Huckabee: Gay Marriage would be the end of civilisation

Dback Jon · December 8th, 2007, 07:42 AM

Current interview, BIM...

Q: Is the strategy shifting because social conservatives are losing on those core issues? Ten years ago, it would have been unimaginable to have gay marriage even in liberal Massachusetts. Now it’s there.

A: I don’t think the issue’s about being against gay marriage. It’s about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that’s important. You have to have a basic family structure. There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived. So there is a sense in which, you know, it’s one thing to say if people want to live a different way, that’s their business. But when you want to redefine what family means or what marriage means, then that’s an issue that should require some serious and significant debate in the public square. And if you look at states that have had it on the ballot—I know in our state it was a 70-percent-against issue. Most states are similar to that.

PortlandCardFan · December 8th, 2007, 07:53 AM

I believe gays should have the right for 'civil union' and if they can find a church that will tie the knot for the couple so be it. But for those churches that do not wish to do so should be left alone.

Also Dback, your bolded statement. Is that true? I don't know of any. I know gay relationships were accept in many societies but not gay marriage.

nidan · December 8th, 2007, 09:13 AM

I agree, no church should be forced to perform a GM.

But marriage itself is a civil institution.

Brian in Mesa · December 8th, 2007, 09:25 AM

We get it, Jon. You and yours won't be voting for the guy.

I have only heard him speak once or twice (on TV). Hadn't heard him speak on homosexual issues or abortion, but I didn't like his take on illegal immigrants. He wanted to provide college aid for illegals from what I remember.

KloD · December 8th, 2007, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PortlandCardFan

Also Dback, your bolded statement. Is that true? I don't know of any. I know gay relationships were accept in many societies but not gay marriage.

I think it's because no civilization has ever tried. So while he can say none have survived, it's misleading for obvious reasons.

It be like stating that no conservative society has ever accepted change rather than resisted it and survived. None have bothered to try...

Or.. one could say, gay marriage has never damaged a civilization. Or... no civilization has ever not survived that accepted gay marriage.

Dback Jon · December 8th, 2007, 12:40 PM

Or one could note that since Canada adopted Gay Marriage, their currency has gained tremendously against the dollar, proving that God favors Gay Marriage.

HeavyB3 · December 8th, 2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dback Jon

Or one could note that since Canada adopted Gay Marriage, their currency has gained tremendously against the dollar, proving that God favors Gay Marriage.

Or that Gay married couples spend lots of money.

conraddobler · December 9th, 2007, 09:34 PM

I seriously cannot believe this issue gets the coverage and the energy it does.

Now if you're gay and want to get married, I understand, however how in the name of all that's holy can this take up this much of our time?

I'm for gay people being able to do whatever they want to do, I could care less and would vote for you at every opportunity, I just cannot fathom how in this day and age we can spend this much time on an issue such as this.

Over half the straight people in the world get divorced, why on earth isn't that the focus of Religious people?

Well that's because that wouldn't be popular and would get them thrown out on their ass to ban divorce, that's why.

This is retarded.

Djaughe · December 10th, 2007, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeavyB3

Or that Gay married couples spend lots of money.

Okay yer post comment made me laugh.

Mulli · December 10th, 2007, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dback Jon

Current interview, BIM...

Q: Is the strategy shifting because social conservatives are losing on those core issues? Ten years ago, it would have been unimaginable to have gay marriage even in liberal Massachusetts. Now it’s there.

A: I don’t think the issue’s about being against gay marriage. It’s about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that’s important. You have to have a basic family structure. There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived. So there is a sense in which, you know, it’s one thing to say if people want to live a different way, that’s their business. But when you want to redefine what family means or what marriage means, then that’s an issue that should require some serious and significant debate in the public square. And if you look at states that have had it on the ballot—I know in our state it was a 70-percent-against issue. Most states are similar to that.

Hey, what about India? Girls used to be "married" when younger than ten. When their husbands died, they were outcast and sent to homes for "widows."

edit: At least I hope they don't do that anymore.

Louis · December 10th, 2007, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conraddobler

I seriously cannot believe this issue gets the coverage and the energy it does.

Now if you're gay and want to get married, I understand, however how in the name of all that's holy can this take up this much of our time?

This very issue is what many a politican fall back on (and abortion too) because these issues generally attract the votes.

Wasn't it Ohio that during the last election people came out in droves to vote for Bush because of his stance?

It's only an issue because life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness somehow interfere with the government/church thing.

And energy will continue to be spent on these issues until people are treated equally.

Heck, we live in a country where Native American's weren't even given the right to vote until 1924 when they were finally recognized as citizens of this country. Even then it was still a state issue and some weren't allowed to vote until 1948.

nidan · December 10th, 2007, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conraddobler

This is retarded.

If I said that I would be accused of bashing religion

Linderbee · December 10th, 2007, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nidan

If I said that I would be accused of bashing religion

Religion basher.

(didn't want you to feel unloved)

Louis · December 10th, 2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nidan

If I said that I would be accused of bashing religion

Not to hijack the thread...

But sometimes religion is stupid.

My wife's grandmother was ill and hospitalized for about 2 months before she died. Because her condition she missed about 3 months of church services.

They refused to bury her. They refused to conduct the services. All because she was no longer attending services any longer.

The family had to go to another denomination's church for that.
====================

Sorry. Back to the thread.

Heucrazy · December 10th, 2007, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nidan

If I said that I would be accused of bashing religion

No if you bashed all religion and all religious people with an exteremely wide brush stroke then you would be accused of bashing.

Just saying the issue is retarded is not only not religion bashing, it's spot on.