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

[Cyber Liberty]

The RFK way.

Junior or Senior?

 

[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.)

Next time you're in Florida, stop by C;ark's Fish Camp in J'ville and check the place out.

The menu is... unique.


 

[Cyber Liberty]

Next time you're in Florida, stop by C;ark's Fish Camp in J'ville and check the place out.

The menu is... unique.

The appetizers look awesome.  Never had Kangaroo sausage, but I can sure vouch for the rabbit and ostrich.  Gator Toes?  That's being ruthlessly efficient, don't you think?

That made me hungry.  I need to figure out what variety of stuff I want for dinner.

[Cyber Liberty]

[Luis Gonzalez]

The appetizers look awesome.  Never had Kangaroo sausage, but I can sure vouch for the rabbit and ostrich.  Gator Toes?  That's being ruthlessly efficient, don't you think?

That made me hungry.  I need to figure out what variety of stuff I want for dinner.

You want "ruthlessly efficient"?

I'll give you ruthlessly efficient.

Were you thinking about Chinese for dinner by chance?

[Cyber Liberty]

You want "ruthlessly efficient"?

I'll give you ruthlessly efficient.

Were you thinking about Chinese for dinner by chance?

No, that's pretty well wrung out of me now....

(So, I see you're found one of Lazamataz's favorite pics...)

[Luis Gonzalez]

No, that's pretty well wrung out of me now....

(So, I see you're found one of Lazamataz's favorite pics...)

I understand that Laz objects to the inversion because it makes them feel less "natural".

I'm in that industry and I can attest to the veracity of the picture. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Junior or Senior?

 

As AG Sr.  used interstate commerce to overturn "whites only" establishments.

See Boynton v. Virginia

[musiclady]

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.

I would argue that sex is only a biological imperative in order to reproduce.  And coupling is a primal instinct for the same reason.

[musiclady]

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.

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.

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?

And I'm the one who's condescending?   

Actually, yes, you are condescending, but that's beside the point here.  You obviously feel I am too, so it's a draw.

1.  Nothing I say ever has the purpose of 'ending discussion.'  Quite the opposite, in fact.  It is to present another point of view in a logical manner and respond to what I believe are errors in logic or reason.

2.  I never said you were an extremist (making things up doesn't help keep the discussion rational, MAC).  But in this area your views are libertarian, and not conservative (unless you're not expressing your views clearly).   And I didn't say you were carrying Obama's water.  I said you agreed with him.  And you do.  That's not even up for debate, is it?

3.  On another thread where you and I were discussing this same subject, I brought up the overall decline of American morality, of which acceptance of homosexuality was merely one part.  The sexual revolution created a mess all around, and heterosexual marriages have suffered from it as well.  There is rampant disease even among children, destruction of families, emotional damage, and a whole slew of other side effects from the destruction of the mores that once were agreed upon by the vast majority of Americans.

Again, please don't twist my words to make your points, MAC, and I'll try not to twist yours either.....

[MACVSOG68]

Actually, yes, you are condescending, but that's beside the point here.  You obviously feel I am too, so it's a draw.

1.  Nothing I say ever has the purpose of 'ending discussion.'  Quite the opposite, in fact.  It is to present another point of view in a logical manner and respond to what I believe are errors in logic or reason.

Then that makes two of us...

2.  I never said you were an extremist (making things up doesn't help keep the discussion rational, MAC).  But in this area your views are libertarian, and not conservative (unless you're not expressing your views clearly).   And I didn't say you were carrying Obama's water.  I said you agreed with him.  And you do.  That's not even up for debate, is it?

"Extremist rhetoric, and entirely off the point."

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

"By your extremist example, you tried to dismiss my point entirely, rather than confront it head on."

I'm on Obama's side; I'm a liberal, a libertarian; I consider abortion as irrelevant.

I don't think I've questioned your values as a person; why not give me the same benefit?

3.  On another thread where you and I were discussing this same subject, I brought up the overall decline of American morality, of which acceptance of homosexuality was merely one part.  The sexual revolution created a mess all around, and heterosexual marriages have suffered from it as well.  There is rampant disease even among children, destruction of families, emotional damage, and a whole slew of other side effects from the destruction of the mores that once were agreed upon by the vast majority of Americans.

And I agreed with most of that IIRC.  My point was and is, why shouldn't we then try to encourage more monogamy to help cut down on all that? 

 

[musiclady]

Using extremist rhetoric is quite a different thing than BEING an extremist.

I never said you were an extremist.  My guess is that you were using extremist rhetoric to get a rise out of me, but I don't know you well enough to know for sure.

I am not questioning your values.  I'm just stating that your very particular view on making homosexual marriage legal is the same as Obama's.  That's quite dispassionate.  Your view is the same as his.  I have family members who are good people with good values who also share Obama's view.  And they also know how strongly I disagree with them on this particular issue.

And I have not brought the subject of abortion up with you personally.  It's not the subject here.  Truthfully, I have no idea where you stand on it.

I believe you're a very decent person, and have been extremely polite toward me, and I think you'll see, when you look at what I've actually said, and not what you've felt about what I said, I've been extremely polite toward you as well.

[DCPatriot]

I believe you're a very decent person, and have been extremely polite toward me, and I think you'll see, when you look at what I've actually said, and not what you've felt about what I said, I've been extremely polite toward you as well.

IMO, your back and forth with MAC should be held up as the standard here on how debate should work.  Good job!   

[musiclady]

IMO, your back and forth with MAC should be held up as the standard here on how debate should work.  Good job!   

 Thanks, DC!  MAC seems to be a really good guy.

(And I know how absolutely cool I am.   :dx1: )

[MACVSOG68]

Using extremist rhetoric is quite a different thing than BEING an extremist.

I never said you were an extremist.  My guess is that you were using extremist rhetoric to get a rise out of me, but I don't know you well enough to know for sure.

I am not questioning your values.  I'm just stating that your very particular view on making homosexual marriage legal is the same as Obama's.  That's quite dispassionate.  Your view is the same as his.  I have family members who are good people with good values who also share Obama's view.  And they also know how strongly I disagree with them on this particular issue.

And I have not brought the subject of abortion up with you personally.  It's not the subject here.  Truthfully, I have no idea where you stand on it.

I believe you're a very decent person, and have been extremely polite toward me, and I think you'll see, when you look at what I've actually said, and not what you've felt about what I said, I've been extremely polite toward you as well.

You did say "You, who are libertarian, dismiss social issues, such as abortion, as irrelevant.  In that, IMO, you are liberal."

Anyway, guess we're not adding much more to the debate.  Catch you on another thread.  No hard feelings.

[MACVSOG68]

IMO, your back and forth with MAC should be held up as the standard here on how debate should work.  Good job!   

Appreciate it DC.   

[aligncare]

What? No fisticuffs? What a dull thread.

[musiclady]

You did say "You, who are libertarian, dismiss social issues, such as abortion, as irrelevant.  In that, IMO, you are liberal."

Anyway, guess we're not adding much more to the debate.  Catch you on another thread.  No hard feelings.

I see what you're seeing there.  I was speaking generically about most/many libertarians, and I think pretty much ALL "Libertarians," not specifically to you personally.

But sometimes black and white words and quick communications fail.

Sorry about that.   

[Cyber Liberty]

What? No fisticuffs? What a dull thread.

[truth_seeker]

It was President Reagan, who once said:

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

RONALD REAGAN, Reason Magazine, Jul. 1, 1975

Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/r/reagan_ronald.html#qqoh9ophFGtXFSQP.99

Post Reagan, too many so called "conservatives" have morphed that into plenty of government, to rule the country by laws, to suit their own religions.

--contrary to the 1st Amendment
--contrary to personal freedom

 

[MACVSOG68]

I see what you're seeing there.  I was speaking generically about most/many libertarians, and I think pretty much ALL "Libertarians," not specifically to you personally.

But sometimes black and white words and quick communications fail.

Sorry about that.   

No problem, thanks.   

[truth_seeker]

Not very far back in time it was popular for self labeled conservatives to cite libertarianism, as a vehicle to form alliances and gain more votes and win.

GAIN MORE VOTES AND WIN.

In the 1980s I didn't care much for the SoCon element of the Reagan Coalition, but I cared deeply about fiscal and defense issues. I accepted my need to compromise in order to JOIN with others in a winning combination.

All the conservatives constantly making cases to shrink the tent, ought to either reconsider or plan on being on the outside looking at the dems run things indefinitely.

Conservatism in competition. It needs to attract voters, not ridicule them (Romney learned unfortunately the hard way 47%).

But the 1980s I had studied politics and economics for 15+ years. I knew what Reagan and Laffer, what Jarvis and Gann, what Jack Kemp and others were talking about, how lower taxes stimulated the economy, and Jack Kennedy believed that, too.

We hear little to nothing from contemporary conservatives, along those lines. Just we are not them.

So if it takes some libertarians, some independents and some conservatives to get back on an intelligent track, lets do it. 

[Formerly Once-Ler]

"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.

A racist might ponder if the Constitution would protect a white man entering a black bakery and ordering a cake with a burning cross frosting design under a Holder DOJ?  and if not, who gives a damn what the Constitution says in theory...but point taken for the Constitution. 

Many Christians think, constitutionally, the government shouldn't despoil a deeply religious ritual intended for the sanctification of procreation in the eyes of God and community.  It shouldn't spit upon that holy union by subsidizing a secular bastardization of that ritual.  They think this because of the 1st amendment.

Many of them vote GOP.

"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.

My reply was not fleshed out.  I don't equate murder, rape, and homosexuality other than under a general association of correctly shunned behavior.  My point was to counter that opposition to gays is like opposition to colors, spices, and sports fans with the most extreme examples of things that "always existed," "even in animals."  I'm too tired to revisit the argument with more nuanced approach so I'll bludgeon the point with another inflammatory example of shunned behavior. 

Pedophilia.  We can infer that it has existed since recorded history.  But are pedophiles born with an attraction to children?  Does their sexual dysfunction require them to act?  And should I be concerned for my daughters if the media starts glamorizing pedophile stars and the government recognizes 10 as the age of consent?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9TXjIadhq0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlN3oEjMpUQ

I don't know.  I'm just a dumb Pollock.

Like many dumb Pollocks, I believe that government should not subsidize gay marriage with my tax dollars and force insurance companies to comply with our Constitutionally SCOTUS dodged American definition of marriage.

As always Luis, thank you for your thoughtful reply. 

Shredding The Bill Of Rights
Aug 01 2014
Mike Huckabee

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. Of course, they are also basic moral issues, the type of things you might expect would be addressed, oh, I don’t know…in CHURCH!!

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based atheist group, cited in its complaint the 1954 Johnson Amendment that bars tax-exempt groups from endorsing candidates (two points: speaking out on a moral issue that has a political component is not endorsing a candidate, and besides, I don’t see them complaining about all the liberal candidates who practically live in black church pulpits during election season) and a 2009 court ruling that requires the IRS to have a staffer to monitor churches to prevent them from politicking. The IRS claims this latest move is just to comply with that ruling that they’d been ignoring.

But they should have been ignoring it. The First Amendment contains five key freedoms, and for the government to monitor what’s said in church pulpits and punish them for it makes a mockery of at least two of them: freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If the IRS bans the sermon from being printed in the church bulletin, we can add freedom of the press to the death list, too. The only thing left of the First Amendment would be the rights to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. So if this latest assault on conservative churchgoers by the IRS makes people decide to assemble in Washington with tar and feathers, just consider it an exercise of the two-fifths of the First Amendment that are still in force.

Read more here: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/073114-711290-irs-deal-with-atheists-to-monitor-churches.htm

[MACVSOG68]

A racist might ponder if the Constitution would protect a white man entering a black bakery and ordering a cake with a burning cross frosting design under a Holder DOJ?  and if not, who gives a damn what the Constitution says in theory...but point taken for the Constitution.

And the answer would be no, but it would protect a white man entering a black bakery and ordering a cake with two white people on it.  Nor would the Constitution protect a gay from ordering a cake with two naked gays on it.

Many Christians think, constitutionally, the government shouldn't despoil a deeply religious ritual intended for the sanctification of procreation in the eyes of God and community.  It shouldn't spit upon that holy union by subsidizing a secular bastardization of that ritual.  They think this because of the 1st amendment.

And I agree with that.  No church should be required to perform a ceremony for anyone if that church in good faith cannot recognize that marriage.  It's why there are civil ceremony alternatives.  But some churches are performing those rituals.  And the First Amendment does protect that choice.

Many of them vote GOP.My reply was not fleshed out.  I don't equate murder, rape, and homosexuality other than under a general association of correctly shunned behavior.  My point was to counter that opposition to gays is like opposition to colors, spices, and sports fans with the most extreme examples of things that "always existed," "even in animals."  I'm too tired to revisit the argument with more nuanced approach so I'll bludgeon the point with another inflammatory example of shunned behavior. 

Pedophilia.  We can infer that it has existed since recorded history.  But are pedophiles born with an attraction to children?  Does their sexual dysfunction require them to act?  And should I be concerned for my daughters if the media starts glamorizing pedophile stars and the government recognizes 10 as the age of consent?

We should be concerned for our daughters...and sons because of what the media is doing to glamorize sex and violence.  Pedophilia itself though probably is a part of one's makeup.  But given that the conduct involves victims, it's simply not a comparison.  And yes, opposition to gays is probably a natural reaction, just as opposition to blacks moving in across the street.  The laws don't protect against bias, only acting on that bias.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Pedophilia.  We can infer that it has existed since recorded history.  But are pedophiles born with an attraction to children?  Does their sexual dysfunction require them to act?  And should I be concerned for my daughters if the media starts glamorizing pedophile stars and the government recognizes 10 as the age of consent?

This enrages me.

Have you ever known a victim of pedophilia?

I have. I do.

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?

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.

Like many dumb Pollocks, I believe that government should not subsidize gay marriage with my tax dollars and force insurance companies to comply with our Constitutionally SCOTUS dodged American definition of marriage.

As always Luis, thank you for your thoughtful reply.

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

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?

Force insurance companies?

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

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