This damned FRUITBOWL government and the perverted (p)resident must be SATANIC, and really super stupid, when a minority of perverts can tell the rest of our citizens that it's going to force this law on us. WATCH OUT for the REVENGE, and re-instatement -it's coming !!!
When 50% of all marriages end in divorce there is no integrity left in marriage. This isn't a "protect marriage' law. Your gay neighbors getting a legal paper issued to them saying the state recognizes their union will not affect you in any way. It isn't going to disvalue your own marriage, nor is it going to taint your children's minds. This is a "I hate gays, therefore I will bully them, and society into conforming to my psychosocial ways" law.
During WWII, German citizens overwhelmingly supported the Holocaust. Does that mean it was the right thing to do? And not long ago, the majority of USA population opposed interracial marriage. Despite the public opinion, federal law NEVER prohibited IR marriage; in 1967, Supreme Court overruled state laws that did so. Gay marriage is no different, and laws prohibiting it (e.g., DOMA) are also unconstitutional. A policy is not ethically/legally appropriate simply because voters support it.
You dont put the BIll Of Rights up for a vote........... mike huckabee is so sad. how do ohter people vote on what rights someone should have. this is utter bullshit.
The fact is, he has no clue what he's talking about on THIS issue. There's more than one way to construct a successful, socially-beneficially family. Every citizen has the right to impartiality by his or her representative government even if EVERY OTHER person in the country disagrees. Preventing a married same-sex couple from being recognized as a family unit is sex discrimination and anti-family at that. If you're going to be pro-family, you have to accept that not every family is the same an
Marriage is not, and has never been a right; it's a privilege. Same as driving, same as flying a plane, same as selling alcohol. That's why we have marriage, driver's and liquor licenses, while REAL rights like voting, worship and speech don't require a license.
@Sanguiluna I understand that and i know that it will take a while for gay marriage to become legal in all states, but the the defense of marriage act is clearly unconstitutional. It tells states that they can ignore the legal marriages of same-sex couples done in a different state in clear violation of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. It also violates a church's right to choose who they want to marry.
Don't ya just love watching bigotry being defended? They get some cute and sweet old man like Mike Huckabee to do it so it seems legitimate and non-hateful, but the reality here is that the treatment of the LGBT citizens of the US by allowing it to be voted on by the majority is not only deplorable but unprecedented. We need to remind ourselves that we do not live in a democracy but a representative republic one that normally doesn't sumbit a minority's rights to a majority's vote.
we can go on and on about laws, morality and the definition of marriage but the fact is- times are changing and when gay couples do have the right to marry, all the opposing will have the right to get over it. period. Jim marrying johnny does not in fringe on the marriage on Mary and Nick, and if mary and nick are threated by jim and johnny, chances are their not very reasonable or moral people to begin with. get over people. move on, respect others- be american.
human rights cannot be voted on- just because you or the majority does not like a person's lifestyle it does not give any individual or especially a person in government to create laws against it. Im a straight male. will gay marriage affect me? OF COURSE NOT- and if "christian" groups and couples really feel threated by external forces, then they ought to rethink why they are married and how strong their faith is- you get married becoz you love, thats all.
its funny to see people blatenly disregard what this country was based on and the values americans hold. No, im sure our founding fathers did not take into consideration gay rights or marriage but the founding fathers crafted the constitution (which does not even mention or define marriage as a man or woman- this is of the new age religious fanatics) to be broad enough to be able to retain its core values with our modern time. Not allowing gays to marry is unconstitution
Huckabee, you know you are loosing this battle and you will go down in history with a reputation similar to the bigotted governors from the South who resisted voting rights and integration.
3000 years ago if a ballot was conducted whether earth is flat or round, most people would have voted it as flat....... its important to see the humanitarian perspective in such cases... majority of the world (maybe not buts lets assume for now) is straight and why would they care for the rest of them - its highly unlikely that a vote would go in favor of GLBT.....
The United States of America is a Republic, NOT a democracy. The government must obey the LAW. Republic means LAW. The Judges interpret the LAW, and that is why they stepped in front of the voters (i.e democracy) because DOMA was Unconstitutional. And Huckabee calls himself a REPUBLICAN????? I seriously hope this 'mob' ruler doesn't get elected. He clearly disobeys the law of the United States Republic.
Wait a minute...didn't Huckabee 'lose' out to Obama for the job? So do we care what he thinks now? Okay...whatever. He believes that the world is only 6,000 old...and I believe it's time for him to shut up.
I hope that in my children's generation, they will look back at today and think "Wow, those dumbfucks took until 2011 to consider allowing gay marriage?"
DOMA basically denies +1,000 or so legal rights married couples have in terms of property, last wills (well maybe not since it's on the writer), inheiritance, taking in of adopted children by the partner (I can't remember if some states dont' allow gays to adopt or recognize it). What did straight marriage do to gain many legal benefits from the federal gov't?
I wish I could say I am surprised by some of the comments here but I'm not. I will not vote Huckabee in any primary, but I certainly sympathize with his disappointment here. Also, isn't a bit telling as the rather shrewd nature of this move against the DOMA now? Hate on Huck all you want, at least I know where he stands.
@jakethewoz exactly. if we followed what the always followed the current consensus, it is quite possible that people who look like me might still be enslaved. just because of a vote.
@jakethewoz Exactly! If we always followed the dictates of a vote instead of human rights, it is quite possible that people who look like me might still be enslaved-all due to voters.
@jakethewoz rights are not and should not be up for vote period. these right wingers fundamentally misunderstand what rights are while wrapping themselves in the flag and the constitution. it's amazing.
@johnnythanD is Huckabee civil & respectful to the gay community by telling them they don't deserve the same constitutionally guaranteed rights he enjoys. sorry that asshole he smiles while insulting, disrespecting & greatly demeaning gays!
respect from this ignorant, intolerant, bigoted, fear mongering, hateful ass, a supposed political leader, is non existent!
give me a break, when we receive the respect any dog deserves, then you & he can expect the same. until then, bigot, FUCK OFF!
@johnnythanD You expect everyone to be respectful to someone who is being fundamentally disrespectful. The fact that Huckabee doesn't say nasty stuff like that to others doesn't mean he isn't being disrespectful. His stance against gay marriage is reprehensible and outright nasty. If 33 states out of 33 agreed we should disallow interracial marriage, is it okay, as long as they say it quietly?
@TheFallibleFiend so anyone who disagrees with polygamy (since it's illegal) is also outright nasty and bigoted, correct? Why should gays be given priority when muslims can't practice their religion, along with mormons who want 10 sluts as their wives? should mormontards and muslimshits have their freedom to practice bull shit too? my vote would be on abandoning marriage and encouraging straight people to stay in girlfriend/boyfriend relationships so that girls pay 50 percent of the bills.
@SeeProfileForDetails Disagreeing with is not the same as outlawing. Outlawing polygamy could be bigoted, but it could be justified on practical grounds (which, yes, would still be bigoted). It could be that N-ary marriages are too legally complicated to accept at the moment. Personally, I think they should also be legal; HOWEVER, there is another problem in that some of these polygamous marriages are actually coerced.
@SeeProfileForDetails Please. Polygamist marriages will never be legal. Each person must be equal in terms of the relationship. You can't have one guy just marrying each person individually and just have a bunch of wives. That is not an equal marriage relationship as far as civil government is concerned and will never be legally approved. Every tax law in the books would have to be rewritten. Our tax laws do not accommodate for more than one person in a marriage.
@AidenIsLove So you're argument against polygamy is that the tax laws cannot handle such an arrangement? It's an issue of pragmatism then instead of principle. Then what about 2 siblings getting married? Any argument solely based on how our government could handle the situation is very weak when discussing marriage. Any principled argument for gay marriage can also be made for polygamous and incestuous relationships.
@98nafets finally someone with an objective view. These libtarded idiots that think just purely gay marriage is right, and all other marriages are basically wrong except straight marriage.. I dunno, where do these people grow up taking logic courses?
@98nafets Oh sure, if you can get the public to recognize polygamous and incestuous relationships as normal relationship. There are no moral absolute behind life styles. But the fact is that the public does not recognize these relationships, and they do recognize homosexual relationships: this is a fact that no amount of slippery slopes can change.
@merdufer "There are no moral absolute behind life styles."
Well then everything is relative and my definition of marriage is just as good as anyone else's. You cannot claim that one position is superior to any other. Majority will thus rule and the majority right now says no to gay marriage.
@98nafets An argument can be made for siblings getting married. It would take 2 siblings to attempt to try and then bring up a court case. However, the arguments are absolutely not the same. Gay people have no recourse and are at a disadvantage in society because they cannot be in a valid straight marriage. Such a marriage would be considered and can be proven to be fraud. So with this disadvantage, they are reduced to a 2nd class citizenship.
@AidenIsLove "Please. Polygamist marriages will never be legal.".
Please. Gay marriages will never be legal. Please. Slavery will never be illegal. You are even dumber than I thought. Let's be bigots and mock polygamy, but when two guys shove their dicks into each other, let's not be bigots because that's normal, polygamy is not normal. It's wrong. I'm stupid.
@johnnythanD ignorant asses like you quibble over words, words that oh so offend you, while an entire group of people are being denied their constitutional rights.
so, words are more important to fools like you, while rights are to be disregarded, is that what you're saying? is that your legacy: words are more important than RIGHTS?
yesterday Gadaffi lied to his people with words, they meant NOTHING, yet it was his deeds that stripped them of their rights!
@Timothyk11 Your beliefs and your poor reasoning skills are irrelevant. There are innumerable, mutually corroborative and difficult to fake facts that are consistent with the proposition that George Washington existed. This does not mean that the existence of GW is absolute truth, but that it has been so thoroughly established that it would take a perverse intellect to reject provisional acceptance. The same could not be said of Jesus's divinity. He is perhaps on par with Homer.
@jdotglenn Logical arguments go far, pure insults without any argument don't take you far. Mixing some insults in with logic is fine, but a pure insult does not win a logical argument.
@SeeProfileForDetails know what, you're not a particularly good representative of whatever side of the political spectrum you represent.
you lack even a basic knowledge of the u.s. constitution, your logic's non existent, & you throw out "what if" scenarios that only exasperate & highlight your ignorance.
if you wanna play even in this arena, know what you're talking about. unfortunately the more you post the more irrelevant you become! argue your point all you want, but with fact not ignorance!
@wntoply6 the side of the political spectrum I represent is a libertarian who is still skeptical of the libertarian ideology, so I'm not really political.. Like chris hitchens, I don't vote.
This guy is a dingdong. So, if the majority voted for school desegregation again would it make it right.
Obama realized the Defense of Marriage Act is DISCRIMINATIORY! and discrimination is "Unconstitutional!"
Duhh???
BTW, I'm neither gay, nor married but there is NO evidence whatsoever that kids are disadvantaged in a gay marriage. In fact, they're usually better off than in a heterosexual marriage that ends in divorce.
@goog2k There is NO evidence that kids are better off in a marriage between three men who participate in tri-orgies. There is NO evidence that kids are better off in a marriage between 10 muslim wives and a muslim husband. Libtards cannot draw the line. Anything goes. Dog to human marriage should be allowed as some women allow dogs to lick their cunts, showing real tangible saliva love. Libtards can not take a stand on anything, they cannot take a position, they cannot clearly define anything.
@goog2k I'm not sure which post you are replying to or what you are talking about, but I've not seen one person on this video page describe why it is so important Gay's get married, but muslims and mormons in polygamist religions can't get married the way they want. Gays want to get married the way they want, but mormons and muslims can't. Why? More of you need to read Mark Steyn.
We zoosexuals don't want to legally marry our animal lovers.
Animals can't give legal informed consent to sign a marriage document nor they or us get any benefits from marriage. Countries where bestiality have been legal for over 20 years, have had ZERO animal+human marriages. Just because we are attracted to aniamls and have sex with them doesn't mean we want marriages like homosexuals do. Marriage is meaning less for animals.
Interesting... however, one has to wonder how the ballot 'vote' would have gone if measures to forward equality of blacks were put up to a referendum in many Southern states 50 years ago...? The whole concept of having a majority vote on whether or not to extend equal rights to a minority where there is a long established history of adverse discrimination against that minority is flawed.
50 years from now even conservatives will be surprised by the bigotry of their party in this regard. Even religious conservatives will be embarrassed about their former stance on gay marriage.
@blannphinella when we allow mormons and muslims to have 10 wives, since that's equally a right, and when we allow dogs that lick women's cunts in an inter-species relationship to marry, then will the conservatives really be embarrassed when we legalize those marriages. Why shouldn't a muslim be allowed to have 10 wives, each applying for social assistance? Read mark steyn
You are right to question this, but there are some pretty easy answers.
1) multiple spouses...
Marriage has several purposes and one of them is to find a way to guide natural sexual urges of humans into a relationship that promotes a stable society. Two-ness is very important in this regard. Having multiple partners creates jealousy and makes for unstable relationships and thereby an unstable society.
It is good for a society for people to commit to each other. Two people is always most stable. Three or four people would be great theoretically for raising kids (more helping hands), BUT because of the profound emotional attachment that comes with sexual union, three or four people all married together will tend to produce an imbalance. When deeply intimate emotions are shared, you have potential for disaster. With only two people, there is no problem.
@blannphinella "It is good for a society for people to commit to each other."
Who says? There are some people out there who refuse to get married who are in 10 year long relationships. There are other people in open relationships. What christian bible are you pulling this dogma from that two people must get married? Where did that law form? from God?
This is silly. The public has no reason to support it legally. There is a public reason to support gay marriage. Until a society needs to harness the power of sexual attraction toward dogs, this will never become an issue.
Two-ness is very important. We all have natural sexual drives and need an outlet for these. The power of sex to create social bonds is strong. Society has a reason to guide these drives into a stable system.
This is silly. The public has no reason to support it legally."
Gay relationship.. this is silly, the public has no reason to support it legally.
Black race marrying completely different white race... this is silly the public has no reason to support it legally. Muslim marriage between three lesbian dykes with table cloths wrapped around their head.. Liberals cannot and will not draw the line. Anything goes.
@SeeProfileForDetails We are all the same specie retard.... their is only one human race... how fucking stupid are you?? " Inter-species relationship??"... Get the fuck out of here.
Lastly, two-ness reduces the problems of sexually transmitted diseases. STDs can still be problematic, yes, but two-ness is still better than three-ness or four-ness in this regard.
In a perfect world, perhaps 10 wives would work (minus the STDs). Or if humans were in danger of becoming extinct, it would probably be considered necessary.
@blannphinella "but two-ness is still better than three-ness or four-ness in this regard."
You are a bigot and speaking from a bible that says two are better than one. Mormons and muslims disagree with you. You are a racist bigot with a gay agenda who does not tolerate polygamy and only tolerates your particular gay ideology. A dog should be able to marry a woman since the don't transmit aids as easy when licking cunts with tongue, and a dog/woman is a twoness. Liberals CAN NOT draw the line
Also, if there existed another species that regularly interacted with humans and became equal partners in a new inter-species society (this is theoretically possible, but clearly not the case), then perhaps sexual attraction toward this species may even arise. In this scenario, interspecies marriage would be a possibility for promoting a stable society.
But it seems like you haven't thought very much on any of this.
@blannphinella Gay people do not replicate. Dogh/human combo do not replicate.Therefore logically dogs and humans should also be allowed to marry, as it has nothing to do with replication, but rather sexual attraction. Some women allow their dogs to lick their cunts, via Peter Singer videos on youtube. Many Muslims prefer to marry 10 wives. Why can we not make 10 wives legal and only allow gays to marry? that is bigoted. Kids don't want it, though, so it doesn't matter.
@SeeProfileForDetails No. It's not just about sexual attraction. It's about informed consent and equality under the law. Dogs cannot have informed consent and probably can't ever have equality under the law. We could argue for polygamy and even incest, although those are separate issues and one would not necessarily have to support one or the other. Best is to make marriage a religious thing and civil union for everyone in legal situation (but the two criteria still apply).
@TheFallibleFiend 10 muslim wives can give consent, yet it's not legal. Forget dogs, stick to consentual marriage between 10 muslims or an orgy of 5 gay people. If marriage is a religious thing, like Ron Paul thinks, then what in the fuck does that mean for non religious gays? Even straight marriage is stupid anyway, so what are gays worried about? If a person loves you, there is no need for a paper certificate. Insecure people who cheat, need the certificate. They have no discipline.
@SeeProfileForDetails Marriage is useful for certain pragmatic purposes. Most marriages include some or complete mixture and interdependence of spousal properties. It's sensible to create guidelines/protections for the conditions of marriage dissolution and how such things impact the distribution of property afterwards.
Also, some places require a spousal relationship to be eligible for certain benefits. e.g. adoption, visitation, pension privileges, etc.
@Sardonac Marriage is a tool for women to steal 50 percent of the money from a man, while she rarely earns a penny and spends lots behind the mans back while he is at work. She usually pays more than necessary for products since she has no idea how hard it was to actually earn the money. For her it's just flip out the credit card and buy it on someone else's expense. I congratulate any household where the woman has made 50 percent of the income.
@Sardonac You reply to me with the most patronizing post about what marriage is. Do you think I'm stupid? I know what marriage is. Now tell me, why can't a muslim practice his marriage according to his religion, along with mormons? why is that illegal, and why do all the gay rights activists not stand up for mormons way of marriage too?
@SeeProfileForDetails You've either ignored my points or you didn't understand them. If you ignored them then that's that; you're just not interested in engaging someone willing to contest a point of yours and are content to troll YouTube comments. If so, fine, it happens. If you didn't understand them then I'd think you're stupid. Right now I'm not sure which it is. I'll leave that up to you.
@Sardonac When I saw your post about marriage, I wondered why you were patronizing me telling me what marriage was. Do you think that I don't know what marriage is? Did I ask you what marriage was? If people want to share possessions, there is no need for marriage. One can write a will for death. Often times people forget to write wills and it should be done earlier. Why would any gay person want to get married when we know divorce in straight marriage is a hassle? what's the point?
@SeeProfileForDetails "Even straight marriage is stupid anyway, so what are gays worried about? If a person loves you, there is no need for a paper certificate. Insecure people who cheat, need the certificate. They have no discipline."
I initially answered these remarks specifically. Now will you actually engage?
I didn't intend to patronize. It seemed like you genuinely didn't know the pragmatic purposes of marriage are. Now I know you actually don't know.
@SeeProfileForDetails Hugely. I studied marriage law for a few months in 2009 and it's far more complex than "splitting it 50:50." The fact of the matter is that marriage is an extraordinarily complex bond that is incredibly complicated to disentangle. That's why there are legal guidelines and prenuptial agreements.
@SeeProfileForDetails The guy is ignorant of historical precedent and off-topic. I stated objections to the claim that gays shouldn't be concerned with a right to marry and your objection is this? You've now decided for me that you are, in fact, stupid.
Any further responses will be deleted without being read. Good luck in life.
@SeeProfileForDetails You are even dumber than I thought. You talk about the "mormons" way of marriage. Do you mean polygamy? Because the Mormon church denounced polygamy in the late 1800's. That proves you don't know what you are talking about.
@AidenIsLove There are many mormons who still practice polygamy, it's different flavors of the freligion, check out the news on google, you'll see cases where mormons have brought up the gay marriage rights as a defense for their view on marriage.
@SeeProfileForDetails Should infertile people be allowed to marry? The goal of marriage is not soley to create children, it is whatever the participants choose it to be. Consenting adults can marry, I have no right to stop bill and bob from loving each other, and neither does anyone else.
@Theprinceofponeage You are misunderstanding my devil's advocate position on marriage. I'm asking about muslims marrying 10 wives, why should that not be allowed in a free country? A country is not free unless it supports both gay people and muslims. How can you have a country that is free to practice religion, if you can't even practice your flavor of mormonism or islam?
@nett103 should a muslim be allowed to have 10 wives? anything goes in liberalism. Why shouldn't a dog be able to marry another dog? why shouldn't dog be allowed to marry a woman if he licks the woman's cunt? some pets truly love their owners and the owner is single and into beastality. It's an equal right. If the dog voluntarily licks the woman's cunt, and is not forced, why shouldn't they be allowed to get married? the dog could apply for welfare and get dog food. Liberalism: anything goes.
@SeeProfileForDetails You are completely nonsensical as are your thoughts on this matter. The message you have sent is beyond irrational and beyond reason.
@nett103 Actually my thoughts are spot on, and others agree with me. There is even a person who is promoting beastality in the liberal community, his name is peter singer, and he thinks it is acceptable if dogs lick womans cunts. Now, that may be acceptable, and since anything goes in liberalism, who says dogs shouldnt' be allowed to get married to women and their cunts? Why are you discriminating against muslims who want 10 wives? who says children would not be happy with 10 sluts ?
@SeeProfileForDetails Just because there are people as simple minded as yourself and may agree with you doesn’t mean your correct. Furthermore, when did I state that I endorse polygamy?
You are displaying yourself as a presumptuous idiotic individual. Well done.
@nett103 So you are discriminating against a culture because they think polygamy is acceptable, but when it comes to gays you aren't discriminating against that culture because you are a cultural racist/bigot, is that right? So polygamy is bad, but gayness is okay? Do you have any fucking clue how much you just pwned yourself since as a cultural relativist you have just committed logical suicide?
@SeeProfileForDetails As I see you are arguing with several people over this video, I can only think that your intention is to spark arguments with anyone who willing to reply to you. I will not concede to this any longer.
@nett103 Obviously I'm arguing with several people, like how Sam Harris or Hitchens would argue with several of his fellow atheist liberals about issues. You think that liberals all agree on issues and that there is no argument and debate within liberalism and atheism? Are you really that stupid?
nett103 wasn't even talking about mutual liberal/atheist agreement, actually. He/she was accusing you of arguing purely for the sake of drawing attention to yourself, based on the fact that you have multiple argumentative comment threads going.
Also, I'm seeing at least three instances on this page where you accuse liberals of being in favor of interspecies marriage. Could you enlighten me as to which liberals you are citing and from what sources?
@spaceawesome22 Peter Singer is in favor of bestality being accepted in society, because when a dog licks the cunt of a woman, she's not forcing the dog. Now, if these two animals, dogs and humans, are having oral sex, why shoudn't they be allowed to get married?
Just a comment; it seems like rather many of the youtube clips from ForaTV feature right-wing pundits, or do I just have a mistaken impression? What is Fora's agenda - if any? Does anyone know?
I "like" the fact that you supplied this video excerpt. I "dislike" the puerile stupidity expressed in it. I'm baffled and frankly frightened that we live in an age when someone this kooky could run for president and get more than an handful of votes.
@Timothyk11 Most people are much better at talking about logic than applying it. There is no comparison of the case for Jesus and the case for George Washington. To say, "We weren't around for either," is neither clever or relevant. It does not require faith to accept that George Washington existed and that he was almost certainly the first president. Much more question about whether Jesus existed and VASTLY more question about whether the claims made about him are true.
i have an idea. the state doesn't regulate marriage at all. make it a religious institution. which it is. get married in whatever church, temple or bonfire you want and let the state regulate things like air pollution, interest rates and retarded military expenditures.
@STINKOPOOP sir or madam, marriage isn't a religious rite, IT'S A CIVIL RIGHT.
no marriage in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is valid if it's simply preformed by a religious person. IN ORDER FOR A MARRIAGE TO BE LEGAN IN THIS COUNTRY, it must be 1st LICENSED BY THE STATE, then REGISTERED in the village, town, or city in which it was performed, IT'S THE LAW!
IF THIS ISN'T DONE, THERE IS NO MARRIAGE, no matter who performs it. please try to keep THE LAW in mind next time you comment on youtube!
The funny thing is the last comment-since the decision is to take dma of the plate, which after all gives more time/resources to concentrate on those other issues.
At one time, all the states of the union thought slavery was okay. It wasn't, no matter how many people voted for it. Just because the majority of people are homophobic and controlling doesn't mean gay people should not be allowed to marry.
@Theprinceofponeage I gotta say this: I do support love regardless of the couple's gender.... however I take exception to your "majority of people are homophobic" comment... It personally makes me ill to see 2 guys kissing in public... so maybe if the flaming loins were kept at home, the general public wouldn't feel forced to accept the behavior. Just a thought.
@weebles777 it personally makes me ill to see a man & woman kissing in public, so they too shouldn't be allowed to marry
you're statement, regardless of what you think is ignorant, bigoted & hateful
this is the united states of america? preventing people from expressing their love for each other in public is as abhorrent as any biased statement ever made regardless of gender. this country is free & your type bigotry cannot be tolerated!
YOU DON'T LIKE IT? YOU'RE NOT COMPELLED TO LOOK AT IT!
@wntoply6 if you are going to allow gays to get married you might as well allow islam muslims to have 10 wives and mormons too, along with 3 women to get married. You cannot draw the line anywhere as a libtard.
@SeeProfileForDetails then,if you're gonna allow straights to get divorced, since the only objection you have is biblical (that's all you have), then you must kill your brother for working on sunday, for planting different crops next to each other, for disobedient children or a disobedient wife & for wearing clothing of different fabrics!
get off your ignorant high horse, or begin killing everyone you know, you god damned ignorant "christian"republican ass, you're ignorance makes me sick!
@wntoply6 No, my objection is not biblical. I'm one of those rare atheists who doesn't think like most libtards. I'm guessing if you did a democratic survey, a majority of children would prefer a traditional parenting. Go ahead, do a survey in the USA or Canada, have millions of kids take a vote on this issue. I'll bet 70-90 percent of kids vote they want a mother and a father and would not like three men, or 10 muslim wives in their house, or two fathers in their house.
@SeeProfileForDetails excuse me but the rights of the minority do not rely on the ignorance of the majority. that argument's confirmed by the supreme court of the united states ad nauseam. it's a basic tenet & guarantee thereof.
tell me exactly what is it that prevents you understanding the constitution & it's guarantees. why do you continue to show your utter ignorance, why?
prior to the 60s, millions would have voted for blacks slavery. are you stupidly suggesting slavery be voted on too?
@wntoply6 That's a straw man argument. If we do not allow gays to get married, what's the worst that could happen? If we do not allow muslims to marry 10 wives, what's the worst that could happen? politicians and people should be concerned about issues that are far more important. If you are going to allow gays to get married, you must also extend your hand out and allow muslims to marry 10 wives, because their culture thinks polygamy is fine. If you do not allow polygamy, you are a bigot.
@SeeProfileForDetails what is a straw man argument? and who the hell are you to allow anything? it's equal rights that are guaranteed by the constitution that have meaning. NOT YOU!
sir you are so ignorant of the provisions of the constitution it's a waste of time to try to educate you this late in your miserable life.
thankfully gay marriage will be decided based on equality guaranteed by the constitution of the united states of america, not by the ignorance of idiots like you.
@wntoply6 Equal rights, includes allowing FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Muslims want to marry 10 wives. It is their religion. They are free to do so. Right? Muslims want to kill gay people.They are free to do so, right? because in a truly free country, all religions are accepted, right? Now do me a favor and look up "toleration paradox".Tolerating the intolerant. You are being INTOLERANT toward muslims polygamy, but you are a bigot and allowing another culture, the gay culture, to live in your country.
what you're arguing is the denial of the right of certain people to marry, a right enjoyed by all, not a fantasy right to marry multiples, that NO ONE in this country enjoys.
you're a bigot, that's obvious, however its your ignorance that's the underlying evil.
the best advice is, if you don't want to marry one of the same gender...don't, but who the hell are YOU do deny others from exercising that constitutional right?
@SeeProfileForDetails what's the worst that cold happen? if you begin to deny rights to americans of a certain ilk, what's to say the educated, won't want to deny rights to those, like you, who've no idea what the u.s. constitution provides for?
what's to say they won't demand a provision to castrate those like you cause your comprehension is limited, thus preventing you from procreating your ignorance?
your ignorance is so outrageously shocking it's something you really need to be ashamed of!
@SeeProfileForDetails i'm at a total loss to understand your ignorance of our constitutional guarantees & rights!
do you think you can simply make up laws & disregard the constitution? do you have an understanding of how our government works. if you do, you've not demonstrated it here. in fact, that you're totally ignorant of how our federal government works should make you utterly ashamed of yourself.
if you're not ashamed, i'm ashamed of this country for not educating a stupid ass like you!
@weebles777 I don't like it when ugly people show any kind of affection in public, but I grit my teeth and deal with it. No one has any right to stop consenting adults from marrying, especially not because they find it aesthetically displeasing.
"How do you know that George Washington was our first president? I mean after all, you were not there." Either you're being sarcastic or incredibly dimwitted. Either way, you made me laugh.
@Timothyk11 lust over logic? right because you are the logical one who does not need any evidence to back up your believe, you just have to believe because you're scared of what your "loving" god will do if you dont believe in him. you claimed i made a statement of faith, no i made a statement about the evidence. if there WAS a census across the whole roman empire why is there no evidence for it at all?
@Timothyk11 actually its called looking for EVIDENCE of which there is NONE. if there really was a census across the whole of the roman empire then WHY did no-one mention it at the time? why is there no physical evidence of it either? there would have had to be THOUSANDS of scribes working day and night and yet there is nothing? also why is it that there are no mass graves or anyone writing about herods baby killing at the time?
@Timothyk11 oh pascals wager yet again it gets regurgitated by another fundie. worship a god just because you're scared that if you're wrong he'll punish you. my what a loving god you have indeed. the problem with this, is that there are THOUSANDS of gods that humanity has invented and funny thing is they're all petty and jealous. another funny thing is that there is no more evidence for one than the other.
@Timothyk11 oh and by the way, when you consider the fact that no-one seemed to notice jesus when he was alive and the only references we get to him years after his death in the gospels who were not even written by people who were there, im pretty sure you're worshipping the wrong god. oh and by the way, you know how it claims there was a roman census across the whole empire and herod went around baby killing? none of those things happened either.
@Timothyk11 that really is so hilarious though, the evidence does have to be pretty shitty to support your position for you to make mystical threats of an afterlife you have no evidence for. you know your ignorant rantings make you look no different to an indian doing a rain dance or if a muslim told you that if you didnt believe in his god and prophet you would burn forever. you're just blindly accepting what other humans told you apparently out of fear. what a petty, nasty god you have.
@Timothyk11 LOL and you know this because? oh wait a HUMAN told you. considering the fact that out of the thousands of gods humanity has invented yours is just as unlikely as the last, statistically speaking if there is a god then you will be joining me down there. wherever that petty little jealous creature decides to throw us
forever is a long time. tell me how do you intend to spend it? ever notice how they're sketchy on the details? what do you plan to do for the first billion days?
His whole argument revolves around the infallibility of majority opinion. Well throughout history, various majorities have supported slavery, torture, persecution, and genocide. This is a notoriously weak argument. Kind of surprising to see a mainstream politician invoke it.
Huckabee you moron.... "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." ~Thomas Jefferson
@Timothyk11 by the way, i wouldnt really have a problem is he was just a christian who believed god started the world like most people do, what i have a problem with is his ignorance and medieval belief in creationism. noah's ark? seriously? the fact that any grown man would believe that is laughable
This damned FRUITBOWL government and the perverted (p)resident must be SATANIC, and really super stupid, when a minority of perverts can tell the rest of our citizens that it's going to force this law on us. WATCH OUT for the REVENGE, and re-instatement -it's coming !!!
Eadhmonn 7 months ago
When 50% of all marriages end in divorce there is no integrity left in marriage. This isn't a "protect marriage' law. Your gay neighbors getting a legal paper issued to them saying the state recognizes their union will not affect you in any way. It isn't going to disvalue your own marriage, nor is it going to taint your children's minds. This is a "I hate gays, therefore I will bully them, and society into conforming to my psychosocial ways" law.
meisema666 7 months ago
During WWII, German citizens overwhelmingly supported the Holocaust. Does that mean it was the right thing to do? And not long ago, the majority of USA population opposed interracial marriage. Despite the public opinion, federal law NEVER prohibited IR marriage; in 1967, Supreme Court overruled state laws that did so. Gay marriage is no different, and laws prohibiting it (e.g., DOMA) are also unconstitutional. A policy is not ethically/legally appropriate simply because voters support it.
JBlue761982 8 months ago 3
Huckabee is on point. Obama will not get a repeat vote from me. I repent that I voted for that reprobate (Obama) the first time.
Sensiblehuman 8 months ago
This man disgusts me.
tom133991 8 months ago
The only thing i wish now is that all republicans die out
sunhayabusa 10 months ago
You dont put the BIll Of Rights up for a vote........... mike huckabee is so sad. how do ohter people vote on what rights someone should have. this is utter bullshit.
chipatzuwa 11 months ago
The fact is, he has no clue what he's talking about on THIS issue. There's more than one way to construct a successful, socially-beneficially family. Every citizen has the right to impartiality by his or her representative government even if EVERY OTHER person in the country disagrees. Preventing a married same-sex couple from being recognized as a family unit is sex discrimination and anti-family at that. If you're going to be pro-family, you have to accept that not every family is the same an
shaverbh 11 months ago
What the hell does it matter what its called..
jordanmcddd 11 months ago
This man completely disgusts me. All people have certain rights that are
inalienable. That is what our constitution says and that is what America
is.
Pilgrim812 1 year ago
Huckabee thinks the Flintstones is a documentary.
IamLiterallyRetarded 1 year ago
This guy must be stuck in a bad marriage. If he had a good marriage he would presumably want other people to enjoy it too.
bincoln 1 year ago
The right of the majority to govern ends when its decisions restrict the rights of the minority.
bazballnut94 1 year ago
huck fuckabee
squippy117 1 year ago 2
Marriage is not, and has never been a right; it's a privilege. Same as driving, same as flying a plane, same as selling alcohol. That's why we have marriage, driver's and liquor licenses, while REAL rights like voting, worship and speech don't require a license.
Sanguiluna 1 year ago
@Sanguiluna I understand that and i know that it will take a while for gay marriage to become legal in all states, but the the defense of marriage act is clearly unconstitutional. It tells states that they can ignore the legal marriages of same-sex couples done in a different state in clear violation of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. It also violates a church's right to choose who they want to marry.
dfyeomans 1 year ago
@Sanguiluna like that changes anything.
AceofDiamonds0 1 year ago
Even if you're against gay marriage, DOMA is unconstitutional, because it imposes federal powers on a STATE issue.
You lose, Huckabee.
BoredomCorner 1 year ago 2
Don't ya just love watching bigotry being defended? They get some cute and sweet old man like Mike Huckabee to do it so it seems legitimate and non-hateful, but the reality here is that the treatment of the LGBT citizens of the US by allowing it to be voted on by the majority is not only deplorable but unprecedented. We need to remind ourselves that we do not live in a democracy but a representative republic one that normally doesn't sumbit a minority's rights to a majority's vote.
tbone2872 1 year ago 3
we can go on and on about laws, morality and the definition of marriage but the fact is- times are changing and when gay couples do have the right to marry, all the opposing will have the right to get over it. period. Jim marrying johnny does not in fringe on the marriage on Mary and Nick, and if mary and nick are threated by jim and johnny, chances are their not very reasonable or moral people to begin with. get over people. move on, respect others- be american.
Killerjosh89 1 year ago 9
human rights cannot be voted on- just because you or the majority does not like a person's lifestyle it does not give any individual or especially a person in government to create laws against it. Im a straight male. will gay marriage affect me? OF COURSE NOT- and if "christian" groups and couples really feel threated by external forces, then they ought to rethink why they are married and how strong their faith is- you get married becoz you love, thats all.
Killerjosh89 1 year ago
its funny to see people blatenly disregard what this country was based on and the values americans hold. No, im sure our founding fathers did not take into consideration gay rights or marriage but the founding fathers crafted the constitution (which does not even mention or define marriage as a man or woman- this is of the new age religious fanatics) to be broad enough to be able to retain its core values with our modern time. Not allowing gays to marry is unconstitution
Killerjosh89 1 year ago
Homophobes are lacking any sense of fairness or empathy and are totally obstinate. This is abundamently clear.
Pilgrim812 1 year ago
"If you don't support same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex" - Wanda Sykes
jtolls 1 year ago
Fat cock-eyed prick needs to STFU and go away.
steerpike66 1 year ago
Mike Huckabee is a sick fuck. Why is this on fora?
TheLiberalSoup 1 year ago
Huckabee, you know you are loosing this battle and you will go down in history with a reputation similar to the bigotted governors from the South who resisted voting rights and integration.
edgwaterprog 1 year ago
Lets all put an end to culture-war politics. Now.
Why not stop making LGBT the boogeyman of
American society enougn demogougery.
Republican are losing on this one. And I can't
wait for May 21, 2011 because May 22 is Harvey Milk Day
in California.
Pilgrim812 1 year ago
@Pilgrim812 app the nutcase religitards think may 21 is the end of the world
MamaMario13 10 months ago
Just to think that this guy could have been our president. I don't think McCain would have been much different than him either.
AidenIsLove 1 year ago
3000 years ago if a ballot was conducted whether earth is flat or round, most people would have voted it as flat....... its important to see the humanitarian perspective in such cases... majority of the world (maybe not buts lets assume for now) is straight and why would they care for the rest of them - its highly unlikely that a vote would go in favor of GLBT.....
cbhangale 1 year ago
I wondered how long this creep would take to jump on the bigot wagon after Obamas actions re. DOMA. Answer: not long.
nicksum29 1 year ago
The United States of America is a Republic, NOT a democracy. The government must obey the LAW. Republic means LAW. The Judges interpret the LAW, and that is why they stepped in front of the voters (i.e democracy) because DOMA was Unconstitutional. And Huckabee calls himself a REPUBLICAN????? I seriously hope this 'mob' ruler doesn't get elected. He clearly disobeys the law of the United States Republic.
mrhey6571 1 year ago
Another dam conservative American
aaround 1 year ago
Huckabee probably isn't any dumber than the people who want to him to be President; but that's not saying much.
talkstocoyotes 1 year ago
Wait a minute...didn't Huckabee 'lose' out to Obama for the job? So do we care what he thinks now? Okay...whatever. He believes that the world is only 6,000 old...and I believe it's time for him to shut up.
toycarlvr 1 year ago
Shame on you, ForaTV...I thought you were better than this.
WrathchildSteven 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails JEEZ, I'm actually not surprised you can't remember or find your own disgusting posts.
What a retard.
goog2k 1 year ago
I hope that in my children's generation, they will look back at today and think "Wow, those dumbfucks took until 2011 to consider allowing gay marriage?"
totalsextacy 1 year ago
DOMA basically denies +1,000 or so legal rights married couples have in terms of property, last wills (well maybe not since it's on the writer), inheiritance, taking in of adopted children by the partner (I can't remember if some states dont' allow gays to adopt or recognize it). What did straight marriage do to gain many legal benefits from the federal gov't?
kmelfina 1 year ago
I wish I could say I am surprised by some of the comments here but I'm not. I will not vote Huckabee in any primary, but I certainly sympathize with his disappointment here. Also, isn't a bit telling as the rather shrewd nature of this move against the DOMA now? Hate on Huck all you want, at least I know where he stands.
GOPsithlord 1 year ago
rights do not need to be voted on. the only people who vote against rights are people whom the rights don't affect at all.
jakethewoz 1 year ago 35
@jakethewoz exactly. if we followed what the always followed the current consensus, it is quite possible that people who look like me might still be enslaved. just because of a vote.
junemem 1 year ago
@jakethewoz Exactly! If we always followed the dictates of a vote instead of human rights, it is quite possible that people who look like me might still be enslaved-all due to voters.
junemem 1 year ago
@jakethewoz Good thing marriage isn't/has never been a right.
Sanguiluna 1 year ago
@jakethewoz rights are not and should not be up for vote period. these right wingers fundamentally misunderstand what rights are while wrapping themselves in the flag and the constitution. it's amazing.
tcdowning666 1 year ago
Tempted to "Like" this video because it helps publicize this guy's backward views.
5avan10 1 year ago
None of this would be an issue if the state were overthrown.
Mastikator 1 year ago
He's getting fat again isn't he?
EPRVa62 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What a fucking IDIOT.
LennonPeartDawkins 1 year ago
Comment removed
johnnythanD 1 year ago
@johnnythanD is Huckabee civil & respectful to the gay community by telling them they don't deserve the same constitutionally guaranteed rights he enjoys. sorry that asshole he smiles while insulting, disrespecting & greatly demeaning gays!
respect from this ignorant, intolerant, bigoted, fear mongering, hateful ass, a supposed political leader, is non existent!
give me a break, when we receive the respect any dog deserves, then you & he can expect the same. until then, bigot, FUCK OFF!
wntoply6 1 year ago
@johnnythanD You expect everyone to be respectful to someone who is being fundamentally disrespectful. The fact that Huckabee doesn't say nasty stuff like that to others doesn't mean he isn't being disrespectful. His stance against gay marriage is reprehensible and outright nasty. If 33 states out of 33 agreed we should disallow interracial marriage, is it okay, as long as they say it quietly?
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend so anyone who disagrees with polygamy (since it's illegal) is also outright nasty and bigoted, correct? Why should gays be given priority when muslims can't practice their religion, along with mormons who want 10 sluts as their wives? should mormontards and muslimshits have their freedom to practice bull shit too? my vote would be on abandoning marriage and encouraging straight people to stay in girlfriend/boyfriend relationships so that girls pay 50 percent of the bills.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails Disagreeing with is not the same as outlawing. Outlawing polygamy could be bigoted, but it could be justified on practical grounds (which, yes, would still be bigoted). It could be that N-ary marriages are too legally complicated to accept at the moment. Personally, I think they should also be legal; HOWEVER, there is another problem in that some of these polygamous marriages are actually coerced.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails Please. Polygamist marriages will never be legal. Each person must be equal in terms of the relationship. You can't have one guy just marrying each person individually and just have a bunch of wives. That is not an equal marriage relationship as far as civil government is concerned and will never be legally approved. Every tax law in the books would have to be rewritten. Our tax laws do not accommodate for more than one person in a marriage.
AidenIsLove 1 year ago
@AidenIsLove So you're argument against polygamy is that the tax laws cannot handle such an arrangement? It's an issue of pragmatism then instead of principle. Then what about 2 siblings getting married? Any argument solely based on how our government could handle the situation is very weak when discussing marriage. Any principled argument for gay marriage can also be made for polygamous and incestuous relationships.
98nafets 1 year ago
@98nafets finally someone with an objective view. These libtarded idiots that think just purely gay marriage is right, and all other marriages are basically wrong except straight marriage.. I dunno, where do these people grow up taking logic courses?
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@98nafets Oh sure, if you can get the public to recognize polygamous and incestuous relationships as normal relationship. There are no moral absolute behind life styles. But the fact is that the public does not recognize these relationships, and they do recognize homosexual relationships: this is a fact that no amount of slippery slopes can change.
merdufer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@merdufer "There are no moral absolute behind life styles."
Well then everything is relative and my definition of marriage is just as good as anyone else's. You cannot claim that one position is superior to any other. Majority will thus rule and the majority right now says no to gay marriage.
98nafets 1 year ago
@98nafets An argument can be made for siblings getting married. It would take 2 siblings to attempt to try and then bring up a court case. However, the arguments are absolutely not the same. Gay people have no recourse and are at a disadvantage in society because they cannot be in a valid straight marriage. Such a marriage would be considered and can be proven to be fraud. So with this disadvantage, they are reduced to a 2nd class citizenship.
AidenIsLove 1 year ago
@AidenIsLove "Please. Polygamist marriages will never be legal.".
Please. Gay marriages will never be legal. Please. Slavery will never be illegal. You are even dumber than I thought. Let's be bigots and mock polygamy, but when two guys shove their dicks into each other, let's not be bigots because that's normal, polygamy is not normal. It's wrong. I'm stupid.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@johnnythanD ignorant asses like you quibble over words, words that oh so offend you, while an entire group of people are being denied their constitutional rights.
so, words are more important to fools like you, while rights are to be disregarded, is that what you're saying? is that your legacy: words are more important than RIGHTS?
yesterday Gadaffi lied to his people with words, they meant NOTHING, yet it was his deeds that stripped them of their rights!
YOU SICKEN ME WITH YOUR IGNORANCE!
wntoply6 1 year ago
@Timothyk11 Your beliefs and your poor reasoning skills are irrelevant. There are innumerable, mutually corroborative and difficult to fake facts that are consistent with the proposition that George Washington existed. This does not mean that the existence of GW is absolute truth, but that it has been so thoroughly established that it would take a perverse intellect to reject provisional acceptance. The same could not be said of Jesus's divinity. He is perhaps on par with Homer.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
Congrats on your national igloo, Canada.
jdotglenn 1 year ago
Mike Huckabee is a complete cunt. Also he looks like Underdog.
jdotglenn 1 year ago 19
@jdotglenn libtards thumbing up comments that are insults and have no logical debate in them...
Foratv audience: a bunch of cry baby libtards
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails You see, there is NO argument. I am right. You are wrong, and are simply too dim to realize it.
jdotglenn 1 year ago
@jdotglenn Telling someone that you are right, is argument by assertion. It's similar to arguing by authority.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails Shut up, stupid.
jdotglenn 1 year ago
@jdotglenn Logical arguments go far, pure insults without any argument don't take you far. Mixing some insults in with logic is fine, but a pure insult does not win a logical argument.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails know what, you're not a particularly good representative of whatever side of the political spectrum you represent.
you lack even a basic knowledge of the u.s. constitution, your logic's non existent, & you throw out "what if" scenarios that only exasperate & highlight your ignorance.
if you wanna play even in this arena, know what you're talking about. unfortunately the more you post the more irrelevant you become! argue your point all you want, but with fact not ignorance!
wntoply6 1 year ago
@wntoply6 the side of the political spectrum I represent is a libertarian who is still skeptical of the libertarian ideology, so I'm not really political.. Like chris hitchens, I don't vote.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails i at least applaud your honesty.
wntoply6 1 year ago
This guy is a dingdong. So, if the majority voted for school desegregation again would it make it right.
Obama realized the Defense of Marriage Act is DISCRIMINATIORY! and discrimination is "Unconstitutional!"
Duhh???
BTW, I'm neither gay, nor married but there is NO evidence whatsoever that kids are disadvantaged in a gay marriage. In fact, they're usually better off than in a heterosexual marriage that ends in divorce.
Oops!!!
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k There is NO evidence that kids are better off in a marriage between three men who participate in tri-orgies. There is NO evidence that kids are better off in a marriage between 10 muslim wives and a muslim husband. Libtards cannot draw the line. Anything goes. Dog to human marriage should be allowed as some women allow dogs to lick their cunts, showing real tangible saliva love. Libtards can not take a stand on anything, they cannot take a position, they cannot clearly define anything.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails JEEZ, what a disgusting cesspool of a mind you have. How do you think this crap up? And who ever advocated that?
You're as silly and sick as Huckabee.
Thanks for showing us how WACKO you really are.
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k I'm not sure which post you are replying to or what you are talking about, but I've not seen one person on this video page describe why it is so important Gay's get married, but muslims and mormons in polygamist religions can't get married the way they want. Gays want to get married the way they want, but mormons and muslims can't. Why? More of you need to read Mark Steyn.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
Comment removed
spaceawesome22 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails
We zoosexuals don't want to legally marry our animal lovers.
Animals can't give legal informed consent to sign a marriage document nor they or us get any benefits from marriage. Countries where bestiality have been legal for over 20 years, have had ZERO animal+human marriages. Just because we are attracted to aniamls and have sex with them doesn't mean we want marriages like homosexuals do. Marriage is meaning less for animals.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 1 year ago
Fuckabee.
ZenCross1 1 year ago
Interesting... however, one has to wonder how the ballot 'vote' would have gone if measures to forward equality of blacks were put up to a referendum in many Southern states 50 years ago...? The whole concept of having a majority vote on whether or not to extend equal rights to a minority where there is a long established history of adverse discrimination against that minority is flawed.
pmccarthy001 1 year ago
50 years from now even conservatives will be surprised by the bigotry of their party in this regard. Even religious conservatives will be embarrassed about their former stance on gay marriage.
blannphinella 1 year ago
@blannphinella when we allow mormons and muslims to have 10 wives, since that's equally a right, and when we allow dogs that lick women's cunts in an inter-species relationship to marry, then will the conservatives really be embarrassed when we legalize those marriages. Why shouldn't a muslim be allowed to have 10 wives, each applying for social assistance? Read mark steyn
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails
You are right to question this, but there are some pretty easy answers.
1) multiple spouses...
Marriage has several purposes and one of them is to find a way to guide natural sexual urges of humans into a relationship that promotes a stable society. Two-ness is very important in this regard. Having multiple partners creates jealousy and makes for unstable relationships and thereby an unstable society.
blannphinella 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails
#1 cont'd
It is good for a society for people to commit to each other. Two people is always most stable. Three or four people would be great theoretically for raising kids (more helping hands), BUT because of the profound emotional attachment that comes with sexual union, three or four people all married together will tend to produce an imbalance. When deeply intimate emotions are shared, you have potential for disaster. With only two people, there is no problem.
blannphinella 1 year ago
@blannphinella "It is good for a society for people to commit to each other."
Who says? There are some people out there who refuse to get married who are in 10 year long relationships. There are other people in open relationships. What christian bible are you pulling this dogma from that two people must get married? Where did that law form? from God?
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails
2) interspecies relationship...
This is silly. The public has no reason to support it legally. There is a public reason to support gay marriage. Until a society needs to harness the power of sexual attraction toward dogs, this will never become an issue.
Two-ness is very important. We all have natural sexual drives and need an outlet for these. The power of sex to create social bonds is strong. Society has a reason to guide these drives into a stable system.
blannphinella 1 year ago
@blannphinella "2) interspecies relationship...
This is silly. The public has no reason to support it legally."
Gay relationship.. this is silly, the public has no reason to support it legally.
Black race marrying completely different white race... this is silly the public has no reason to support it legally. Muslim marriage between three lesbian dykes with table cloths wrapped around their head.. Liberals cannot and will not draw the line. Anything goes.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SeeProfileForDetails We are all the same specie retard.... their is only one human race... how fucking stupid are you?? " Inter-species relationship??"... Get the fuck out of here.
gvsfgdf 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails Anything does go between consenting adults
Theprinceofponeage 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails
All of your comments are comical and deluded. I have nothing else to say.
blannphinella 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails
Lastly, two-ness reduces the problems of sexually transmitted diseases. STDs can still be problematic, yes, but two-ness is still better than three-ness or four-ness in this regard.
In a perfect world, perhaps 10 wives would work (minus the STDs). Or if humans were in danger of becoming extinct, it would probably be considered necessary.
blannphinella 1 year ago
@blannphinella "but two-ness is still better than three-ness or four-ness in this regard."
You are a bigot and speaking from a bible that says two are better than one. Mormons and muslims disagree with you. You are a racist bigot with a gay agenda who does not tolerate polygamy and only tolerates your particular gay ideology. A dog should be able to marry a woman since the don't transmit aids as easy when licking cunts with tongue, and a dog/woman is a twoness. Liberals CAN NOT draw the line
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails
Also, if there existed another species that regularly interacted with humans and became equal partners in a new inter-species society (this is theoretically possible, but clearly not the case), then perhaps sexual attraction toward this species may even arise. In this scenario, interspecies marriage would be a possibility for promoting a stable society.
But it seems like you haven't thought very much on any of this.
blannphinella 1 year ago
@blannphinella Gay people do not replicate. Dogh/human combo do not replicate.Therefore logically dogs and humans should also be allowed to marry, as it has nothing to do with replication, but rather sexual attraction. Some women allow their dogs to lick their cunts, via Peter Singer videos on youtube. Many Muslims prefer to marry 10 wives. Why can we not make 10 wives legal and only allow gays to marry? that is bigoted. Kids don't want it, though, so it doesn't matter.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails No. It's not just about sexual attraction. It's about informed consent and equality under the law. Dogs cannot have informed consent and probably can't ever have equality under the law. We could argue for polygamy and even incest, although those are separate issues and one would not necessarily have to support one or the other. Best is to make marriage a religious thing and civil union for everyone in legal situation (but the two criteria still apply).
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend 10 muslim wives can give consent, yet it's not legal. Forget dogs, stick to consentual marriage between 10 muslims or an orgy of 5 gay people. If marriage is a religious thing, like Ron Paul thinks, then what in the fuck does that mean for non religious gays? Even straight marriage is stupid anyway, so what are gays worried about? If a person loves you, there is no need for a paper certificate. Insecure people who cheat, need the certificate. They have no discipline.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails Marriage is useful for certain pragmatic purposes. Most marriages include some or complete mixture and interdependence of spousal properties. It's sensible to create guidelines/protections for the conditions of marriage dissolution and how such things impact the distribution of property afterwards.
Also, some places require a spousal relationship to be eligible for certain benefits. e.g. adoption, visitation, pension privileges, etc.
Sardonac 1 year ago
Comment removed
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@Sardonac Marriage is a tool for women to steal 50 percent of the money from a man, while she rarely earns a penny and spends lots behind the mans back while he is at work. She usually pays more than necessary for products since she has no idea how hard it was to actually earn the money. For her it's just flip out the credit card and buy it on someone else's expense. I congratulate any household where the woman has made 50 percent of the income.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails So you're just going to ignore my points then?
Sardonac 1 year ago
@Sardonac You reply to me with the most patronizing post about what marriage is. Do you think I'm stupid? I know what marriage is. Now tell me, why can't a muslim practice his marriage according to his religion, along with mormons? why is that illegal, and why do all the gay rights activists not stand up for mormons way of marriage too?
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails You've either ignored my points or you didn't understand them. If you ignored them then that's that; you're just not interested in engaging someone willing to contest a point of yours and are content to troll YouTube comments. If so, fine, it happens. If you didn't understand them then I'd think you're stupid. Right now I'm not sure which it is. I'll leave that up to you.
Sardonac 1 year ago
@Sardonac When I saw your post about marriage, I wondered why you were patronizing me telling me what marriage was. Do you think that I don't know what marriage is? Did I ask you what marriage was? If people want to share possessions, there is no need for marriage. One can write a will for death. Often times people forget to write wills and it should be done earlier. Why would any gay person want to get married when we know divorce in straight marriage is a hassle? what's the point?
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails "Even straight marriage is stupid anyway, so what are gays worried about? If a person loves you, there is no need for a paper certificate. Insecure people who cheat, need the certificate. They have no discipline."
I initially answered these remarks specifically. Now will you actually engage?
I didn't intend to patronize. It seemed like you genuinely didn't know the pragmatic purposes of marriage are. Now I know you actually don't know.
Sardonac 1 year ago
@Sardonac And how is that any different than being boyfriend and girlfriend and individually paying for your possessions splitting it up 50.50?
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails Hugely. I studied marriage law for a few months in 2009 and it's far more complex than "splitting it 50:50." The fact of the matter is that marriage is an extraordinarily complex bond that is incredibly complicated to disentangle. That's why there are legal guidelines and prenuptial agreements.
Sardonac 1 year ago
@Sardonac /watch?v=I4jWXaTxW5s
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails The guy is ignorant of historical precedent and off-topic. I stated objections to the claim that gays shouldn't be concerned with a right to marry and your objection is this? You've now decided for me that you are, in fact, stupid.
Any further responses will be deleted without being read. Good luck in life.
Sardonac 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails You are even dumber than I thought. You talk about the "mormons" way of marriage. Do you mean polygamy? Because the Mormon church denounced polygamy in the late 1800's. That proves you don't know what you are talking about.
AidenIsLove 1 year ago
@AidenIsLove There are many mormons who still practice polygamy, it's different flavors of the freligion, check out the news on google, you'll see cases where mormons have brought up the gay marriage rights as a defense for their view on marriage.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails Should infertile people be allowed to marry? The goal of marriage is not soley to create children, it is whatever the participants choose it to be. Consenting adults can marry, I have no right to stop bill and bob from loving each other, and neither does anyone else.
Theprinceofponeage 1 year ago
@Theprinceofponeage You are misunderstanding my devil's advocate position on marriage. I'm asking about muslims marrying 10 wives, why should that not be allowed in a free country? A country is not free unless it supports both gay people and muslims. How can you have a country that is free to practice religion, if you can't even practice your flavor of mormonism or islam?
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
Before,the bigots said the sancitity of marriage was between a man and woman. Now, its for economic reasons.
F off you religious, numb minded bigots.
nett103 1 year ago
@nett103 should a muslim be allowed to have 10 wives? anything goes in liberalism. Why shouldn't a dog be able to marry another dog? why shouldn't dog be allowed to marry a woman if he licks the woman's cunt? some pets truly love their owners and the owner is single and into beastality. It's an equal right. If the dog voluntarily licks the woman's cunt, and is not forced, why shouldn't they be allowed to get married? the dog could apply for welfare and get dog food. Liberalism: anything goes.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails You are completely nonsensical as are your thoughts on this matter. The message you have sent is beyond irrational and beyond reason.
nett103 1 year ago
@nett103 Actually my thoughts are spot on, and others agree with me. There is even a person who is promoting beastality in the liberal community, his name is peter singer, and he thinks it is acceptable if dogs lick womans cunts. Now, that may be acceptable, and since anything goes in liberalism, who says dogs shouldnt' be allowed to get married to women and their cunts? Why are you discriminating against muslims who want 10 wives? who says children would not be happy with 10 sluts ?
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails Just because there are people as simple minded as yourself and may agree with you doesn’t mean your correct. Furthermore, when did I state that I endorse polygamy?
You are displaying yourself as a presumptuous idiotic individual. Well done.
nett103 1 year ago
@nett103 So you are discriminating against a culture because they think polygamy is acceptable, but when it comes to gays you aren't discriminating against that culture because you are a cultural racist/bigot, is that right? So polygamy is bad, but gayness is okay? Do you have any fucking clue how much you just pwned yourself since as a cultural relativist you have just committed logical suicide?
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails As I see you are arguing with several people over this video, I can only think that your intention is to spark arguments with anyone who willing to reply to you. I will not concede to this any longer.
nett103 1 year ago
@nett103 Obviously I'm arguing with several people, like how Sam Harris or Hitchens would argue with several of his fellow atheist liberals about issues. You think that liberals all agree on issues and that there is no argument and debate within liberalism and atheism? Are you really that stupid?
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails
nett103 wasn't even talking about mutual liberal/atheist agreement, actually. He/she was accusing you of arguing purely for the sake of drawing attention to yourself, based on the fact that you have multiple argumentative comment threads going.
Also, I'm seeing at least three instances on this page where you accuse liberals of being in favor of interspecies marriage. Could you enlighten me as to which liberals you are citing and from what sources?
spaceawesome22 1 year ago
@spaceawesome22 Peter Singer is in favor of bestality being accepted in society, because when a dog licks the cunt of a woman, she's not forcing the dog. Now, if these two animals, dogs and humans, are having oral sex, why shoudn't they be allowed to get married?
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
Ever hear of "tyranny of the majority"? - Asshole.
AmsterdamHeavy 1 year ago
Just a comment; it seems like rather many of the youtube clips from ForaTV feature right-wing pundits, or do I just have a mistaken impression? What is Fora's agenda - if any? Does anyone know?
HexapodAvenger 1 year ago
I "like" the fact that you supplied this video excerpt. I "dislike" the puerile stupidity expressed in it. I'm baffled and frankly frightened that we live in an age when someone this kooky could run for president and get more than an handful of votes.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@Timothyk11 Most people are much better at talking about logic than applying it. There is no comparison of the case for Jesus and the case for George Washington. To say, "We weren't around for either," is neither clever or relevant. It does not require faith to accept that George Washington existed and that he was almost certainly the first president. Much more question about whether Jesus existed and VASTLY more question about whether the claims made about him are true.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
i have an idea. the state doesn't regulate marriage at all. make it a religious institution. which it is. get married in whatever church, temple or bonfire you want and let the state regulate things like air pollution, interest rates and retarded military expenditures.
STINKOPOOP 1 year ago
@STINKOPOOP sir or madam, marriage isn't a religious rite, IT'S A CIVIL RIGHT.
no marriage in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is valid if it's simply preformed by a religious person. IN ORDER FOR A MARRIAGE TO BE LEGAN IN THIS COUNTRY, it must be 1st LICENSED BY THE STATE, then REGISTERED in the village, town, or city in which it was performed, IT'S THE LAW!
IF THIS ISN'T DONE, THERE IS NO MARRIAGE, no matter who performs it. please try to keep THE LAW in mind next time you comment on youtube!
wntoply6 1 year ago
The funny thing is the last comment-since the decision is to take dma of the plate, which after all gives more time/resources to concentrate on those other issues.
felixthehuman 1 year ago
At one time, all the states of the union thought slavery was okay. It wasn't, no matter how many people voted for it. Just because the majority of people are homophobic and controlling doesn't mean gay people should not be allowed to marry.
Theprinceofponeage 1 year ago 23
@Theprinceofponeage I gotta say this: I do support love regardless of the couple's gender.... however I take exception to your "majority of people are homophobic" comment... It personally makes me ill to see 2 guys kissing in public... so maybe if the flaming loins were kept at home, the general public wouldn't feel forced to accept the behavior. Just a thought.
weebles777 1 year ago
@weebles777 it personally makes me ill to see a man & woman kissing in public, so they too shouldn't be allowed to marry
you're statement, regardless of what you think is ignorant, bigoted & hateful
this is the united states of america? preventing people from expressing their love for each other in public is as abhorrent as any biased statement ever made regardless of gender. this country is free & your type bigotry cannot be tolerated!
YOU DON'T LIKE IT? YOU'RE NOT COMPELLED TO LOOK AT IT!
wntoply6 1 year ago
@wntoply6 if you are going to allow gays to get married you might as well allow islam muslims to have 10 wives and mormons too, along with 3 women to get married. You cannot draw the line anywhere as a libtard.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails then,if you're gonna allow straights to get divorced, since the only objection you have is biblical (that's all you have), then you must kill your brother for working on sunday, for planting different crops next to each other, for disobedient children or a disobedient wife & for wearing clothing of different fabrics!
get off your ignorant high horse, or begin killing everyone you know, you god damned ignorant "christian"republican ass, you're ignorance makes me sick!
wntoply6 1 year ago
@wntoply6 No, my objection is not biblical. I'm one of those rare atheists who doesn't think like most libtards. I'm guessing if you did a democratic survey, a majority of children would prefer a traditional parenting. Go ahead, do a survey in the USA or Canada, have millions of kids take a vote on this issue. I'll bet 70-90 percent of kids vote they want a mother and a father and would not like three men, or 10 muslim wives in their house, or two fathers in their house.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails excuse me but the rights of the minority do not rely on the ignorance of the majority. that argument's confirmed by the supreme court of the united states ad nauseam. it's a basic tenet & guarantee thereof.
tell me exactly what is it that prevents you understanding the constitution & it's guarantees. why do you continue to show your utter ignorance, why?
prior to the 60s, millions would have voted for blacks slavery. are you stupidly suggesting slavery be voted on too?
wntoply6 1 year ago
@wntoply6 That's a straw man argument. If we do not allow gays to get married, what's the worst that could happen? If we do not allow muslims to marry 10 wives, what's the worst that could happen? politicians and people should be concerned about issues that are far more important. If you are going to allow gays to get married, you must also extend your hand out and allow muslims to marry 10 wives, because their culture thinks polygamy is fine. If you do not allow polygamy, you are a bigot.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails what is a straw man argument? and who the hell are you to allow anything? it's equal rights that are guaranteed by the constitution that have meaning. NOT YOU!
sir you are so ignorant of the provisions of the constitution it's a waste of time to try to educate you this late in your miserable life.
thankfully gay marriage will be decided based on equality guaranteed by the constitution of the united states of america, not by the ignorance of idiots like you.
wntoply6 1 year ago
@wntoply6 Equal rights, includes allowing FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Muslims want to marry 10 wives. It is their religion. They are free to do so. Right? Muslims want to kill gay people.They are free to do so, right? because in a truly free country, all religions are accepted, right? Now do me a favor and look up "toleration paradox".Tolerating the intolerant. You are being INTOLERANT toward muslims polygamy, but you are a bigot and allowing another culture, the gay culture, to live in your country.
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails.
what you're arguing is the denial of the right of certain people to marry, a right enjoyed by all, not a fantasy right to marry multiples, that NO ONE in this country enjoys.
you're a bigot, that's obvious, however its your ignorance that's the underlying evil.
the best advice is, if you don't want to marry one of the same gender...don't, but who the hell are YOU do deny others from exercising that constitutional right?
you don't like it simply change the constitution!
wntoply6 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails what's the worst that cold happen? if you begin to deny rights to americans of a certain ilk, what's to say the educated, won't want to deny rights to those, like you, who've no idea what the u.s. constitution provides for?
what's to say they won't demand a provision to castrate those like you cause your comprehension is limited, thus preventing you from procreating your ignorance?
your ignorance is so outrageously shocking it's something you really need to be ashamed of!
wntoply6 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails i'm at a total loss to understand your ignorance of our constitutional guarantees & rights!
do you think you can simply make up laws & disregard the constitution? do you have an understanding of how our government works. if you do, you've not demonstrated it here. in fact, that you're totally ignorant of how our federal government works should make you utterly ashamed of yourself.
if you're not ashamed, i'm ashamed of this country for not educating a stupid ass like you!
wntoply6 1 year ago
@weebles777 I don't like it when ugly people show any kind of affection in public, but I grit my teeth and deal with it. No one has any right to stop consenting adults from marrying, especially not because they find it aesthetically displeasing.
Theprinceofponeage 1 year ago
@Timothyk11
How do you know that George Washington was our first president? I mean after all, you were not there.
iammick66 1 year ago
@iammick66
"How do you know that George Washington was our first president? I mean after all, you were not there." Either you're being sarcastic or incredibly dimwitted. Either way, you made me laugh.
wimscheers 1 year ago
"Fora Tv, the World is thinking"
Mike Huckabee
Unsubscribed.
groundsman 1 year ago 2
@Timothyk11 lust over logic? right because you are the logical one who does not need any evidence to back up your believe, you just have to believe because you're scared of what your "loving" god will do if you dont believe in him. you claimed i made a statement of faith, no i made a statement about the evidence. if there WAS a census across the whole roman empire why is there no evidence for it at all?
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@Timothyk11 actually its called looking for EVIDENCE of which there is NONE. if there really was a census across the whole of the roman empire then WHY did no-one mention it at the time? why is there no physical evidence of it either? there would have had to be THOUSANDS of scribes working day and night and yet there is nothing? also why is it that there are no mass graves or anyone writing about herods baby killing at the time?
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
Its sodomy now bestiality soon...
fmflores2000 1 year ago
@fmflores2000
Bestiality already legal in 20 states and the other states have unconstitutional laws against bestiality any smart lawyer can get rid of them.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 1 year ago
@Timothyk11 oh pascals wager yet again it gets regurgitated by another fundie. worship a god just because you're scared that if you're wrong he'll punish you. my what a loving god you have indeed. the problem with this, is that there are THOUSANDS of gods that humanity has invented and funny thing is they're all petty and jealous. another funny thing is that there is no more evidence for one than the other.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@Timothyk11 oh and by the way, when you consider the fact that no-one seemed to notice jesus when he was alive and the only references we get to him years after his death in the gospels who were not even written by people who were there, im pretty sure you're worshipping the wrong god. oh and by the way, you know how it claims there was a roman census across the whole empire and herod went around baby killing? none of those things happened either.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
This is the civil rights issue of our age and as Martin Luther King said "an injustice anywhere is an injustice anywhere".
idicula1979 1 year ago
@Timothyk11 that really is so hilarious though, the evidence does have to be pretty shitty to support your position for you to make mystical threats of an afterlife you have no evidence for. you know your ignorant rantings make you look no different to an indian doing a rain dance or if a muslim told you that if you didnt believe in his god and prophet you would burn forever. you're just blindly accepting what other humans told you apparently out of fear. what a petty, nasty god you have.
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
@Timothyk11 LOL and you know this because? oh wait a HUMAN told you. considering the fact that out of the thousands of gods humanity has invented yours is just as unlikely as the last, statistically speaking if there is a god then you will be joining me down there. wherever that petty little jealous creature decides to throw us
forever is a long time. tell me how do you intend to spend it? ever notice how they're sketchy on the details? what do you plan to do for the first billion days?
AussiePolitics 1 year ago
The Voters do not decide who the f*&k I can or cannot marrie, that is for me to decide. Stupid argument from this retard
cookeladoo 1 year ago
His whole argument revolves around the infallibility of majority opinion. Well throughout history, various majorities have supported slavery, torture, persecution, and genocide. This is a notoriously weak argument. Kind of surprising to see a mainstream politician invoke it.
wcuppett 1 year ago
Huckabee you moron.... "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." ~Thomas Jefferson
AndrzejWLipski 1 year ago 2
the mindless masses have no say whatsoever on who people decide to associate with voluntarily
ferrozm 1 year ago
@Timothyk11 by the way, i wouldnt really have a problem is he was just a christian who believed god started the world like most people do, what i have a problem with is his ignorance and medieval belief in creationism. noah's ark? seriously? the fact that any grown man would believe that is laughable
AussiePolitics 1 year ago