Huckabee likens gay marriage to incest, drugs

[Samson]

I agree with Huckabee's opinion. I also support his stance when he says, "I do not believe we should change the traditional definition of marriage."

My guess of how things will evolve is that eventually marriage will be looked upon in a purely religious sense and the government through its laws will deal with "civil unions", of which marriage will be but one classification.

The definition of marriage has changed drastically over the centuries.

Not really, it's always been one man, and one woman.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I agree with Huckabee's opinion. I also support his stance when he says, "I do not believe we should change the traditional definition of marriage."

My guess of how things will evolve is that eventually marriage will be looked upon in a purely religious sense and the government through its laws will deal with "civil unions", of which marriage will be but one classification.

The definition of marriage has changed drastically over the centuries.

Not really, it's always been one man, and one woman.

That's ignorant rubbish. Polygamy is at least as common and 'traditional' historically as monogamy.

 

[AllieBaba]

I agree with Huckabee's opinion. I also support his stance when he says, "I do not believe we should change the traditional definition of marriage."

My guess of how things will evolve is that eventually marriage will be looked upon in a purely religious sense and the government through its laws will deal with "civil unions", of which marriage will be but one classification.

The definition of marriage has changed drastically over the centuries.

Bullshit.
The definition of marriage has been challenged in the last few years ONLY.

 

[Samson]

I agree with Huckabee's opinion. I also support his stance when he says, "I do not believe we should change the traditional definition of marriage."

My guess of how things will evolve is that eventually marriage will be looked upon in a purely religious sense and the government through its laws will deal with "civil unions", of which marriage will be but one classification.

The definition of marriage has changed drastically over the centuries.

Bullshit.
The definition of marriage has been challenged in the last few years ONLY.

Even then, it hasn't changed.

Like Huckabee said in the interview, which, as usual, no one bothered to read from the OP, He really could care less about which perverted behaviour you feel you need to participate, but if advocates want to call it "marriage" then THEY need to prove it = the same commitment that exists between heterosexuals.

 

[del]

The definition of marriage has changed drastically over the centuries.

Bullshit.
The definition of marriage has been challenged in the last few years ONLY.

Even then, it hasn't changed.

Like Huckabee said in the interview, which, as usual, no one bothered to read from the OP, He really could care less about which perverted behaviour you feel you need to participate, but if advocates want to call it "marriage" then THEY need to prove it = the same commitment that exists between heterosexuals.

i'm sure if you give same sex marriage a chance, it will eventually boast the same level of commitment that is illustrated so well by the 50% divorce rate among heterosexual couples.

 

[The Rabbi]

In case you were confused, I didn't write the news article, not the headline, tootles...

No but you chose only to quote the title and lead, leaving out anything substantive. That is distortion by omission, mein fuhrer.

You do realize, don't you, that on USMB you are not allowed to quote the whole article?

He didnt have to quote the whole article, oh master of hackery. All he had to do was present what Huckabee actually said fairly. But he failed. And so do you.

 

[del]

No but you chose only to quote the title and lead, leaving out anything substantive. That is distortion by omission, mein fuhrer.

You do realize, don't you, that on USMB you are not allowed to quote the whole article?

He didnt have to quote the whole article, oh master of hackery. All he had to do was present what Huckabee actually said fairly. But he failed. And so do you.

tissue?

 

[The Rabbi]

You do realize, don't you, that on USMB you are not allowed to quote the whole article?

He didnt have to quote the whole article, oh master of hackery. All he had to do was present what Huckabee actually said fairly. But he failed. And so do you.

tissue?

Tissue of lies? Yes, yes. That is what the OP was.
Surprised the sedation has worn off so much.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition

Also Known as: Appeal to the Old, Old Ways are Best, Fallacious Appeal to the Past, Appeal to Age

Description of Appeal to Tradition

Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer.



But, by all means, blather away...

 

[NYcarbineer]

No but you chose only to quote the title and lead, leaving out anything substantive. That is distortion by omission, mein fuhrer.

You do realize, don't you, that on USMB you are not allowed to quote the whole article?

He didnt have to quote the whole article, oh master of hackery. All he had to do was present what Huckabee actually said fairly. But he failed. And so do you.

It was presented to all who possess the fundamental skill of clicking on a link.

 

[The Rabbi]

Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition

Also Known as: Appeal to the Old, Old Ways are Best, Fallacious Appeal to the Past, Appeal to Age

Description of Appeal to Tradition

Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer.



But, by all means, blather away...

One could easily formulate a fallacy of appeal to modernity. Just because something is old therefore it is necessarily outmoded. And that is a bigger fallacy because traditional things have withstood the test of time, modern things have not.
But I expect that's above your comprehension level.

 

[Samson]

Bullshit.
The definition of marriage has been challenged in the last few years ONLY.

Even then, it hasn't changed.

Like Huckabee said in the interview, which, as usual, no one bothered to read from the OP, He really could care less about which perverted behaviour you feel you need to participate, but if advocates want to call it "marriage" then THEY need to prove it = the same commitment that exists between heterosexuals.

i'm sure if you give same sex marriage a chance, it will eventually boast the same level of commitment that is illustrated so well by the 50% divorce rate among heterosexual couples.

I have to admit, that otherwise, I'd be pretty damn disappointed.

Maybe Homophobia should be defined as: "Fear of Gay Marriages being more successful than Straight Marriages."

 

[Dr.House]

I agree with Huckabee's opinion. I also support his stance when he says, "I do not believe we should change the traditional definition of marriage."

My guess of how things will evolve is that eventually marriage will be looked upon in a purely religious sense and the government through its laws will deal with "civil unions", of which marriage will be but one classification.

The definition of marriage has changed drastically over the centuries.

Not really, it's always been one man, and one woman.

Except in the case of NYcarbineer, where it's between one man, his pet goat, three sheep, the next-door neighbor's iguana, and a ziploc bag of fetta cheese...

Yes, he's one sick ******...

 

[del]

He didnt have to quote the whole article, oh master of hackery. All he had to do was present what Huckabee actually said fairly. But he failed. And so do you.

tissue?

Tissue of lies? Yes, yes. That is what the OP was.
Surprised the sedation has worn off so much.

you sound distraught.

you should probably take some more of your sedatives.

 

[del]

The definition of marriage has changed drastically over the centuries.

Not really, it's always been one man, and one woman.

Except in the case of NYcarbineer, where it's between one man, his pet goat, three sheep, the next-door neighbor's iguana, and a ziploc bag of fetta cheese...

Yes, he's one sick ******...

totally

emanthaler is where it's at

 

[Dr.House]

Not really, it's always been one man, and one woman.

Except in the case of NYcarbineer, where it's between one man, his pet goat, three sheep, the next-door neighbor's iguana, and a ziploc bag of fetta cheese...

Yes, he's one sick ******...

totally

emanthaler is where it's at

You just like the small holes...lol

 

[The Rabbi]

Even then, it hasn't changed.

Like Huckabee said in the interview, which, as usual, no one bothered to read from the OP, He really could care less about which perverted behaviour you feel you need to participate, but if advocates want to call it "marriage" then THEY need to prove it = the same commitment that exists between heterosexuals.

i'm sure if you give same sex marriage a chance, it will eventually boast the same level of commitment that is illustrated so well by the 50% divorce rate among heterosexual couples.

I have to admit, that otherwise, I'd be pretty damn disappointed.

Maybe Homophobia should be defined as: "Fear of Gay Marriages being more successful than Straight Marriages."

So the solution to the high divorce rate is to legalize another form of marriage that will also have a high divorce rate?
I don't get it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The definition of marriage has changed drastically over the centuries.

Bullshit.
The definition of marriage has been challenged in the last few years ONLY.

Even then, it hasn't changed.

Like Huckabee said in the interview, which, as usual, no one bothered to read from the OP, He really could care less about which perverted behaviour you feel you need to participate, but if advocates want to call it "marriage" then THEY need to prove it = the same commitment that exists between heterosexuals.

Why would homosexuals have to prove something that heterosexuals don't have to prove in order to get married? And what are they supposed to prove, anyway? That they can stay within the 50% divorce rate of heterosexuals?

 

[del]

i'm sure if you give same sex marriage a chance, it will eventually boast the same level of commitment that is illustrated so well by the 50% divorce rate among heterosexual couples.

I have to admit, that otherwise, I'd be pretty damn disappointed.

Maybe Homophobia should be defined as: "Fear of Gay Marriages being more successful than Straight Marriages."

So the solution to the high divorce rate is to legalize another form of marriage that will also have a high divorce rate?
I don't get it.

no kidding

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition

Also Known as: Appeal to the Old, Old Ways are Best, Fallacious Appeal to the Past, Appeal to Age

Description of Appeal to Tradition

Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer.



But, by all means, blather away...

One could easily formulate a fallacy of appeal to modernity. Just because something is old therefore it is necessarily outmoded. And that is a bigger fallacy because traditional things have withstood the test of time, modern things have not.
But I expect that's above your comprehension level.

No, that's not. I haven't heard anyone make the argument that same sex marriage should be legalized just because it's different, or new. I have however, heard the 'traditional' fallacy put forth countless times.

I guess the fact that slavery had withstood the 'test of time' for several thousand years was the best argument for it?