Huckabee:Evangelicals Will Walk if GOP Backs Gay Marriage

[ArmyCowboy]

Oh there's good advice. Seeing as Christians make up the bulk of the republican party, and the TINY, maybe 3% of the worlds population that suffer from the mental illness called homosexuality.... yeah.... great advice.... IDIOT!

The only ones buying that CRAP are you libtards spreading it. The republican party has only one, period, ONE way to remain a viable force against liberals, and that's to stick to it's roots. If it doesn't, it will shatter into pieces and they won't win another election for decades, if ever again. Hard lesson to learn. They had ONE good showing in 2012, and that's because of the Tea Party, a very RELIGIOUS and CONSERVATIVE group. They LOSE elections when they start moving towards the left.

Huckabee is spot on.

The roots of the gop wasn't the RR, the RR took it over.

When the TP came out, it had nothing to do with the RR, but the RR infected it.

just like I knew they would, and is why I never joined.

The roots of the republican party were based on Christian values, morals, ethics and standards. Lincoln, a republican, freed the slaves because it was the Christian thing to do... "all men are created equal." If a republican starts supporting an immoral leftist position of bastardizing holy matrimony by allowing perverted homos to marry, he can kiss his conservative, Christian base goodbye.

You may not have ever joined, but then you sound young. I remember much longer ago, and people like you would have been democrats.

So this whole idea that republicans are for freedom and personal liberty is nothing but a crock of shit.

Thanks for confirming that.

 

[007]

yes which points out just how doomed your party is.

they can not win without these voters or with them

Once again, you highlight your STUPIDITY for the entire board to see. Republicans kicked your liberal asses up one side and down the other in 2012, and that is BECAUSE the CONSERVATIVE base was energized BECAUSE of the TEA PARTY! So, IDIOT, YES, republicans CAN win elections, BIG, but they won't do it if they move to the left. They know this. The evidence is there. Stick to Christian, conservative plaforms = win elections. Move to the left = LOSE elections... just ask Romney. He backed off going after obama aggressively, conservatives lost interest and stayed home, he lost the election. Republicans better get that through their heads. They keep up this leftist agenda move and they're fucked, period, and that includes homos wanting to bastardize marriage.

Well, no. You are only half correct.

Moving left = lose elections. That is definitely correct BUT moving socially religious ALSO = lose elections. Right does not equal grater governmental control to make us all good little Christians. That is actually completely counter to what the right believes in: smaller government and greater freedom. THAT is what wins elections. It is what the tea party was meant to stand for. Not gay marriage or abortion bullshit and that is what needs to be dropped. Go live morally as your God commanded BUT do not try and get government involved in that process, that is not governments place.

Remember: if government can enforce Christian ideology, it can enforce Islamic ideology to. Just get the government out of that business and the voters will return. The right is making a GOOD decision by dropping the gay issue – it will regain those that have left but are fiscal and regulatory conservatives.

What I said was correct. What you said was correct. They were different statements, both accurate.

I agree government shouldn't be in the marriage business. I stated such earlier. Leave it up to the states or church.

 

[rightwinger]

Oh there's good advice. Seeing as Christians make up the bulk of the republican party, and the TINY, maybe 3% of the worlds population that suffer from the mental illness called homosexuality.... yeah.... great advice.... IDIOT!

The only ones buying that CRAP are you libtards spreading it. The republican party has only one, period, ONE way to remain a viable force against liberals, and that's to stick to it's roots. If it doesn't, it will shatter into pieces and they won't win another election for decades, if ever again. Hard lesson to learn. They had ONE good showing in 2012, and that's because of the Tea Party, a very RELIGIOUS and CONSERVATIVE group. They LOSE elections when they start moving towards the left.

Huckabee is spot on.

The roots of the gop wasn't the RR, the RR took it over.

When the TP came out, it had nothing to do with the RR, but the RR infected it.

just like I knew they would, and is why I never joined.

The roots of the republican party were based on Christian values, morals, ethics and standards. Lincoln, a republican, freed the slaves because it was the Christian thing to do... "all men are created equal." If a republican starts supporting an immoral leftist position of bastardizing holy matrimony by allowing perverted homos to marry, he can kiss his conservative, Christian base goodbye.

You may not have ever joined, but then you sound young. I remember much longer ago, and people like you would have been democrats.

Not surprisingly, your anti-gay rhetoric sounds familiar to the savage, subhuman, beast rhetoric used to denigrate slaves

 

[PratchettFan]

More revisionist history. First of all, there was never a fight over "privacy" in the 70s, it was a fight to legalize abortion. Nothing more. And it was the Democrats who were pushing segregation and Jim Crow laws. You honestly don't have a clue what you are talking about.

And gay marriage has NOTHING to do with civil rights. Homosexuality is a choice and sexual perversion. It is not something a person is born with like the color of their skin.

People aren't born a specific religion or with guns in their hands. Does that mean there shouldn't be gun rights and religious freedom?

No, they aren't. But they are born with the right to defend themselves and choose whatever religion they want. There is no such natural right to gay marriage.

There is no natural right to any form of marriage. As to being born with the right to defend yourself or choose your religion, tell that to someone born in a theocracy.

 

[Pogo]

the republican party will have to dump the evangelical low information voter they have depended on to win elections when their cheating in elections wasnt enough to win

The Republican party should lose the religious idiots and court the gay community. It actually makes total sense when you think about it as a lot of gays are conservatives at heart.

Oh there's good advice. Seeing as Christians make up the bulk of the republican party, and the TINY, maybe 3% of the worlds population that suffer from the mental illness called homosexuality.... yeah.... great advice.... IDIOT!

The only ones buying that CRAP are you libtards spreading it. The republican party has only one, period, ONE way to remain a viable force against liberals, and that's to stick to it's roots. If it doesn't, it will shatter into pieces and they won't win another election for decades, if ever again. Hard lesson to learn. They had ONE good showing in 2012, and that's because of the Tea Party, a very RELIGIOUS and CONSERVATIVE group. They LOSE elections when they start moving towards the left.

Huckabee is spot on.

Oh that ship sailed a long time ago, dude. "Religious" has nothing to do with "conservative", in fact it's got nothing to do with politics.

An appropriate post from the beginning of this thread:

"Goddamn it, John ... the Republicans are selling their soul to win elections ... Mark my word ... if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem." -- Barry Goldwater as told to John Dean

I know the quote; it's from Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience which should be required reading for conservatives as a guide to the identity and MO of the hijackers.
Huckabee's a nice guy personally, but he's dead wrong about the idea of holding politics hostage to religion.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Huckabee: Evangelicals Will Walk if GOP Backs Gay Marriage


Mike Huckabee warns that Republicans risk losing the vote from evangelical Christians if they back away from their opposition to gay marriage.

Last week, Ohio Sen. Bob Portman announced he has reversed his position and now supports gay marriage.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV, former Arkansas Gov. Huckabee — and ordained Southern Baptist minister — was asked if he sees the GOP ever pivoting and backing gay marriage.

“They might. And if they do, they’re going to lose a large part of their base because evangelicals will take a walk,” he responds.



Good
Riddance.

You won't be missed and maybe, just maybe the GOP can get back to the Constitution without them.

And, Huckabee may be right.

But, the real question is, what about all of us conservatives who are not evangelicals, the majority of conservatives, who do not base their opposition to gay marriage based on religious grounds... Are we supposed to cave in just to appease certain groups for votes, at the expense of further eroding morals in this country?

Fuck that!

Haha so allowing gays to get married is further eroding our morals in this country? If I am understanding you correctly, then it is YOU my friend that is decaying our morals in this country. I mean last time I checked, I didn't "CHOOSE" to like girls, just the same I don't think gays "CHHOSE" to be gay. I mean fuck, who in their right mind would WANT to be gay in this country in today's world?

 

[candycorn]

And, Huckabee may be right.

But, the real question is, what about all of us conservatives who are not evangelicals, the majority of conservatives, who do not base their opposition to gay marriage based on religious grounds... Are we supposed to cave in just to appease certain groups for votes, at the expense of further eroding morals in this country?

Fuck that!

So you're not religious, you just plain don't like gay people eh?

Noooo, it's not about not liking gay people.....I don't give a shit what they do behind closed doors....As long as it's not an illegal perversion that harms other people, they can be as perverse as they wish.

But, that does not mean that their perversions should be recognized under marriage.

And, it's not that i'm not religious, i'm Lutheran, but don't feel the need to go to church every week to reaffirm my beliefs....My opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with basic morals, and the continuing erosion of such in this country, nothing more.

Question:

I think the man who has made the most sense on this board in regards to this topic was Liability. Basically he said that the government should get out of the marriage business all together and simply issue "civil union" licenses for want of a better term. In other words, to qualify under law for what is now called marriage, the government changes these to civil unions. So survivor benefits, the "right" to pull the plug on a vegetated loved one, etc... is determined by your civil union standing with the government.

Liability continued that a marriage should be something that you enter into in the eyes of your faith be it Hebrew, Islam, Methodist or Luthern. In the eyes of the religion you practice, you can (or can be rejected I suppose) become "married".

My question to you is this: Do you think the government should be in a position to bless your relationship when the withholding of the blessing prevents your significant other from receiving the authorized benefits that are willfully and unquestionably delivered to the survivor of a traditional marriage?

 

[poet]

soooo, opposing perversion being recognized under marriage is intolerant and prejudiced?

Interesting.

Now, since you're one of the biggest offenders of throwing around hateful and intolerant (particularly according to gays themselves) gay slurs against those whose opinions differ from yours, how about you explain how that does not make you a hateful and intolerant person towards gays.

per·ver·sion
/pərˈvərzhən/
noun

sexual behavior or desire that is considered abnormal or unacceptable.

so again according to the definition, you're the one who has the problem. Even just calling homosexuality perversion is bigoted.

And your last paragraph doesn't make any sense, so again i'll just give you a And hope your next post is actually coherent. Also, i don't get how i could be intolerant of gays because i think you should give into your repressed feelings and suck a cock.

lmao!

Once again, we have a libprog using a gay sex act to slam one whom they oppose.....too fuckin' funny how their own hatred of gays causes them to do so....of course though, they'll vehemently deny their hatred....happens all the time up here.

And, i wouldn't say that gay sex is unnacceptable, but it it is abnormal, and definitely perverse.....and, that is definitely why so many liberals here in cali support proposition 8...obviously, they realize that a sexual perversion should not be recognized under marriage...which is encouraging in itself, seeing as though there are some liberals that are obviously not influenced by the loony progressive bullshit.

lol.

 

[poet]

LMAO!

Once again, we have a libprog using a gay sex act to slam one whom they oppose.....Too fuckin' funny how their own hatred of gays causes them to do so....Of course though, they'll vehemently deny their hatred....Happens all the time up here.

And, I wouldn't say that gay sex is unnacceptable, but it it IS abnormal, and definitely perverse.....And, that is definitely why so many liberals here in Cali support proposition 8...Obviously, they realize that a sexual perversion should not be recognized under marriage...Which is encouraging in itself, seeing as though there are some liberals that are obviously NOT influenced by the loony progressive bullshit.

Again, you're the one with a problem. If you want to suck a dick, (which you seem to want to) suck a dick, what do I care?

Why can this guy not see he's projecting onto others his own problems? That last paragraph is just

Poet and Yourself seem to have a real facination with sucking dicks.....Why is that?

Looks like you two should hook up, and get a room.

And, it's quite obvious that the FACT that many libs here in Cali support prop 8, really bothers you......Good!.....Any time a libprog loon has to deal with the reality that clear thinking people don't buy into all their bullshit, it's a good thing, and positive sign for this great country.

Thanks, but your attempts at playing Cupid only reveals your bigotry and juvenile thought process. I'm happily married. 10 years. Monogamous. And there is no one here I'd remotely consider "making eyes at", even. Obviously, you're "projecting". LOL.

 

[poet]

Noooo, my religion has absolutely nothing to do with my opposition to gay marriage....It has to do with basic morals, nothing more....Basically, I wouldn't support NAMBLA getting their way, so morally, I couldn't support gay marriage either....Once again, it's an issue of morals, not religion.

I'm sorry it's too difficult a thing for you to wrap your tiny lil' head around....But then, that's your problem, not mine.

And, I already had to educate one of your fellow libprog loons on the true definition of the word bigot up here, just a couple o' days ago, but I will be happy to do the same for you, if you desire to learn that you truly are the definition of the word bigot, as are the majority of libprogs.

You think two consenting adults having a harmless relationship is the same as fucking kids?

Definition of BIGOT

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

You're the one who wants to repress freedoms from a group because of your opinions and prejudice. You are the very definition of a bigot.

Two consenting adults of the SAME gender, choosing to engage in perverted sex with each other (yes, two people of the same gender choosing to engage in sex, are perverts), does not give them reason whatsoever to have their perverted choice to engage in their perversions recognized under marriage.

And, here's the true definition of the word bigot, unedited, as defined by Websters:

bigot, a person who is utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from ones own.

Soooooo, next time you go throwing the word around, at least you will know that you are the epitomy of a bigot.....In fact, we all are....It's just way it is.

And, hopefully, you'll begin to recognize that you are most definitely a homophobe, based on the fact that you have no problem in throwing around words and phrases that are abjectly offensive to gays, and infers that someone is gay, against those whose opinions differ from yours.....And yes, you are one of the biggest offenders, and the examples are all over this board....So, trying to deny it, would be completely moot.

I say he's not a homophobe and that you can't speak for any gays.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Oh there's good advice. Seeing as Christians make up the bulk of the republican party, and the TINY, maybe 3% of the worlds population that suffer from the mental illness called homosexuality.... yeah.... great advice.... IDIOT!

The only ones buying that CRAP are you libtards spreading it. The republican party has only one, period, ONE way to remain a viable force against liberals, and that's to stick to it's roots. If it doesn't, it will shatter into pieces and they won't win another election for decades, if ever again. Hard lesson to learn. They had ONE good showing in 2012, and that's because of the Tea Party, a very RELIGIOUS and CONSERVATIVE group. They LOSE elections when they start moving towards the left.

Huckabee is spot on.

The roots of the gop wasn't the RR, the RR took it over.

When the TP came out, it had nothing to do with the RR, but the RR infected it.

just like I knew they would, and is why I never joined.

The roots of the republican party were based on Christian values, morals, ethics and standards. Lincoln, a republican, freed the slaves because it was the Christian thing to do... "all men are created equal." If a republican starts supporting an immoral leftist position of bastardizing holy matrimony by allowing perverted homos to marry, he can kiss his conservative, Christian base goodbye.

You may not have ever joined, but then you sound young. I remember much longer ago, and people like you would have been democrats.

I'm 45

I was a dem for about 6 months when I was 18. I went from a part time 36 hour job making the min, to a 40 hour job making just over 5/hr, my paycheck was $12 dollars more.

I was a rep until I read The Patriot Act.

No Constitution, freedom loving conservative to support a party that passed the vile crap.

I choose the Constitution and freedom, warts and all over giving a fuck who puts a wedding ring on who.

Your brand of bible thumping anti-Constitutional ways are the core of the gop,when you are gone, maybe we can get it back on track.

Goldwater called it back in the 60's(?), that's when you took over the gop, and not a moment before.

 

[bodecea]

Oh there's good advice. Seeing as Christians make up the bulk of the republican party, and the TINY, maybe 3% of the worlds population that suffer from the mental illness called homosexuality.... yeah.... great advice.... IDIOT!

The only ones buying that CRAP are you libtards spreading it. The republican party has only one, period, ONE way to remain a viable force against liberals, and that's to stick to it's roots. If it doesn't, it will shatter into pieces and they won't win another election for decades, if ever again. Hard lesson to learn. They had ONE good showing in 2012, and that's because of the Tea Party, a very RELIGIOUS and CONSERVATIVE group. They LOSE elections when they start moving towards the left.

Huckabee is spot on.

The roots of the gop wasn't the RR, the RR took it over.

When the TP came out, it had nothing to do with the RR, but the RR infected it.

just like I knew they would, and is why I never joined.

The roots of the republican party were based on Christian values, morals, ethics and standards. Lincoln, a republican, freed the slaves because it was the Christian thing to do... "all men are created equal." If a republican starts supporting an immoral leftist position of bastardizing holy matrimony by allowing perverted homos to marry, he can kiss his conservative, Christian base goodbye.

You may not have ever joined, but then you sound young. I remember much longer ago, and people like you would have been democrats.

Let's hope they DO kiss you crazies good bye.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"The roots of the republican party were based on Christian values, morals, ethics and standards. Lincoln, a republican, freed the slaves because it was the Christian thing to do... "all men are created equal." If a republican starts supporting an immoral leftist position of bastardizing holy matrimony by allowing perverted homos to marry, he can kiss his conservative, Christian base goodbye."

007



"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Abraham Lincoln


I am saddened that they apprarantly do not teach American history in high school any more.

 

[sfcalifornia]

^ This

They may not contribute money to the GOP like they used to, but when it comes to voting, there's no where for them to go.

If the loony-tune Christians walk, they are already tight with the loony-tune Baggers.... Now they just need the right-wing moderates to win an election............ wait a sec....... isn't that the Republican party already???

"If the loony-tune Christians walk"....."loony-tune Baggers"

Seriously, why do you libprog idiots run around desperately trying to claim that it is you who are tolerant and loving people,....but then those like yourself make hateful, bigoted, completely stupid statements like you just did, that only further proves that you libprog idiots are the most hateful, bigoted, and intolerant people on the planet?

And, why is at that libprog idiots like yourself, run around cackling that you love gays,...but then throw around hateful, bigoted gay slurs against any individual or group that doesn't agree with your idiotic libprog garbage....Are you too fucking dense to realize how hypocritical and moronic you make yourself sound?

LMAO!

WHERE do you get the idea that I was tolerant?? That's an oversight on your part wingnut. I'm positively intolerant of the lying hypocrites of the religious right who sanctimoniously judge and condemn other folks who just want to get on with their lives and get the same benefits others get.

I'm completely intolerant of the dumbfuck Baggers who would rather watch the entire US economy destroyed as they hold the economy hostage.

Shove tolerance up your keister. Thanks to intolerance we get things to change and get things done around here.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Again, you're the one with a problem. If you want to suck a dick, (which you seem to want to) suck a dick, what do I care?

Why can this guy not see he's projecting onto others his own problems? That last paragraph is just

Poet and Yourself seem to have a real facination with sucking dicks.....Why is that?

Looks like you two should hook up, and get a room.

And, it's quite obvious that the FACT that many libs here in Cali support prop 8, really bothers you......Good!.....Any time a libprog loon has to deal with the reality that clear thinking people don't buy into all their bullshit, it's a good thing, and positive sign for this great country.

Thanks, but your attempts at playing Cupid only reveals your bigotry and juvenile thought process. I'm happily married. 10 years. Monogamous. And there is no one here I'd remotely consider "making eyes at", even. Obviously, you're "projecting". LOL.

As you were projecting also, dumbass....I've been married, happily , going on twenty years, Have twin 11 year old daughters.....I gave the high hard one to several women, for many years before being married....Ya' see, you too were projecting when you laughingly tried to infer that I wanted to suck, simply because I don't support pervert marriage....Are you now going to try and deny it?

Christ, do you seriously not understand how hypocritical you libprog loons constantly make yourselves out to be?

I mean, you libprogs run around cackling on about how you just love the gays, but then have no problem throwing terms that are abjectly offensive to gays, at those who don't agree with the libprog BS.....It's no different then somebody who claims to love blacks, running around throwing terms like ****** and such towards those whose opinions differ....Both examples only show what prejudices may lie deep inside someone.

 

[Wicked Jester]

If the loony-tune Christians walk, they are already tight with the loony-tune Baggers.... Now they just need the right-wing moderates to win an election............ wait a sec....... isn't that the Republican party already???

"If the loony-tune Christians walk"....."loony-tune Baggers"

Seriously, why do you libprog idiots run around desperately trying to claim that it is you who are tolerant and loving people,....but then those like yourself make hateful, bigoted, completely stupid statements like you just did, that only further proves that you libprog idiots are the most hateful, bigoted, and intolerant people on the planet?

And, why is at that libprog idiots like yourself, run around cackling that you love gays,...but then throw around hateful, bigoted gay slurs against any individual or group that doesn't agree with your idiotic libprog garbage....Are you too fucking dense to realize how hypocritical and moronic you make yourself sound?

LMAO!

WHERE do you get the idea that I was tolerant?? That's an oversight on your part wingnut. I'm positively intolerant of the lying hypocrites of the religious right who sanctimoniously judge and condemn other folks who just want to get on with their lives and get the same benefits others get.

I'm completely intolerant of the dumbfuck Baggers who would rather watch the entire US economy destroyed as they hold the economy hostage.

Shove tolerance up your keister. Thanks to intolerance we get things to change and get things done around here.

"Shove tolerence up your keister"

Thanks!....I'll have to file this one away!

Christ, you libprogs are fuckin' stupid!

 

[candycorn]

"The roots of the republican party were based on Christian values, morals, ethics and standards. Lincoln, a republican, freed the slaves because it was the Christian thing to do... "all men are created equal." If a republican starts supporting an immoral leftist position of bastardizing holy matrimony by allowing perverted homos to marry, he can kiss his conservative, Christian base goodbye."

007



"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Abraham Lincoln


I am saddened that they apprarantly do not teach American history in high school any more.

Hard to argue with a man's own words. That doesn't mean he won't. Enjoy your kill.

 

[candycorn]

So you're not religious, you just plain don't like gay people eh?

Noooo, it's not about not liking gay people.....I don't give a shit what they do behind closed doors....As long as it's not an illegal perversion that harms other people, they can be as perverse as they wish.

But, that does not mean that their perversions should be recognized under marriage.

And, it's not that i'm not religious, i'm Lutheran, but don't feel the need to go to church every week to reaffirm my beliefs....My opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with basic morals, and the continuing erosion of such in this country, nothing more.

Question:

I think the man who has made the most sense on this board in regards to this topic was Liability. Basically he said that the government should get out of the marriage business all together and simply issue "civil union" licenses for want of a better term. In other words, to qualify under law for what is now called marriage, the government changes these to civil unions. So survivor benefits, the "right" to pull the plug on a vegetated loved one, etc... is determined by your civil union standing with the government.

Liability continued that a marriage should be something that you enter into in the eyes of your faith be it Hebrew, Islam, Methodist or Luthern. In the eyes of the religion you practice, you can (or can be rejected I suppose) become "married".

My question to you is this: Do you think the government should be in a position to bless your relationship when the withholding of the blessing prevents your significant other from receiving the authorized benefits that are willfully and unquestionably delivered to the survivor of a traditional marriage?

Bump!

Please address the question if you would.

 

[Wicked Jester]

So you're not religious, you just plain don't like gay people eh?

Noooo, it's not about not liking gay people.....I don't give a shit what they do behind closed doors....As long as it's not an illegal perversion that harms other people, they can be as perverse as they wish.

But, that does not mean that their perversions should be recognized under marriage.

And, it's not that i'm not religious, i'm Lutheran, but don't feel the need to go to church every week to reaffirm my beliefs....My opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with basic morals, and the continuing erosion of such in this country, nothing more.

Question:

I think the man who has made the most sense on this board in regards to this topic was Liability. Basically he said that the government should get out of the marriage business all together and simply issue "civil union" licenses for want of a better term. In other words, to qualify under law for what is now called marriage, the government changes these to civil unions. So survivor benefits, the "right" to pull the plug on a vegetated loved one, etc... is determined by your civil union standing with the government.

Liability continued that a marriage should be something that you enter into in the eyes of your faith be it Hebrew, Islam, Methodist or Luthern. In the eyes of the religion you practice, you can (or can be rejected I suppose) become "married".

My question to you is this: Do you think the government should be in a position to bless your relationship when the withholding of the blessing prevents your significant other from receiving the authorized benefits that are willfully and unquestionably delivered to the survivor of a traditional marriage?

The federal government should not be involved in marriage, period. It's a states issue, and if the citizens of a state vote to not recognize pervert marriage, that's the way it is. The people have decided, not the damn federal government....If two perverts of the same gender want to enter into a "civil union", and laughingly call themselves ""married", play house, and receive the benefits that come with it, fine....As long as the citizens of the state VOTE to recognize it as a "civil union".....And if the citizens vote to not recognize the "civil unions" of perverts of the same gender, then the federal government needs to stay out of it.

 

[candycorn]

Noooo, it's not about not liking gay people.....I don't give a shit what they do behind closed doors....As long as it's not an illegal perversion that harms other people, they can be as perverse as they wish.

But, that does not mean that their perversions should be recognized under marriage.

And, it's not that i'm not religious, i'm Lutheran, but don't feel the need to go to church every week to reaffirm my beliefs....My opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with basic morals, and the continuing erosion of such in this country, nothing more.

Question:

I think the man who has made the most sense on this board in regards to this topic was Liability. Basically he said that the government should get out of the marriage business all together and simply issue "civil union" licenses for want of a better term. In other words, to qualify under law for what is now called marriage, the government changes these to civil unions. So survivor benefits, the "right" to pull the plug on a vegetated loved one, etc... is determined by your civil union standing with the government.

Liability continued that a marriage should be something that you enter into in the eyes of your faith be it Hebrew, Islam, Methodist or Luthern. In the eyes of the religion you practice, you can (or can be rejected I suppose) become "married".

My question to you is this: Do you think the government should be in a position to bless your relationship when the withholding of the blessing prevents your significant other from receiving the authorized benefits that are willfully and unquestionably delivered to the survivor of a traditional marriage?

The federal government should not be involved in marriage, period. It's a states issue, and if the citizens of a state vote to not recognize pervert marriage, that's the way it is. The people have decided, not the damn federal government....If two perverts of the same gender want to enter into a "civil union", and laughingly call themselves ""married", play house, and receive the benefits that come with it, fine....As long as the citizens of the state VOTE to recognize it as a "civil union".....And if the citizens vote to not recognize the "civil unions" of perverts of the same gender, then the federal government needs to stay out of it.

Are you saying that if California approves Gay Marriage and a same sex couple gets married in California, Texas needn't recognize it?