Gay marriage (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

IronSheik I'm still not sure I understand. You don't like how much time and money has been spent on this. That part I get. You have no personal objection to equality for gays- I get that part too. My question is, what would you like to see happen NOW? Be specific and blunt, please.

 

[Henry Ford]

Why not? We do it all of the time. And again, since I've somehow brought out the pitchforks against me, I'm not saying one way is right. My whole point is that we, as a nation, have been fighting this for a ridiculous amount of time.

The word "marriage" has a lot greater meaning than you're implying it does, and I know you know that.

I think it does now. But it didn't. And I think both sides are to blame for this. That's my point.

When was that?

People didn't talk about the sanctity of marriage when the divorce rate was skyrocketing and the gays weren't asking for it. This is like the toy that neither kid was playing with, but when one of them wanted to use it, the other started crying saying that it's theirs and THEY wanted it.

Check out what was going on in the 70s and 80s, when no-fault divorce was being signed into law in the U.S. "Sanctity of marriage" was absolutely at the forefront of the discussion.

1985 was the last no-fault law I'm aware of. Baehr v. Miike was filed in 1990. I guess maybe for that 5-year period things were a little calmer.

Sorry. Didn't realize you were going to be so literal. What I meant was that the main issue in America wasn't about the sanctity of marriage. For the past 3 Presidential Elections, gay marriage has been one of the main issues. I remember sitting at my gay friend's house back in 2012 and watching election coverage. He said, "It's a shame that gay marriage is a bigger issue than fixing our economy."

I think I'm missing what you're saying about the "sanctity of marriage" argument.

My side of this discussion is that the word "marriage" has meant something very important since its creation, and that Americans have been arguing about the sanctity of marriage every time someone tries to do anything with marriage. It sounded like you were saying that people haven't been arguing about the sanctity of marriage for very long, but then it seems like this post means something different. Can you help me out? I'm missing something.

 

[UniAlias]

I'm condemning both sides here.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Sorry. Didn't realize you were going to be so literal. What I meant was that the main issue in America wasn't about the sanctity of marriage. For the past 3 Presidential Elections, gay marriage has been one of the main issues. I remember sitting at my gay friend's house back in 2012 and watching election coverage. He said, "It's a shame that gay marriage is a bigger issue than fixing our economy."

I agree with your friend that it's a shame that gay marriage is a bigger issue than fixing our economy. It's a shame that there is a large group of people actively working, campaigning, spending on a platform designed to deny people rights. And often under the banner of religion, which makes it an even bigger shame in my book. The "shame" in the situation is not that people are actively working in favor of gay marriage rather than focusing on the economy. The "shame" is that we, collectively, can't agree to not deny rights to people just like you and me. It shouldn't be a bigger issue than the economy because it shouldn't be a ####### issue at all. Gay marriage shouldn't be illegal in the US, period.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Sorry. Didn't realize you were going to be so literal. What I meant was that the main issue in America wasn't about the sanctity of marriage. For the past 3 Presidential Elections, gay marriage has been one of the main issues. I remember sitting at my gay friend's house back in 2012 and watching election coverage. He said, "It's a shame that gay marriage is a bigger issue than fixing our economy."

I agree with your friend that it's a shame that gay marriage is a bigger issue than fixing our economy. It's a shame that there is a large group of people actively working, campaigning, spending on a platform designed to deny people rights. And often under the banner of religion, which makes it an even bigger shame in my book. The "shame" in the situation is not that people are actively working in favor of gay marriage rather than focusing on the economy. The "shame" is that we, collectively, can't agree to not deny rights to people just like you and me. It shouldn't be a bigger issue than the economy because it shouldn't be a ####### issue at all. Gay marriage shouldn't be illegal in the US, period.

I agree with you. Not sure why you're mad at me.

 

[timschochet]

I've noticed a shift in many of the people who used to be vocally opposed to gay issues. Nowadays, whenever homosexuality gets brought up, the response is no longer "that shouldn't be allowed," it's "I'm sick of hearing about it, it's no big deal, why are we wasting time discussing it?" If you read through the Michael Sam thread this was a common response.

I didn't live through it, but I would guess that when the Civil Rights movement finally won most of its major battles by the 60s, formerly vocal racists displayed the same response: "Who cares? Let's stop talking about it" etc.

 

[TheIronSheik]

IronSheik I'm still not sure I understand. You don't like how much time and money has been spent on this. That part I get. You have no personal objection to equality for gays- I get that part too. My question is, what would you like to see happen NOW? Be specific and blunt, please.

It's not a matter of what I want. If you are asking what I want, I want gay marriage to be legal everywhere.

 

[timschochet]

Sorry. Didn't realize you were going to be so literal. What I meant was that the main issue in America wasn't about the sanctity of marriage. For the past 3 Presidential Elections, gay marriage has been one of the main issues. I remember sitting at my gay friend's house back in 2012 and watching election coverage. He said, "It's a shame that gay marriage is a bigger issue than fixing our economy."

I agree with your friend that it's a shame that gay marriage is a bigger issue than fixing our economy. It's a shame that there is a large group of people actively working, campaigning, spending on a platform designed to deny people rights. And often under the banner of religion, which makes it an even bigger shame in my book. The "shame" in the situation is not that people are actively working in favor of gay marriage rather than focusing on the economy. The "shame" is that we, collectively, can't agree to not deny rights to people just like you and me. It shouldn't be a bigger issue than the economy because it shouldn't be a ####### issue at all. Gay marriage shouldn't be illegal in the US, period.

I agree with you. Not sure why you're mad at me.

then why are you condemning both sides? What is it about the pro gay marriage side that deserves condemnation?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Why not? We do it all of the time. And again, since I've somehow brought out the pitchforks against me, I'm not saying one way is right. My whole point is that we, as a nation, have been fighting this for a ridiculous amount of time.

The word "marriage" has a lot greater meaning than you're implying it does, and I know you know that.

I think it does now. But it didn't. And I think both sides are to blame for this. That's my point.

When was that?

People didn't talk about the sanctity of marriage when the divorce rate was skyrocketing and the gays weren't asking for it. This is like the toy that neither kid was playing with, but when one of them wanted to use it, the other started crying saying that it's theirs and THEY wanted it.

Check out what was going on in the 70s and 80s, when no-fault divorce was being signed into law in the U.S. "Sanctity of marriage" was absolutely at the forefront of the discussion.

1985 was the last no-fault law I'm aware of. Baehr v. Miike was filed in 1990. I guess maybe for that 5-year period things were a little calmer.

Sorry. Didn't realize you were going to be so literal. What I meant was that the main issue in America wasn't about the sanctity of marriage. For the past 3 Presidential Elections, gay marriage has been one of the main issues. I remember sitting at my gay friend's house back in 2012 and watching election coverage. He said, "It's a shame that gay marriage is a bigger issue than fixing our economy."

I think I'm missing what you're saying about the "sanctity of marriage" argument.

My side of this discussion is that the word "marriage" has meant something very important since its creation, and that Americans have been arguing about the sanctity of marriage every time someone tries to do anything with marriage. It sounded like you were saying that people haven't been arguing about the sanctity of marriage for very long, but then it seems like this post means something different. Can you help me out? I'm missing something.

Not a big deal. I'll remove myself from this thread. It seems my thoughts are against the grain of other's here and it's not worth continuing to try and explain my point.

 

[the moops]

If you are asking what I want, I want gay marriage to be legal everywhere.

You should just leave this as your last comment on the matter.

 

[jon_mx]

Hucklebee is not Dominionist. That has about as much merit as calling a Democratic candidate a Communist, probably less. The tin-foil hatters are coming out of the closet.

I did a little googling about this, and it looks like there isn't much of anything he's written on the subject available despite being a SBC minister for a while (which is probably smart given his post ministerial career trajectory,) but his advisor for policy and planning while he was the governor of Arkansas looks to be a pretty hardcore reconstructionist. Admittedly, I'm doing a quick google search and don't know a ton about Huckabee's theology (only how it plays out through his politics which screams theonomist), but this old article links Huckabee to a handful of reconstructionists, and he did pick one as a close adviser as Governor. It seems like there might be some merit to it.

There is more evidence to suggest Obama is a black liberation theologist. Guilt by association, some obscure comments that sound similar, claims by dubious websites.....oh, come on.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Sorry. Didn't realize you were going to be so literal. What I meant was that the main issue in America wasn't about the sanctity of marriage. For the past 3 Presidential Elections, gay marriage has been one of the main issues. I remember sitting at my gay friend's house back in 2012 and watching election coverage. He said, "It's a shame that gay marriage is a bigger issue than fixing our economy."

I agree with your friend that it's a shame that gay marriage is a bigger issue than fixing our economy. It's a shame that there is a large group of people actively working, campaigning, spending on a platform designed to deny people rights. And often under the banner of religion, which makes it an even bigger shame in my book. The "shame" in the situation is not that people are actively working in favor of gay marriage rather than focusing on the economy. The "shame" is that we, collectively, can't agree to not deny rights to people just like you and me. It shouldn't be a bigger issue than the economy because it shouldn't be a ####### issue at all. Gay marriage shouldn't be illegal in the US, period.

I agree with you. Not sure why you're mad at me.

I'm not mad at you, I'm agreeing with you.

 

[Henry Ford]

Why not? We do it all of the time. And again, since I've somehow brought out the pitchforks against me, I'm not saying one way is right. My whole point is that we, as a nation, have been fighting this for a ridiculous amount of time.

The word "marriage" has a lot greater meaning than you're implying it does, and I know you know that.

I think it does now. But it didn't. And I think both sides are to blame for this. That's my point.

When was that?

People didn't talk about the sanctity of marriage when the divorce rate was skyrocketing and the gays weren't asking for it. This is like the toy that neither kid was playing with, but when one of them wanted to use it, the other started crying saying that it's theirs and THEY wanted it.

Check out what was going on in the 70s and 80s, when no-fault divorce was being signed into law in the U.S. "Sanctity of marriage" was absolutely at the forefront of the discussion.

1985 was the last no-fault law I'm aware of. Baehr v. Miike was filed in 1990. I guess maybe for that 5-year period things were a little calmer.

Sorry. Didn't realize you were going to be so literal. What I meant was that the main issue in America wasn't about the sanctity of marriage. For the past 3 Presidential Elections, gay marriage has been one of the main issues. I remember sitting at my gay friend's house back in 2012 and watching election coverage. He said, "It's a shame that gay marriage is a bigger issue than fixing our economy."

I think I'm missing what you're saying about the "sanctity of marriage" argument.

My side of this discussion is that the word "marriage" has meant something very important since its creation, and that Americans have been arguing about the sanctity of marriage every time someone tries to do anything with marriage. It sounded like you were saying that people haven't been arguing about the sanctity of marriage for very long, but then it seems like this post means something different. Can you help me out? I'm missing something.

Not a big deal. I'll remove myself from this thread. It seems my thoughts are against the grain of other's here and it's not worth continuing to try and explain my point.

I don't think anyone wants you removed - just trying to understand what you're saying. Still fuzzy from vacation.

 

[CBusAlex]

Gay marriage advocates are correct, but they deserve their share of the blame for not giving up and accepting discrimination. Got it. Thanks, Sheik.

 

[timschochet]

Gay marriage advocates are correct, but they deserve their share of the blame for not giving up and accepting discrimination. Got it. Thanks, Sheik.

Yeah, this was my impression too, but Sheik has quickly withdrawn from the discussion rather than defend his comments.

 

[NCCommish]

Hucklebee is not Dominionist. That has about as much merit as calling a Democratic candidate a Communist, probably less. The tin-foil hatters are coming out of the closet.

I did a little googling about this, and it looks like there isn't much of anything he's written on the subject available despite being a SBC minister for a while (which is probably smart given his post ministerial career trajectory,) but his advisor for policy and planning while he was the governor of Arkansas looks to be a pretty hardcore reconstructionist. Admittedly, I'm doing a quick google search and don't know a ton about Huckabee's theology (only how it plays out through his politics which screams theonomist), but this old article links Huckabee to a handful of reconstructionists, and he did pick one as a close adviser as Governor. It seems like there might be some merit to it.

There is more evidence to suggest Obama is a black liberation theologist. Guilt by association, some obscure comments that sound similar, claims by dubious websites.....oh, come on.

Really? So how many books did Obama coauthor with the leader of the Black Liberation movement? By my count none. Huck coauthored a book with this guy:

His coauthor was George Grant, a well-known militant Christian reconstructionist author, activist and educator. That same year, the libertarian Reason magazine published an exposé of reconstructionism titled "Invitation to a Stoning," which identified Grant and quoted him on the movement's ambition for "world conquest." Scorning the moderation of other conservative Christians, Grant explained, "It is dominion we are after. Not just a voice ... not just influence ... not just equal time. It is dominion we are after."

Yeah I am sure he shares none of those views except for the ones he espouses regularly. You know like changing the constitution:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Oh yeah that isn't theocratic at all. If you'd like I can go on but really the point is made. But hey let me know plenty more out there if you bother.

.

 

[NCCommish]

Oh yeah that isn't theocratic at all. If you'd like I can go on but really the point is made. But hey let me know plenty more out there if you bother.

.

Those are just claims by a dubious website. I'm sure it's just coincidence that he appoints reconstructionists as advisors and has them as co-authors. Blah blah Obama evil black people!

True

 

[jon_mx]

OK, you convinced me. Since Hucklebee worked on a book with this Grant guy, he must share all his views on life. Wait, who helped Obama write a book? Or yeah, that BIll Ayres guy. You remember, the guy who was involved in bombings. So Obama must be a terrorist. Thanks for confirming this.

 

[Gandalf the Grey]

OK, you convinced me. Since Hucklebee worked on a book with this Grant guy, he must share all his views on life. Wait, who helped Obama write a book? Or yeah, that BIll Ayres guy. You remember, the guy who was involved in bombings. So Obama must be a terrorist. Thanks for confirming this.

You are too much.

 

[timschochet]

OK, you convinced me. Since Hucklebee worked on a book with this Grant guy, he must share all his views on life. Wait, who helped Obama write a book? Or yeah, that BIll Ayres guy. You remember, the guy who was involved in bombings. So Obama must be a terrorist. Thanks for confirming this.

i don't recall Ayers helping Obama write any book. I know that Jeremiah Wright is said to have originated the phrase "audacity of hope" which Obama used as the title of his second book. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?

 

[jon_mx]

OK, you convinced me. Since Hucklebee worked on a book with this Grant guy, he must share all his views on life. Wait, who helped Obama write a book? Or yeah, that BIll Ayres guy. You remember, the guy who was involved in bombings. So Obama must be a terrorist. Thanks for confirming this.

You are too much.

I was making a point. But I am not surprised..... :whoosh:

 

[joffer]

Apparently Eminence is about to be the governor of Texas

In a brief filed with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, Texas attorney general and GOP gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott argued that lifting the states ban on same-sex marriage would not encourage opposite-sex couples to procreate within wedlock, and therefore the ban should stay in place. Abbott reiterated the responsible procreation argument he has already made in defense of a same-sex marriage ban, saying that the motivation for denying marriage rights is economic, according to the Houston Chronicle.

The State is not required to show that recognizing same-sex marriage will undermine heterosexual marriage, the brief reads. It is enough if one could rationally speculate that opposite-sex marriages will advance some state interest to a greater extent than same-sex marriages will.

Abbott went on to argue that the benefit of heterosexual marriage comes from its ability to encourage other couples to procreate within a legal union an end that the state contends cannot be achieved in same-sex unions, because they do not necessarily result in pregnancy:

First, Texass marriage laws are rationally related to the States interest in encouraging couples to produce new offspring, which are needed to ensure economic growth and the survival of the human race [...]

Second, Texass marriage laws are rationally related to the States interest in reducing unplanned out-of-wedlock births. By channeling procreative heterosexual intercourse into marriage, Texass marriage laws reduce unplanned out-of-wedlock births and the costs that those births impose on society. Recognizing same-sex marriage does not advance this interest because same-sex unions do not result in pregnancy.

Despite the fact that many opposite-sex marriages also do not result in pregnancy, the brief contends that because they are more likely to produce offspring than same-sex marriages, they are entitled to state subsidies. Abbott did, however, concede the same-sex marriage can have positive social benefits anyway. The brief notes that legalizing marriage equality could increase household wealth and provide a stable environment for the children of same-sex couples but that does not establish that Texass marriage laws lack a rational relation to the States interests in reducing unplanned out-of-wedlock births and encouraging the creation of new offspring.

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/13/greg_abbott_texas_gop_same_sex_marriage_ban_helps_reduce_out_of_wedlock_births/

 

[jon_mx]

OK, you convinced me. Since Hucklebee worked on a book with this Grant guy, he must share all his views on life. Wait, who helped Obama write a book? Or yeah, that BIll Ayres guy. You remember, the guy who was involved in bombings. So Obama must be a terrorist. Thanks for confirming this.

i don't recall Ayers helping Obama write any book. I know that Jeremiah Wright is said to have originated the phrase "audacity of hope" which Obama used as the title of his second book. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?

OK, you convinced me. Since Hucklebee worked on a book with this Grant guy, he must share all his views on life. Wait, who helped Obama write a book? Or yeah, that BIll Ayres guy. You remember, the guy who was involved in bombings. So Obama must be a terrorist. Thanks for confirming this.

i don't recall Ayers helping Obama write any book. I know that Jeremiah Wright is said to have originated the phrase "audacity of hope" which Obama used as the title of his second book. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?

Bill Ayers has claimed several times he ghost wrote Dreams of My Father....whether it is true, or he was joking does not matter. It is a stupid point about Hucklebee, and I don't even like Hucklebee. I am just trying to fight stupidity here. Writing a book on an unrelated topic does not mean you agree with everything that person thinks.....just pure ignorance flying around here.

 

[joffer]

Bill Ayers has claimed several times he ghost wrote Dreams of My Father....whether it is true, or he was joking does not matter.

 

[jon_mx]

Bill Ayers has claimed several times he ghost wrote Dreams of My Father....whether it is true, or he was joking does not matter. It is a stupid point about Hucklebee, and I don't even like Hucklebee. I am just trying to fight stupidity here. Writing a book on an unrelated topic does not mean you agree with everything that person thinks.....just pure ignorance flying around here.

Nobody is saying Huckabee agrees with everything that his friends say. We are pointing out that he says stuff that sounds like a reconstructionist, appoints reconstructionists to advisor positions, co-authors books with reconstructionists, and hangs out with reconstructionists. You seem to think it's utterly insane that we think it's likely that he's a reconstructionist, and keep talking about Obama and terrorists.

Yes, it is insane. The only God's law Huckabee cares about changing the Constitution on are abortion and gay marriage. That is it. He does not want to codify the Old Testament into the Constitution or law. That is a ridiculous accusation.

 

[squistion]

OK, you convinced me. Since Hucklebee worked on a book with this Grant guy, he must share all his views on life. Wait, who helped Obama write a book? Or yeah, that BIll Ayres guy. You remember, the guy who was involved in bombings. So Obama must be a terrorist. Thanks for confirming this.

i don't recall Ayers helping Obama write any book. I know that Jeremiah Wright is said to have originated the phrase "audacity of hope" which Obama used as the title of his second book. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?

Bill Ayers has claimed several times he ghost wrote Dreams of My Father....whether it is true, or he was joking does not matter. It is a stupid point about Hucklebee, and I don't even like Hucklebee. I am just trying to fight stupidity here. Writing a book on an unrelated topic does not mean you agree with everything that person thinks.....just pure ignorance flying around here.

Obviously the truth or facts mean nothing to you when you are trying to win an argument (I guess you just make stuff up as you go along, cause it doesn't really matter if it is true or not). And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

 

[jon_mx]

OK, you convinced me. Since Hucklebee worked on a book with this Grant guy, he must share all his views on life. Wait, who helped Obama write a book? Or yeah, that BIll Ayres guy. You remember, the guy who was involved in bombings. So Obama must be a terrorist. Thanks for confirming this.

i don't recall Ayers helping Obama write any book. I know that Jeremiah Wright is said to have originated the phrase "audacity of hope" which Obama used as the title of his second book. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?

Bill Ayers has claimed several times he ghost wrote Dreams of My Father....whether it is true, or he was joking does not matter. It is a stupid point about Hucklebee, and I don't even like Hucklebee. I am just trying to fight stupidity here. Writing a book on an unrelated topic does not mean you agree with everything that person thinks.....just pure ignorance flying around here.

Obviously the truth or facts mean nothing to you when you are trying to win an argument (I guess you just make stuff up as you go along, cause it doesn't really matter if it is true or not). And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

 

[squistion]

Bill Ayers has claimed several times he ghost wrote Dreams of My Father....whether it is true, or he was joking does not matter. It is a stupid point about Hucklebee, and I don't even like Hucklebee. I am just trying to fight stupidity here. Writing a book on an unrelated topic does not mean you agree with everything that person thinks.....just pure ignorance flying around here.

Obviously the truth or facts mean nothing to you when you are trying to win an argument (I guess you just make stuff up as you go along, cause it doesn't really matter if it is true or not). And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

Bill Ayers has claimed several times he ghost wrote Dreams of My Father....whether it is true, or he was joking does not matter.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Bill Ayers has claimed several times he ghost wrote Dreams of My Father....whether it is true, or he was joking does not matter. It is a stupid point about Hucklebee, and I don't even like Hucklebee. I am just trying to fight stupidity here. Writing a book on an unrelated topic does not mean you agree with everything that person thinks.....just pure ignorance flying around here.

Nobody is saying Huckabee agrees with everything that his friends say. We are pointing out that he says stuff that sounds like a reconstructionist, appoints reconstructionists to advisor positions, co-authors books with reconstructionists, and hangs out with reconstructionists. You seem to think it's utterly insane that we think it's likely that he's a reconstructionist, and keep talking about Obama and terrorists.

I think this is totally fair.

And the same line of argument is and always has been totally fair when its been about Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. I know this is off-topic for this thread, but it's always bugged me that certain people refused to even acknowledge the legitimacy of concerns over these clowns.

Edit: I especially appreciate the fact that a guy who "hangs out" with reconstructionists might reasonably be suspected of sharing their worldview. For some reason, some considered it beyond the pale when Sarah Palin correctly noted that Obama "palls around with terrorists," namely Ayers. I'm pleased with the way Obama has governed and I have no concerns at all about this sort of thing now, but I'm glad we agree that it was a valid topic for discussion at the time.

 

[jon_mx]

Bill Ayers has claimed several times he ghost wrote Dreams of My Father....whether it is true, or he was joking does not matter. It is a stupid point about Hucklebee, and I don't even like Hucklebee. I am just trying to fight stupidity here. Writing a book on an unrelated topic does not mean you agree with everything that person thinks.....just pure ignorance flying around here.

Obviously the truth or facts mean nothing to you when you are trying to win an argument (I guess you just make stuff up as you go along, cause it doesn't really matter if it is true or not). And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

Bill Ayers has claimed several times he ghost wrote Dreams of My Father....whether it is true, or he was joking does not matter.

Let me try one more time....

Let's assume Bill Ayres wrote a book with Obama. Would that make you conclude that Obama supports terrorism?

Let's assume Bill Ayers did not write a book with Obama. would that make you conclude that Obama supports terrorism?

My point was not that truth does not matter. My point was the fact that who wrote a book with whom does not prove anything about who that person is. Get it? geez ...

 

[Koya]

Bill Ayers has claimed several times he ghost wrote Dreams of My Father....whether it is true, or he was joking does not matter. It is a stupid point about Hucklebee, and I don't even like Hucklebee. I am just trying to fight stupidity here. Writing a book on an unrelated topic does not mean you agree with everything that person thinks.....just pure ignorance flying around here.

Obviously the truth or facts mean nothing to you when you are trying to win an argument (I guess you just make stuff up as you go along, cause it doesn't really matter if it is true or not). And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

Bill Ayers has claimed several times he ghost wrote Dreams of My Father....whether it is true, or he was joking does not matter.

Let me try one more time....

Let's assume Bill Ayres wrote a book with Obama. Would that make you conclude that Obama supports terrorism?

Let's assume Bill Ayers did not write a book with Obama. would that make you conclude that Obama supports terrorism?

My point was not that truth does not matter. My point was the fact that who wrote a book with whom does not prove anything about who that person is. Get it? geez ...

Easy killer. Trying a bit hard here.

geez ...

 

[fatness]

Sorry. Didn't realize you were going to be so literal. What I meant was that the main issue in America wasn't about the sanctity of marriage. For the past 3 Presidential Elections, gay marriage has been one of the main issues. I remember sitting at my gay friend's house back in 2012 and watching election coverage. He said, "It's a shame that gay marriage is a bigger issue than fixing our economy."

I agree with your friend that it's a shame that gay marriage is a bigger issue than fixing our economy. It's a shame that there is a large group of people actively working, campaigning, spending on a platform designed to deny people rights. And often under the banner of religion, which makes it an even bigger shame in my book. The "shame" in the situation is not that people are actively working in favor of gay marriage rather than focusing on the economy. The "shame" is that we, collectively, can't agree to not deny rights to people just like you and me. It shouldn't be a bigger issue than the economy because it shouldn't be a ####### issue at all. Gay marriage shouldn't be illegal in the US, period.

I agree with you. Not sure why you're mad at me.

I'm not mad at you, I'm agreeing with you.

You guys should get married.

 

[joffer]

Arizona

 

[NCCommish]

OK, you convinced me. Since Hucklebee worked on a book with this Grant guy, he must share all his views on life. Wait, who helped Obama write a book? Or yeah, that BIll Ayres guy. You remember, the guy who was involved in bombings. So Obama must be a terrorist. Thanks for confirming this.

i don't recall Ayers helping Obama write any book. I know that Jeremiah Wright is said to have originated the phrase "audacity of hope" which Obama used as the title of his second book. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?

OK, you convinced me. Since Hucklebee worked on a book with this Grant guy, he must share all his views on life. Wait, who helped Obama write a book? Or yeah, that BIll Ayres guy. You remember, the guy who was involved in bombings. So Obama must be a terrorist. Thanks for confirming this.

i don't recall Ayers helping Obama write any book. I know that Jeremiah Wright is said to have originated the phrase "audacity of hope" which Obama used as the title of his second book. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?

Bill Ayers has claimed several times he ghost wrote Dreams of My Father....whether it is true, or he was joking does not matter. It is a stupid point about Hucklebee, and I don't even like Hucklebee. I am just trying to fight stupidity here. Writing a book on an unrelated topic does not mean you agree with everything that person thinks.....just pure ignorance flying around here.

So you ignored the direct quote because it went against your fevered defense it appears.

 

[NCCommish]

Arizona

31 and counting

 

[jon_mx]

OK, you convinced me. Since Hucklebee worked on a book with this Grant guy, he must share all his views on life. Wait, who helped Obama write a book? Or yeah, that BIll Ayres guy. You remember, the guy who was involved in bombings. So Obama must be a terrorist. Thanks for confirming this.

i don't recall Ayers helping Obama write any book. I know that Jeremiah Wright is said to have originated the phrase "audacity of hope" which Obama used as the title of his second book. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?

OK, you convinced me. Since Hucklebee worked on a book with this Grant guy, he must share all his views on life. Wait, who helped Obama write a book? Or yeah, that BIll Ayres guy. You remember, the guy who was involved in bombings. So Obama must be a terrorist. Thanks for confirming this.

i don't recall Ayers helping Obama write any book. I know that Jeremiah Wright is said to have originated the phrase "audacity of hope" which Obama used as the title of his second book. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?

Bill Ayers has claimed several times he ghost wrote Dreams of My Father....whether it is true, or he was joking does not matter. It is a stupid point about Hucklebee, and I don't even like Hucklebee. I am just trying to fight stupidity here. Writing a book on an unrelated topic does not mean you agree with everything that person thinks.....just pure ignorance flying around here.

So you ignored the direct quote because it went against your fevered defense it appears.

The Huckabee quote about God's law? What is there to ignore? You think that proves that Huckabee wants to implement Old Testament Law via the Constitution? The quote is a couple sentences out of a campaign speech back in 2008 on Michigan State university. I guarantee you, if you found the entire speech the context would be around specific policies which Huckabee believes in such as abortion, gay marriage, and perhaps even immigration (which is an odd policy to try to turn into a Biblical moral issue). There is no proof that Huckabee is what you said he is. You are reading way to much into a quote and ingoring the context.

 

[NCCommish]

OK, you convinced me. Since Hucklebee worked on a book with this Grant guy, he must share all his views on life. Wait, who helped Obama write a book? Or yeah, that BIll Ayres guy. You remember, the guy who was involved in bombings. So Obama must be a terrorist. Thanks for confirming this.

i don't recall Ayers helping Obama write any book. I know that Jeremiah Wright is said to have originated the phrase "audacity of hope" which Obama used as the title of his second book. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?

OK, you convinced me. Since Hucklebee worked on a book with this Grant guy, he must share all his views on life. Wait, who helped Obama write a book? Or yeah, that BIll Ayres guy. You remember, the guy who was involved in bombings. So Obama must be a terrorist. Thanks for confirming this.

i don't recall Ayers helping Obama write any book. I know that Jeremiah Wright is said to have originated the phrase "audacity of hope" which Obama used as the title of his second book. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of?

Bill Ayers has claimed several times he ghost wrote Dreams of My Father....whether it is true, or he was joking does not matter. It is a stupid point about Hucklebee, and I don't even like Hucklebee. I am just trying to fight stupidity here. Writing a book on an unrelated topic does not mean you agree with everything that person thinks.....just pure ignorance flying around here.

So you ignored the direct quote because it went against your fevered defense it appears.

The Huckabee quote about God's law? What is there to ignore? You think that proves that Huckabee wants to implement Old Testament Law via the Constitution? The quote is a couple sentences out of a campaign speech back in 2008 on Michigan State university. I guarantee you, if you found the entire speech the context would be around specific policies which Huckabee believes in such as abortion, gay marriage, and perhaps even immigration (which is an odd policy to try to turn into a Biblical moral issue). There is no proof that Huckabee is what you said he is. You are reading way to much into a quote and ingoring the context.

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.

That is the entire paragraph.That's the context. So what part of amending the constitution to make it more God centered, Hucks god of course, doesn't seem like theocracy to you?

 

[jon_mx]

Huck is not saying away near what you are implying he is saying. He wanted to change a few things in the Constitution because he did not like the way the courts were changing it. Implementing a few polices which are viewed as immoral is a far ways from theocracy.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Huck is not saying away near what you are implying he is saying. He wanted to change a few things in the Constitution because he did not like the way the courts were changing it. Implementing a few polices which are viewed as immoral is a far ways from theocracy.

My favorite part is the phrasing. "a few things in the Constitution." You know, just an amendment here and there. No big deal, guys. And just a few policies which "are viewed as immoral," as if everyone views them that way, not just this dooshbag who said he literally wants to change the law to more closely follow God's Law, which is totally a "far ways from theocracy." Nothing to see here, folks.

 

[pollardsvision]

Apparently Eminence is about to be the governor of Texas

In a brief filed with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, Texas attorney general and GOP gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott argued that lifting the states ban on same-sex marriage would not encourage opposite-sex couples to procreate within wedlock, and therefore the ban should stay in place. Abbott reiterated the responsible procreation argument he has already made in defense of a same-sex marriage ban, saying that the motivation for denying marriage rights is economic, according to the Houston Chronicle.

The State is not required to show that recognizing same-sex marriage will undermine heterosexual marriage, the brief reads. It is enough if one could rationally speculate that opposite-sex marriages will advance some state interest to a greater extent than same-sex marriages will.

Abbott went on to argue that the benefit of heterosexual marriage comes from its ability to encourage other couples to procreate within a legal union an end that the state contends cannot be achieved in same-sex unions, because they do not necessarily result in pregnancy:

First, Texass marriage laws are rationally related to the States interest in encouraging couples to produce new offspring, which are needed to ensure economic growth and the survival of the human race [...]

Second, Texass marriage laws are rationally related to the States interest in reducing unplanned out-of-wedlock births. By channeling procreative heterosexual intercourse into marriage, Texass marriage laws reduce unplanned out-of-wedlock births and the costs that those births impose on society. Recognizing same-sex marriage does not advance this interest because same-sex unions do not result in pregnancy.

Despite the fact that many opposite-sex marriages also do not result in pregnancy, the brief contends that because they are more likely to produce offspring than same-sex marriages, they are entitled to state subsidies. Abbott did, however, concede the same-sex marriage can have positive social benefits anyway. The brief notes that legalizing marriage equality could increase household wealth and provide a stable environment for the children of same-sex couples but that does not establish that Texass marriage laws lack a rational relation to the States interests in reducing unplanned out-of-wedlock births and encouraging the creation of new offspring.

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/13/greg_abbott_texas_gop_same_sex_marriage_ban_helps_reduce_out_of_wedlock_births/

It amazes me that anybody could say this sort of #### with a straight face.

Even if we somehow buy the argument that married people cranking out more babies is in the best interest of the state, they haven't explained how gay people getting married is going to discourage straight people from getting married and having babies. Lord knows, all states have to work really hard to convince straight men and women to screw, have children, and get married. Or how gay people getting married is going to encourage more out of wedlock pregnancies.

 

[jon_mx]

Huck is not saying away near what you are implying he is saying. He wanted to change a few things in the Constitution because he did not like the way the courts were changing it. Implementing a few polices which are viewed as immoral is a far ways from theocracy.

My favorite part is the phrasing. "a few things in the Constitution." You know, just an amendment here and there. No big deal, guys. And just a few policies which "are viewed as immoral," as if everyone views them that way, not just this dooshbag who said he literally wants to change the law to more closely follow God's Law, which is totally a "far ways from theocracy." Nothing to see here, folks.

I am not saying I agree with Huckabee's methods or agenda, because I don't. But saying based on the information provided that Huckabee is just like the Taliban, he wants to impliment Old Testament Law/Theology is just plain tin-foil hat stupid. It is all left-wing fodder feeding the fears of the ignorant. Besides, Huckabee isn't going to get 100 miles within the White House, let alone have any power to try to get any part of the Constitution changed. This whole discussion is fear-mongering ignorance.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Apparently Eminence is about to be the governor of Texas

In a brief filed with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, Texas attorney general and GOP gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott argued that lifting the states ban on same-sex marriage would not encourage opposite-sex couples to procreate within wedlock, and therefore the ban should stay in place. Abbott reiterated the responsible procreation argument he has already made in defense of a same-sex marriage ban, saying that the motivation for denying marriage rights is economic, according to the Houston Chronicle.

The State is not required to show that recognizing same-sex marriage will undermine heterosexual marriage, the brief reads. It is enough if one could rationally speculate that opposite-sex marriages will advance some state interest to a greater extent than same-sex marriages will.

Abbott went on to argue that the benefit of heterosexual marriage comes from its ability to encourage other couples to procreate within a legal union an end that the state contends cannot be achieved in same-sex unions, because they do not necessarily result in pregnancy:

First, Texass marriage laws are rationally related to the States interest in encouraging couples to produce new offspring, which are needed to ensure economic growth and the survival of the human race [...]

Second, Texass marriage laws are rationally related to the States interest in reducing unplanned out-of-wedlock births. By channeling procreative heterosexual intercourse into marriage, Texass marriage laws reduce unplanned out-of-wedlock births and the costs that those births impose on society. Recognizing same-sex marriage does not advance this interest because same-sex unions do not result in pregnancy.

Despite the fact that many opposite-sex marriages also do not result in pregnancy, the brief contends that because they are more likely to produce offspring than same-sex marriages, they are entitled to state subsidies. Abbott did, however, concede the same-sex marriage can have positive social benefits anyway. The brief notes that legalizing marriage equality could increase household wealth and provide a stable environment for the children of same-sex couples but that does not establish that Texass marriage laws lack a rational relation to the States interests in reducing unplanned out-of-wedlock births and encouraging the creation of new offspring.

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/13/greg_abbott_texas_gop_same_sex_marriage_ban_helps_reduce_out_of_wedlock_births/

It amazes me that anybody could say this sort of #### with a straight face.

Even if we somehow buy the argument that married people cranking out more babies is in the best interest of the state, they haven't explained how gay people getting married is going to discourage straight people from getting married and having babies. Lord knows, all states have to work really hard to convince straight men and women to screw, have children, and get married. Or how gay people getting married is going to encourage more out of wedlock pregnancies.

Lawyers generally don't just get to throw their hands up in the air and say, "#### it, I've got nothing." Texas's brief says what I'd expect it to say. It's not terribly persuasive, but it's relying on the idea that rational basis review is meant to be very deferential. If we take that completely literally, they don't need to prove that including homosexual unions in marriage would hurt the interest, only that including them in marriage wouldn't advance the interest to the same extent as the interest is advanced by promoting heterosexual marriage.

It's not a great argument, but its the best he's got, so he's going to make it. He doesn't have the luxury of declining to defend the law the way the DOJ declined to defend DOMA. He doesn't work for Obama.

 

[dutch]

Apparently Eminence is about to be the governor of Texas

In a brief filed with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, Texas attorney general and GOP gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott argued that lifting the states ban on same-sex marriage would not encourage opposite-sex couples to procreate within wedlock, and therefore the ban should stay in place. Abbott reiterated the responsible procreation argument he has already made in defense of a same-sex marriage ban, saying that the motivation for denying marriage rights is economic, according to the Houston Chronicle.

The State is not required to show that recognizing same-sex marriage will undermine heterosexual marriage, the brief reads. It is enough if one could rationally speculate that opposite-sex marriages will advance some state interest to a greater extent than same-sex marriages will.

Abbott went on to argue that the benefit of heterosexual marriage comes from its ability to encourage other couples to procreate within a legal union an end that the state contends cannot be achieved in same-sex unions, because they do not necessarily result in pregnancy:

First, Texass marriage laws are rationally related to the States interest in encouraging couples to produce new offspring, which are needed to ensure economic growth and the survival of the human race [...]

Second, Texass marriage laws are rationally related to the States interest in reducing unplanned out-of-wedlock births. By channeling procreative heterosexual intercourse into marriage, Texass marriage laws reduce unplanned out-of-wedlock births and the costs that those births impose on society. Recognizing same-sex marriage does not advance this interest because same-sex unions do not result in pregnancy.

Despite the fact that many opposite-sex marriages also do not result in pregnancy, the brief contends that because they are more likely to produce offspring than same-sex marriages, they are entitled to state subsidies. Abbott did, however, concede the same-sex marriage can have positive social benefits anyway. The brief notes that legalizing marriage equality could increase household wealth and provide a stable environment for the children of same-sex couples but that does not establish that Texass marriage laws lack a rational relation to the States interests in reducing unplanned out-of-wedlock births and encouraging the creation of new offspring.

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/13/greg_abbott_texas_gop_same_sex_marriage_ban_helps_reduce_out_of_wedlock_births/

It amazes me that anybody could say this sort of #### with a straight face.

Even if we somehow buy the argument that married people cranking out more babies is in the best interest of the state, they haven't explained how gay people getting married is going to discourage straight people from getting married and having babies. Lord knows, all states have to work really hard to convince straight men and women to screw, have children, and get married. Or how gay people getting married is going to encourage more out of wedlock pregnancies.

Lawyers generally don't just get to throw their hands up in the air and say, "#### it, I've got nothing."

Although that would make for great copy.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Huck is not saying away near what you are implying he is saying. He wanted to change a few things in the Constitution because he did not like the way the courts were changing it. Implementing a few polices which are viewed as immoral is a far ways from theocracy.

My favorite part is the phrasing. "a few things in the Constitution." You know, just an amendment here and there. No big deal, guys. And just a few policies which "are viewed as immoral," as if everyone views them that way, not just this dooshbag who said he literally wants to change the law to more closely follow God's Law, which is totally a "far ways from theocracy." Nothing to see here, folks.

I am not saying I agree with Huckabee's methods or agenda, because I don't. But saying based on the information provided that Huckabee is just like the Taliban, he wants to impliment Old Testament Law/Theology is just plain tin-foil hat stupid. It is all left-wing fodder feeding the fears of the ignorant. Besides, Huckabee isn't going to get 100 miles within the White House, let alone have any power to try to get any part of the Constitution changed. This whole discussion is fear-mongering ignorance.

I don't think anyone said he was just like the Taliban, or that he wanted to adopt the entire text of Leviticus as federal law, or that he was gonna be the GOP nominee in 2016. I think what he said speaks for itself, and that you went out of your way to downplay both what he said and his influence speaks for itself too.

 

[fatness]

Kansas bites the dust.

A federal judge on Tuesday moved to invalidate the same-sex marriage ban in Kansas, saying clear legal precedent from a federal appeals court commanded that result despite support for the ban among many citizens of the state.

Kansas is the last of the six states in the Tenth Circuit to continue to defend its same-sex marriage ban. Five other states in the circuit – Utah, Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming – all recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and are allowing such marriages in their own states.

 

[the moops]

it was a good run righties.

 

[Koya]

it was a good run righties.

Oops, progress.

 

[matuski]

Huck is not saying away near what you are implying he is saying. He wanted to change a few things in the Constitution because he did not like the way the courts were changing it. Implementing a few polices which are viewed as immoral is a far ways from theocracy.

"I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do--to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards"

 

[jon_mx]

I don't think anyone said he was just like the Taliban, or that he wanted to adopt the entire text of Leviticus as federal law, or that he was gonna be the GOP nominee in 2016. I think what he said speaks for itself, and that you went out of your way to downplay both what he said and his influence speaks for itself too.

That is exactly what was said.

NCCommish: Huck is a Dominionist. They are the American version of the Taliban.

 

[fatness]

Huck is not saying away near what you are implying he is saying. He wanted to change a few things in the Constitution because he did not like the way the courts were changing it. Implementing a few polices which are viewed as immoral is a far ways from theocracy.

"I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do--to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards"

:"Change a few things"