Mike Huckabee and Jon Stewart talk Gay Marriage 12.9.08 Daily Show

Your gonna make me research aren't you. YOU KNOW I HATE THAT!!!

 

In the Supreme Court, you will find a display of the Ten Commandments. This decoration was placed there to signify that all of our laws are supposed to originate from these principles.

 

I thought it was to signify that this is a place of laws, not necessarily that our laws came from the 10 commandments.

If that is the case it doesn't make any sense. Because even before the commandments or separate from the commandments many societies have laws against murder, stealing, and the other legal commandments.

I will definitely take the time to appreciate the civil tone you've used in debating and discussing. It's been fun, and seems like free flow of ideas even if we don't agree.

 

It would be more fun if you would just admit defeat and kiss my crucifix emblazened ring.

Just kidding. Thanks. You too.

You make another good point about the court being a place of laws. I will have to do reading on the subject for clarification. Like so many others on this board, I was basically repeating an arguement I heard someone else use on this subject.

Again, the main point I was trying to make with my original post is that I feel Huckabee was trying to hide behind semantics. I don't appreciate it when either side does it. If you have a position, just be honest about why you believe what you believe.

 

Misguided or not, the point is we don't want the majority to dictate the application of civil rights.

If atheists become the majority (God willing ) would you accept a decree that banned all expressions of Christianity? Of course not. You'd be rightly pissed off. I would guess that you might even think those snooty atheists were bigots.

 

You aren't going to win many over with a suggestion that they are douchebags...

I'm for gay "marriage" in so far as it extends into financial and legal matters: divorce rights (let's not forget that), inheritance, adoption, visitation and other generally recognized spousal rights.

I'm uncomfortable with "marriage" though because that seems to involve churches and they should have a right to perform those ceremonies upon those who conform to their traditions.

Shouldn't a civil union be sufficient as long as the laws bring the same clout to gay unions as they do to hetero unions?

 

Gives a whole new meaning to "Love thy neighbor"

DD

 

I was not referring to the Bible. I was referring to how it is defined in our country. I don't believe the Bible should be used for any basis of law as you have those on one side who would want religion to rule our country and those on the other side who think of themselves as authoritative figures on the bible but never take a moment to pick it up to read it or understand it.

Since when does genetics determine a civil right? A slave doesn't get his freedom because he's black. He gets it because he is human. If you're going to water down the word marriage, then everyone needs to be included, whether its incest or polygamy. Or is incest or polygamy not simply "socially acceptable" enough to warrant civil rights, just as homosexuality was 20 years ago.

 

Our country is ruled by majority, not a select few in a judicial system. That is called a dictatorship. WE DO want the majority to rule, regardless if its banning homo marriage or banning expressions of Christianity. The Constitution is ruled by the people, not the other way around.

 

not many of the ten commandments are laws.

 

That is kind of ignorant of our past. When it came to the civil rights movement of the 60's the majority did not rule, thank goodness, and blacks got the right to vote. If we go by your strict adherence to majority rules that would not have happened.

Please think about what your saying. And what it would mean to have strict majority rules.

 

I have to agree. This was definitely a road game for Senator Huckabee, but I think he did a good job. I'm just glad he wasn't booed by the audience.

 

I just find it hilarious when people like Huckabee say that gay people have the same rights as straight people, cause they can marry someone of the opposite sex. I don't think he said it here but I'm pretty sure I've heard him say it before. I know I've heard a bunch of conservatives say something similar to that. I'm sure they would love it if a gay guy "went straight" and married their daughter.

 

yeah exactly.

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'- Unconstitutional

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'- not a law

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'- not a law

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'- not a law

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'- Not a law, and you should only show your parents respect if they deserve it. If my dad beat the **** out of me and my mom or was a deadbeat dad, I wouldn't respect him.

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'- no ****

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'- not illegal

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'- no ****

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'- not necessarily against the law.

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'- capitalism?

 

The Ten Commandments were given to Moses as God's moral laws, not civil laws.

The Ten Commandments state Moral law so their place in the Supreme Court would speak to the basis of Morals in laws and in deciding cases.

The first four commandments deal with what is right towards God.
The fifth commandment deals with what is right towards parents.
The sixth- tenth commandments deal with what is right in human conduct.

Moral simply means an action is either right or wrong.

So in our culture you would interpret them this way-

1. You should only worship the real God.
2. A false god is not only a deception but an insult.
3. Respect God in proportion to His character, position and power.
4. Take a day to commune with Him.
5. Honor those who God is holding accountable for how you were raised.
6. Don't murder.
7. Don't be immoral.
8. Don't steal or cheat.
9. Don't lie about anyone or anything.
10. Be content with what you have.

There, from God's prospective those are reasonable and logical.

 

I found this interesting. I don't want to discuss the gay rights issue because I believe it's at a dead end - it simply comes down to whether or not you believe gays are born the way they are regardless of their environment.

But a friend of mine was discussing polygamy with me the other day and we kind of came to the conclusion that polygamy may be a genetic predisposition because having sex with one female for your entire life can unnatural for some, if not all, humans.

Consider that we date so many women throughout our lives, and the divorce and re-marriage rates are so high EVERYWHERE, even where polygamy is accepted. I think a case could be made for polygamy in all seriousness.

What I'm asking is, Is it possible that we're born to naturally want multiple women (sexually or otherwise) as partners even at the same time? Also, since I'm Turkish, it begs the following questions.. Does it mean anything that men cheat on their wives more than women do on their husbands? That the demand for female prostitution dwarfs the demand for male prostitution?

What can you be born with? A love for drugs? I'm trying to understand how all these things are different. I know I'm all over the place but what I'm trying to do is try to draw parallels to understand the issues better.

 

Hi giddy:

The argument is not that church's should be "forced" to do anything they don't want to do. The argument is that the state should not be involving itself in the business of churches.

Civil unions are great, and should be given without prejudice.
Church's can marry whoever they deem fit.

Separation of church and state. Radical.

 

I would agree that the Civil rights present in the constitution are there to protect the minority, but they were placed there democratically. If enough atheists were able to go through the process of amending the constitution and reject the first amendment, of course I would be upset. It would mean absolute failure of the church. Do you realize how many people would have to change their mind to agree with your position? This isn't just passing legislation we're talking about.

BTW, if you believe all speech should be free except Christianity, you are a bigot.

 

Never said they were. The original point is that our "secular" nation seems to mention the Judeo/Christian God alot in its monuments and founding documents.