second section (the one where hey instruct fellow travlers as to how to take over developed nations) toward the end!

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

[Cyber Liberty]

Marxist?

I'm not sure that either Lincoln or Taft were Marxists, but if you say so.

I'm not sure I can think of income tax as "Marxist," but I do think income tax is a bad thing, especially a progressive income tax.  The problem I have with it is, it's a tax on mobility.  Being progressive, the more mobile one is in a given year, the more one is taxed.  This is anathema to a society that prides itself on mobility of wealth.  A tax on wealth would be Marxist, as the purpose is to steal from the "haves" and redistribute it to the "have-nots" (minus what the government keeps for expenses.  Whores in South America can be expensive!  Not for the rent, but for the silence after the act).

I agree with Bigun that a consumption tax would be more in line with the founders' intent, but I don't believe we can unring the bell of the allure of stealing income.  If we started a consumption tax, even if we repealed the 16th Amendment, both taxes will exist in about 50 years.  I just don't think we can get there from here.

There needs to be tax, it's what we pay for a civilized society, but there can be a lot of argument on what the appropriate scheme for collecting them should be.  Not sure this is the right thread for that.

[Bigun]

I'm not sure I can think of income tax as "Marxist," but I do think income tax is a bad thing, especially a progressive income tax.  The problem I have with it is, it's a tax on mobility.  Being progressive, the more mobile one is in a given year, the more one is taxed.  This is anathema to a society that prides itself on mobility of wealth.  A tax on wealth would be Marxist, as the purpose is to steal from the "haves" and redistribute it to the "have-nots" (minus what the government keeps for expenses.  Whores in South America can be expensive!  Not for the rent, but for the silence after the act).

I agree with Bigun that a consumption tax would be more in line with the founders' intent, but I don't believe we can unring the bell of the allure of stealing income.  If we started a consumption tax, even if we repealed the 16th Amendment, both taxes will exist in about 50 years.  I just don't think we can get there from here.

There needs to be tax, it's what we pay for a civilized society, but there can be a lot of argument on what the appropriate scheme for collecting them should be.  Not sure this is the right thread for that.

I have no wish to drag this excellent thread off topic so all I'm going to say is that we surely won't unring any bells we don't TRY to unring!

[Formerly Once-Ler]

This enrages me.

Then take a deep breath and relax, because I'm not trying to enrage you.  I respect your opinion immensely and I am still formulating my opinion.  I submit the analogy of pedophilia because I have read many others do so.

Have you ever known a victim of pedophilia?

Yes.  My wife.
Statistically if you know 4 American women, you know 1 victim of child sexual abuse.
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/global-prevalence-child-sexual-abuse/#

To equate the mutually consenting act of two adults to child rape is an unimaginable argument for people of any degree of intelligence to make, because it extends itself to heterosexual sexual activity. If mutually consensual sex between two adults of the same sex can be linked to pedophilia, then the sexual make up of the couple having sex makes very little difference, SPECIALLY since the ratio of homosexual to heterosexual acts of pedophilia are roughly 11:1.

So then, should we judge heterosexuality based on pedophilia?

Let us ask a Judge. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/judge-compares-incest-and-paedophilia-to-past-attitudes-towards-homosexuality-claiming-they-might-not-be-taboo-anymore-20140709-zt0v2.html

Should we discuss the validity of your heterosexual relationship based on the overwhelming ratio of heterosexual pedophilia and child molestation?

Pedophilia is an act of violence, just as murder and rape is an act of violence. 

There is little chance of society ever assigning the age of consent to a 10 year-old child, since consent is indicative of independence, and it's a far argument to make that (with independence being self-funded) a 10 year-old will ever rise to that level of maturity.

You have made some excellent points.  So I'll drop my admittedly extreme analogy of pedophilia, and take my fall back position that homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle like alcoholism (thank you Gov Perry) and should be discouraged not promoted.

The government should subsidize NO MARRIAGES. If we concentrate on that, then we solve the far larger problem in our society.

That is debatable.  Government does subsidize marriage, which indicates to me that your opinion is a minority opinion on this point.   

The government spends a far greater amount of tax dollars subsidizing the fatherless baby mills in the black culture than it will ever spend in same-sex marriages. Why not work on that and not worry about the lesser draw on our resources?

Interesting that opposition to gay marriage is higher in the black community.  http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/african-americans-the-last-democratic-holdouts-on-gay-marriage-20130501

Force insurance companies?

What would they be forced to do other than expand already existing policies?

They are forced to expand policies they would not choose to without the force of government.

By the way... Protestantism is responsible for the current state of marriage.

“Marriage is a civic matter. It is really not, together with all its circumstances, the business of the church.” - Martin Luther

Thank you for that interesting quote and taking the time to respond again.

[MACVSOG68]

You have made some excellent points.  So I'll drop my admittedly extreme analogy of pedophilia, and take my fall back position that homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle like alcoholism (thank you Gov Perry) and should be discouraged not promoted.

Just curious Once-Ler.  Do you think that heterosexual objection to homosexual behavior is part of that destructive lifestyle?  IOW, if left alone, and allowed to engage openly in this lifestyle, do you think it's possible for whatever destructiveness you see, to diminish?  As a follow-on, since the AIDS epidemic is in part linked to homosexual behavior, do you think that encouragement of monogamous relationships among the homosexual community would be beneficial, given that underground or above-ground, homosexuality isn't going to be curbed?

[Oceander]

Bye-bye Huckster.

[Cyber Liberty]

Just curious Once-Ler.  Do you think that heterosexual objection to homosexual behavior is part of that destructive lifestyle?  IOW, if left alone, and allowed to engage openly in this lifestyle, do you think it's possible for whatever destructiveness you see, to diminish?  As a follow-on, since the AIDS epidemic is in part linked to homosexual behavior, do you think that encouragement of monogamous relationships among the homosexual community would be beneficial, given that underground or above-ground, homosexuality isn't going to be curbed?

I'm not Once-Ler, nor have I ever played him on TV or presume to speak for him (or her?), but I would point out that from a medical point of view, Sodomy is about as dangerous an activity as you'll find out there.  It's violent, damages tissue (muscles and others) and allows some pretty nasty microbes to escape into the bloodstream.  Some of these can subsequently be passed to others, such as innocent spouses and children of bisexuals.  Monogamy of sexual partners would certainly help society at large, but doesn't eliminate the danger posed by the act of sodomy.  There's a reason it's considered in many states to be a separate violent felony often included with rape.

Most of the other fears I hear from people are just crap.  Heteros are just as bad (and they also commit sodomy).  Doesn't impact my life one way or the other.

[Lando Lincoln]

Yes indeed - quite the thread.  I went to the North Woods of Wisconsin for a few days of rustic getaway and you folks really debated this issue with (mostly) civility.  Kudos to all!

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes indeed - quite the thread.  I went to the North Woods of Wisconsin for a few days of rustic getaway and you folks really debated this issue with (mostly) civility.  Kudos to all!

I wasn't in the thick of things here (I'm a newbie), but I can say, with confidence, that's high praise coming from you.

I posted with you for many years at TOS, and have developed great respect.

 

[MACVSOG68]

I'm not Once-Ler, nor have I ever played him on TV or presume to speak for him (or her?), but I would point out that from a medical point of view, Sodomy is about as dangerous an activity as you'll find out there.  It's violent, damages tissue (muscles and others) and allows some pretty nasty microbes to escape into the bloodstream.  Some of these can subsequently be passed to others, such as innocent spouses and children of bisexuals.  Monogamy of sexual partners would certainly help society at large, but doesn't eliminate the danger posed by the act of sodomy.  There's a reason it's considered in many states to be a separate violent felony often included with rape.

Most of the other fears I hear from people are just crap.  Heteros are just as bad (and they also commit sodomy).  Doesn't impact my life one way or the other.

Uh...without getting into definitions, I believe sodomy laws were ended in the US with Lawrence v Texas.  STDs are transmitted in various ways, and of course, through intercourse.  Education rather than laws is the most effective deterrent to STDs.  Privacy is a right, though many don't believe it, but given the growth of the NSA, I suspect fewer today disagree with that than earlier on.  I do believe the moral compass has a place in churches and family living rooms...but not in the bedrooms of adults.

[MACVSOG68]

Yes indeed - quite the thread.  I went to the North Woods of Wisconsin for a few days of rustic getaway and you folks really debated this issue with (mostly) civility.  Kudos to all!

Hey Lando!  The North Woods of Wisconsin sounds like a lot more fun than the subject of this thread. 

[Lando Lincoln]

I wasn't in the thick of things here (I'm a newbie), but I can say, with confidence, that's high praise coming from you.

I posted with you for many years at TOS, and have developed great respect.

 

I'm humbled... seriously.  Thank you so much.  Wow, really!

Welcome to the best hangout in conservative cyberspace! 

[Lando Lincoln]

Hey Lando!  The North Woods of Wisconsin sounds like a lot more fun than the subject of this thread. 

Mac, I just love the way most everyone has handled themselves - despite a cannonball or two in the middle of the pool at times. 

Yes, the North Woods is very therapeutic for me.  Mrs. Lando urged me to go.  You may know, but we have a rustic cabin in the middle of 230 acres of timber.  No electricity but very comfortable.  More testosterone than Mrs. Lando cares for but I love it so.  It truly brings my stress level down. 

Anyway, I digress.  The thread is fascinating.  In a way, I'm glad I was away tho!   

[Cyber Liberty]

Uh...without getting into definitions, I believe sodomy laws were ended in the US with Lawrence v Texas.  STDs are transmitted in various ways, and of course, through intercourse.  Education rather than laws is the most effective deterrent to STDs.  Privacy is a right, though many don't believe it, but given the growth of the NSA, I suspect fewer today disagree with that than earlier on.  I do believe the moral compass has a place in churches and family living rooms...but not in the bedrooms of adults.

I agree with most of what you said, but if you want to test the sodomy laws, rape some guy with a broomstick and see what they charge you with.

[Oceander]

Uh...without getting into definitions, I believe sodomy laws were ended in the US with Lawrence v Texas.  STDs are transmitted in various ways, and of course, through intercourse.  Education rather than laws is the most effective deterrent to STDs.  Privacy is a right, though many don't believe it, but given the growth of the NSA, I suspect fewer today disagree with that than earlier on.  I do believe the moral compass has a place in churches and family living rooms...but not in the bedrooms of adults.

It is fascinating how so many ardent privacy advocates - on both sides of the political spectrum - are so quick to throw everyone else's privacy away when their preferred oxen are at risk of being gored.

[Oceander]

Yes indeed - quite the thread.  I went to the North Woods of Wisconsin for a few days of rustic getaway and you folks really debated this issue with (mostly) civility.  Kudos to all!

Maybe so, but that's just because I wasn't around to wreck things! 

[Lando Lincoln]

Maybe so, but that's just because I wasn't around to wreck things! 

Another cannonball?