Huckabee says God Created Marriage

wow and here I thought Marriage was created by the kIngs of Men to exchange women and land in name of peace meetings or cash.
wow thanks for the history lesson Bee
I'll be sure the heathens hear of this

like I always say
keep your god out my politics
I'll keep my taxes off your god.

The intrusion of government into almost every area of our lives has become practically a cliche... From birth to marriage and death we need a license or certificate - read "permission" - for almost everything we do.

The wisest solution to this debate that I've heard is to take marriage out of the government's hands completely.

We've become so indoctrinated in government regulations and laws that freedom feels like a foreign and frightening concept. It's not. It's our heritage...

I do agree with Governor Huckabee 100%.

As the family goes so the nation.

The right of children to a father and a mother far exceed the right of homosexuals.

Banning the word bride and groom to Party A and Party B, from marriage certificates shows the truly inhuman character of a state that alienate itself from what is in the deepest heart of people.
A country run by the ACLU, "unplanned motherhood" and gays activists will not survive.

It is just outrageous that such simplistic and overtly illogical arguments are actually used by supposedly intelligent people in this world. How can you compare a man-made work of art to an abstract concept such as marriage? It is idiotic!

His argument is very logical.

Marriage teaches us how to love:
1) Children learn to love their parents
2) Brothers and sisters learn to love each other
3) Husband and wife too
4) Finally, parents learn to love their children.

The family is the school of love, the 4 realms of heart.
Parental, fraternal, conjugal etc.

God is the designer. His creation is a work of art

Huckabee is an ignorant, unrealistic a**hole.

Huckabee's right, whether phgz like it or not, and of cursed they don't.

Is he aware of...history? Prehistory? The fact that it goes way past 10,000 years?

Marriage has always been a social institution, as well as a tool of politics (the church indeed fell into both of these categories in the past - still does to an extent).
Marriage isn't a Christian institution. Societies throughout history practiced marriage. The majority did not worship a single creator, but a pantheon. They definitely weren't of the Judeo-Christian persuasion.
May as well say Hera created marriage, or Frigga, or Hathor.

Why is knowledge frowned upon - worse, twisted or ignored when it seemingly goes against one's adopted belief system?
Personally, I don't think someone with views like this should be ruling a modern secular society - at least not someone willing to inject their exclusive religious beliefs into a supposedly secular government.
See: the 1st amendment.

heh... and here's humdrum...*sigh* that's what you'd like to keep maintaining ostensibly as though somehow the polemic, waxing sagaciously, Superiusly scholarly, and yet...heh...this is *WESTERN* civilization, which has a far different, largely, largely, predominantly Judeo-Christian world-view and has for so very very much of it's short brief (comparative) history. And it's only been in the recent past that homosexuals specifically, singularly, have deliberately targeted and challenged that as status quo for the honest majority of Americans, hoping to sculpt if by slow degrees, the popular view, if you will.

Yet, taking your pretentious view, should we now accept what was a common form of marriage in polygamy, simply because it was in your inalienable "time-honoring" historical past if just to deny any Judeo-Christian origin? Well, it is in the "historical" past, isn't it! ...where you'd like to live, I guess, although I'd imagine those of your "persusasion" would probably have had a much much harder time of it, though you'd easily rail against "Christianity" and "Christians" today who are probably much more tolerant in the larger scheme of things.

Oh well... it's probably good to remember that the U.S. was also formed to avoid religious persecution. And that's an indisputable fact. And probably most I'd venture, were Christian, or Protestant or what-have-you... Disagree though I'm sure you want to for prejudice to your own "parochial" view to history as you'd like to "befittingly" see it. Others may not be so fooled.

I find it funny that IM the republican conservative and i find this stance stupid from HUck
Marriage has nothing to governments
they can't say who you can marry

and the stand of god and politics
I believe if the religious people want to put they're two cents in how government should be ran they should do it like everyone els does
Pay their taxes and vote.

they sure like to vote but not pay the taxes.
so therefore why should i listen to them

if you dont pay taxes you shouldn't be allowed to vote

It's amazing people like him get into power. Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave.

echoz

"and what's your point? change for the sake of change? because a minority wants to impose on the majority???"

Have you even been listening?
a) Change for the sake of equal civil rights. Stranger things have happened.
b) Tell me how the f*ck gaining equal marriage rights "imposes on the majority." Go ahead. I'll wait.

"Many gays who want their own party, are indeed persecuting religious views in literally any forum they find it expressed...and at that particularly Christian views are singled out. "

Tell me how Christians have been "persecuted." Disagreeing with their stance on an issue (or many) isn't persecution.
Cry me a river.

"as for the "best way" to avoid religious persecution, you're no surely authority on the subject, yourself recognizing that an adult "secular" video store has more right and respect than any synagogue or temple..."

Is that all you've got? "You're wrong, na-na-na."
I was merely referring to the constitution of the United States, a document that many people of your type just love to cut apart, keeping the bits they agree with and sh*tting on the rest. Same thing you do with the doctrine of Jesus.
Disgusting.
Also, tell me where exactly I said that churches shouldn't have any rights. The only thing I've ever said is that they have no right to force their views into government. Marriage in terms of law is a LEGAL matter, not a religious one. Stop confusing things.

"it's in the phukn constitution asshole, it's called democracy where people have a right to express their views and beliefs to their representatives however they g'dam choose, and whether you like it or not!!!!"

Last time I checked, one of the many things the constitution did was protect minorities. If you honestly believe that the majority should be allowed to trample the rights of the minority at their leisure, for no other reason than their personal opinion on a matter that has absolutely nothing to do with them, then I think it is you who are the "asshole."
The Law of the Jungle (might = right) is still alive and well, it seems.
Try evolving.

"Truthfully, most gays aren't even interested in marriage! "

You are a fool to think you know the minds of millions of people. What's more, you have no point, and no way to prove your laughably prejudiced allegation.
Do you assume you know everything there is to know about black people because you've seen a few rap videos?

"pure avoidance"

I'm not avoiding anything. It is you who are too dense to grasp what I was trying to say.

I'll put it simply:

Religion is religion, no matter what religion it is, or what culture spawned it.
When it comes to legal rights for individuals, religion has no say in whether or not that individual gets those rights.
It says so in the 1st amendment - separation of church and state - which you have repeatedly avoided addressing, for some odd reason.
Same-sex marriage/ civil union does not trample on anyone's rights. If you feel it does, explain why.

Just so we're clear here, we are talking about a LEGAL matter.
We are not talking about forcing a Christian church to marry same-sex couples.
It is not the government's job to enforce religious doctrine.
Again - 1st amendment.

PS -
The last paragraph of your rant just shows what an ignorant, bigoted sphincter you are.
Thank you.
Don't bother replying unless you have something intelligent to say, or some points to debate.
I realize this could take a few years, if not decades.

what an idiot... your argument was based on the history of marriage not being a Xstian "institution" you tergiversating pedantic fq

However, in Western civilization, where we still print on our coinage "In God We Trust" how can you deny the obviously and predomonantly Xstian influence, even in government as with marriage particularly where it's defined as between one man and a woman? It's quite freakn undeniably biblical. hence...your typical and expected avoidance and denial, you phukn demagogue.

And yet once again, your misleading references to the 1st Amendment like you're any fuckn authority... Xstians HAVE A VOICE and a CHOICE in their government as much as faggots like you hope to. Religion doesn't exclude anyone from participating asshole! It's called "democracy"..."look it up." We can respectfully or disrespectfully disagree numbnuts, but we ALL have a place...and maybe yours should be in that freakshow called California despite the fact you have no tangibly real stake in marriage at all even to begin with aside from some philosophical bs in your hollow head. but maybe in Cali you can finally feel really free and really good about your homosexuality like it's the best thing that could ever be about you (how sad).

But the rest of America needn't be required to celebrate your gay "pride" any more than fags are required to be a Xstians or celebrate heterosexuality or to go to church...god forbid anything could be more important than your "lifestyle" or your own preference for mere sex. but get back to your fisting...i'm SO sorry I to have inconvenienced you

Apparently I was right in assuming you wouldn't have anything intelligent to say.
How is it that I am misrepresenting the first amendment?
How is it that you should have a say in my civil rights, when it doesn't concern you in the least?
Allowing everyone to have equal rights in the legal arena is not "celebrating homosexuality."
It's called "minding your own #$%^ing business."

Never mind; you obviously don't want to answer these questions, because I've already asked them, and you've already ignored them.

As always, you either ignore or do not grasp what I am saying. You are definitely avoiding my points, and resorting to baseless, childish insults to back up your opinion.
You are a waste.

Tip:

"In God We Trust" wasn't put onto US currency until the Civil War, coinciding with increased religious sentiment (civil wars will do that).

It wasn't put onto paper money until the mid-late 1950s, along with "Under God" in the pledge.
This period of time is marked by overt racism, religious discrimination, political oppression, and blatant fear of "godless communism."

In 1956, the national motto was changed from "From Many, One" to "In God [/government] We Trust."

It is very far from being "American," as the founding fathers saw it.

Get informed before you mouth off, you ignorant child.

this is why God should be arrested lol