Huckabee equates homosexuality with bestiality.
By on Jan 17th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Huckabee equates homosexuality with bestiality.
TPM’s Greg Sargent notes that in a recent interview with Beliefnet, Mike Huckabee equated homosexuality with bestiality. Asked whether he wanted to bring the Constitution into conformity with the Bible, the former Arkansas Governor answered this way:
Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal.
Americablog has more.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Did changing the “definition of marriage” to permit people of different ethnicities to marry lead to any of this? Will we ever escape Jim Crow or some variant therein? Huckabee is an affront to reason.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:27 pmMike the Huck shit-cans himself yet again as a possible candidate, causing all but lunatic fringers to conclude, “Who in hell wants this in the WH?”
Keep on talking, Huck. GO, Huck, GO…
January 17th, 2008 at 2:32 pmRick? Rick Santorum? Is that you, Rick?
January 17th, 2008 at 2:33 pmPLC, beat me to it dammit.~!~
January 17th, 2008 at 2:34 pmHere in the fine state of Washington, we had a guy killed while trying to hump a horse.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:35 pmLightning would have been more appropriate, but I doubt Huck’s god hand a hand in this fellow’s demise.
He left out the child/animal combo!
January 17th, 2008 at 2:36 pmHuckabee:
“Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal.”
Hmmmmm. A sly jab at someone there?!?!?
Cheers,
January 17th, 2008 at 2:36 pmHow about Man-on-Dog Santorum for Vice Huckabee?
January 17th, 2008 at 2:36 pmI’m beginning to think this guy is a “parody candidate” because nobody could legitimately pull of loonier than W, could they?
January 17th, 2008 at 2:36 pmHe is an expert on the subject of both. He is particularly keen on the interaction of the two species. He is the first candidate to openly come out as an expert on perversion. He has to win for all mankind on dog.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:37 pm“…a man and animal.”
What, they have a problem with Platonic marriages? Hell, the Republicans should be VERY familiar with Platonic marriages, right Sen. Craig?
January 17th, 2008 at 2:37 pmLightning would have been more appropriate, but I doubt Huck’s god hand a hand in this fellow’s demise.
Comment by RUCerious — January 17, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
Sounds like a Darwin Award candidate.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:37 pmHere in the fine state of Washington, we had a guy killed while trying to hump a horse.
Lightning would have been more appropriate, but I doubt Huck’s god hand a hand in this fellow’s demise.
Comment by RUCerious — January 17, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
Horse – 1, Evangelicon – O
January 17th, 2008 at 2:37 pmComment by RUCerious — January 17, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
not to be picky, but I do believe the horse was humping him.
Either way, I understand your point regarding sex outside of marriage.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:37 pmRUC, was that a couple years ago?
January 17th, 2008 at 2:38 pmAnd if so, wasn’t he the hump-ee?
And didn’t his good friend video tape it and multiple other acts of bestiality?
And that story still makes me laugh. Died from a ruptured sphincter.
and this is not facism?
January 17th, 2008 at 2:38 pmI wonder if his son molested that dog before he hung him.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:39 pmit’s just safer to assume that republicans really want to have interspecies sex. They’re the only ones who talk about it.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:39 pmMaybe that’s because when HUCK does it, he prefers it BEASTIE STYLE? ;)
Comment by republicans hate facts — January 17, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
Have you seen his wife? I’m just saying …
January 17th, 2008 at 2:41 pmI equate huckabee with gringoality.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:41 pmHave you seen his wife? I’m just saying …
Comment by Shayne
That’s a little bit of a low blow.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:42 pmCorrection:
horse – 2, retardicon – 0
January 17th, 2008 at 2:42 pmStewart and Colbert don’t need their writers with this lot. The jokes write themselves!
January 17th, 2008 at 2:42 pmThat’s a little bit of a low blow.
Comment by Wilco — January 17, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
Well I’m a woman so I can get away with it, just don’t you try it. /sarc
January 17th, 2008 at 2:42 pmIf you go just below the surface of what some of the Christian Pharisees say about us liberals, they consider us all Satan’s (”the beast”) children. So, they probably equate sex with a liberal as bestiality, too.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:43 pmHey, you don’t have the market cornered, RUCerious @ 5. Down here in CA we had a guy out in front of La Purisima mission near Lompoc who was…well just take a read:
Lompoc, FROM SANTA MARIA TIMES
Man arrested acting on sheep ‘fantasy’
Santa Barbara County sheriff’s deputies found a bizarre scene Wednesday morning when they stopped outside the La Purisima Mission to investigate an empty car.
Thinking they would find a suspect trespassing on state park property, deputies discovered 69-year-old Alfred Thomas Steven of Huntington Beach naked and coated in olive oil and oats in the sheep enclosure.
When deputies confronted Steven, they found that he had a loaded .357 revolver, officials said. Steven also allegedly admitted that he was enacting a fantasy and he drove up to the mission, at 2295 Purisima Road, from Huntington Beach for that purpose.
Steven was arrested on misdemeanor charges of trespassing on state park property, animal cruelty, sexually assaulting an animal, and possession of a loaded firearm, deputies said.
Park rangers were called to help with the investigation, and Steven was eventually released with a citation, officials said.
No animals were hurt in the incident, according to deputies.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:43 pmShayne, see what you started?
January 17th, 2008 at 2:43 pmWell it DOES explain why he spends SO MUCH OF HIS TIME THINKING ABOUT GAY SEX!! ;)
Comment by republicans hate facts — January 17, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
Apparently we’re not supposed to talk about his wife. Probably because the rethugs were so charitable to Hillary and Chelsea when Bill was president.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:44 pmNo, you are denying God’s will. There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. There is no in between, no compromise and no discussion to the issue. If it is God’s will to clamp down on these deviant sexual practices, then should we not execute all of those who have proclaimed themselves to be for family values while fornicating with wild abandon, seeking child brides, passing hands under the toilet stall, seeking relations with young men and boys, committing adultry, having sex outside of marriage, fathering or having children out of wedlock and other assorted sins. Hey, this gets rid of most of the Republican leadership. Next, let’s go after those who refuse to obey God’s instructions on supporting the poor and providing for the welfare of all of our brethern.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:45 pmIf you go just below the surface of what some of the Christian Pharisees say about us liberals, they consider us all Satan’s (â€the beastâ€) children. So, they probably equate sex with a liberal as bestiality, too.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian — January 17, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
Oh great, now they’re going to want to have sex with US, gross.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:46 pmShayne, that’s exactly why. The best way to show you’re better than the “rethugs” is to act better than them.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:46 pmTalking about the appearance of a candidate’s wife is beyond the pale. It should absolutely be out of bounds.
Shayne, see what you started?
Comment by Wilco — January 17, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
And oddly, I’m not really feeling all that guilty. Sorry.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:46 pmHave you seen his wife? I’m just saying …
Comment by Shayne
I actually like the fact that his wife looks like a normal, average, middle aged woman. The other Republicans’ wives all look like country club Stepford wives.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:46 pmComment by And Yet… — January 17, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
But he used olive oil, it’s not like he had lanolin rubbed all over him. That would be sick.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:48 pmNo animals were hurt in the incident, according to deputies.
Comment by And Yet… — January 17, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
One question, how does a naked guy pack a 357!!?
January 17th, 2008 at 2:49 pmHuckleberry’s painting himself into a very tight, dark corner here which will further reduce his overall electability. He’s also showing his lack of comprehension of biblical teachings which espouse The Golden Rule above all else: Love thy neighbor as thyself which translates into “total tolerance” of the lifestyles of others. He’s a pretty textbook “christo-hypocrite” – most radical christofascists are!
January 17th, 2008 at 2:49 pmShayne, that came out wrong. It seemed like I was agreeing that the reps were indeed nice about Hillary and Chelsea. I was agreeing with your statement soaked in sarcasm.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:50 pmNext, let’s go after those who refuse to obey God’s instructions on supporting the poor and providing for the welfare of all of our brethern.
Comment by JMOHR — January 17, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Amen brother.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:50 pmHUCKABEE/DARYLL/DOG OR CAT 08!
January 17th, 2008 at 2:50 pmHey, the 8 dems and the teachers union in NV that sued to “stop” the process to make it easier for their competitors in the same party lost. EVERYONE can caucus a little easier now.
Just like a Dem to sue another Dem to try and get an advantage.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:51 pmLOL
We knew Huckabuck’s cristo-hypocrisy was the “real deal” when he lied about the bookcase/cross behind him. This guy’s stooping to the level of “parlor tricks” to gain some steam. Only a fool woudn’t realize that he’s a sick, twisted, radical, bigoted fraud.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pmWell actually we allow people under 18 (child by definition) to marry.
And yes, when/if animals are considered consenting adults, granted citizenship, pay taxes and are guaranteed rights under the US constitution, I suppose they should be allowed to marry as well.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pmShayne, that’s exactly why. The best way to show you’re better than the “rethugs†is to act better than them.
Talking about the appearance of a candidate’s wife is beyond the pale. It should absolutely be out of bounds.
Comment by Wilco — January 17, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
You can’t win bringing a knife to a gun fight. And if he can’t stand the heat, well now would be the time for him to get out of the kitchen.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pmBesides the party regulars don’t want Huckabee, I’m sure Rove and his buddies are going to come up with much worse than this.
ROFLMAO, Shayne @ 38.
It’s CA, hey, so more organic-friendly, too.
The guy turns out to be a Repuke, I win several bets.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pmComment by View from the Shire
Did you hear Hillary’s defense of the suit, filed by her supporters?
January 17th, 2008 at 2:53 pmShe said they didn’t want people to caucus in the workplace unless everyone could caucus in their workplace, all across the state.
It’s hardly the first time Huckabee has voiced this position. In his 1998 book, Kids Who Kill: Confronting Our Culture of Violence, Huckabee declared:
“Despite all our prosperity, pomp, and power, the vaunted American experiment in liberty seems to be disintegrating before our very eyes.”
“Abortion, environmentalism, AIDS, pornography, drug abuse, and homosexual activism have fragmented and polarized our communities.”
“It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations – from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.”
For more on Mike Huckabee’s incendiary blend of zealotry and politics, see:
January 17th, 2008 at 2:53 pm“10 More Moments in Mike Huckabee’s Extremism.”
I actually like the fact that his wife looks like a normal, average, middle aged woman. The other Republicans’ wives all look like country club Stepford wives.
Comment by Frosty Cupcake — January 17, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
I look like an average middle age woman myself. And MY husband would be running for president over my dead body. You pay your money, you take your chances.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:53 pmBible-thumpin’ Huckster knows all about the aberrant forms of sexual deviancy, that’s what this story tells us all. Of course, we all know that beastiality and incest are plastered throughout the Old Testament so I guess this former preacher is pretty well “versed” in it all. Huckster’s got a case of “you spot it/you got it (or are doing it)”.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:54 pmOne question, how does a naked guy pack a 357!!?
Comment by RUCerious — January 17, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
V E R Y carefully.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:54 pmi equate huckabee with whitetrashiality
January 17th, 2008 at 2:55 pm#54. That’s right. From the spate of Repuke hypocrites getting their day in the sunshine, it would appear that their hypocritical repression of their deviant ways is catching up with all of them. Huckster’s just another Repuke case of “he who doth protest too much” – along the lines of Fatass Hastert, Big Boner Boehner and the rest of the pedophile perverts the Repukes have representing them.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:56 pmShayne, it must have been like:
One false move and the ewe gets it!
January 17th, 2008 at 2:56 pmHey, Rep hate facts,
January 17th, 2008 at 2:57 pmSound like you have enough hate for everyone inside you. It takes an uneducated and feeble intelligence to have such an excellent comeback as the filth that spews forth from your mind. LOL. Your are a true example of the folks that live under the bridge here at TP. And u call us trols. TRULY FUNNY!!! LOL!!!
It’s becoming clear that Huckabee has no intellectual substance as well. What we definitely DO NOT need is another buffoon in the white house! And Huckabee appears to not even have room temperature IQ.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:58 pmRUCerious @ 39- from a friend who lives in Lompoc, per the local Lompoc Record, he actually had the gun in his car.
It’s so beautiful up that way. Now this perv’s soiled it for me…
January 17th, 2008 at 2:59 pmHey RU – RU ever bad today! Pshaw! Love it! We need some levity at this hour of the day.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:59 pmOr is it: R Ewe ever bad!
January 17th, 2008 at 2:59 pmI actually like the fact that his wife looks like a normal, average, middle aged woman. The other Republicans’ wives all look like country club Stepford wives.
Comment by Frosty Cupcake — January 17, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
I just looked at her online. She is no uglier than Huckabee himself. However, could make a good case for supporting eugenics.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:59 pmAnd we have the nerve to condem radical islamo-fascists for preaching the same types of bigotry which Huckaberry spews every day of the week?? Nice double standard in this country, I’d say.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:00 pmAbortion, environmentalism, AIDS, pornography, drug abuse, and homosexual activism have fragmented and polarized our communities.â€
Comment by AngryOne — January 17, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
Environmentalism? Oh the horror.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:00 pmHuckster’s got a case of “you spot it/you got it (or are doing it)â€.
Comment by Veritas — January 17, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
In all fairness though, what else is there to do in the cultural mecca of Arkansas?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:02 pmVertitas ~ that was baaaaad//.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:02 pmHuck seems to have a lot of BESTIALITY EXPERIENCE! ;)
Comment by republicans hate facts
He grew up on a farm, and he obviously kept a box handy in the barn.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:04 pmWhen do he and Ricky crawl back in 16th century hole they crawled out of??
Move along..nothing to see here..just another wingnut flapping around in a mud hole…
January 17th, 2008 at 3:04 pmOne false move and the ewe gets it!
Comment by RUCerious — January 17, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
Probably but I’m sure he was oogling the rams not the ewes. The ewes would be almost wholesome for a rethug.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:05 pmHuck was actually compared and equated with radical islamo-fascists. WOW! Maybe next, he’ll charter a plane and fly it into Dem National Headquarters. “NOW THAT WOULD SOLIDIFY THE EQUASION!”
January 17th, 2008 at 3:05 pmI just looked at her online. She is no uglier than Huckabee himself. However, could make a good case for supporting eugenics.
Comment by dim wit — January 17, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
she wouldn’t look out of place starting at right tackle on the razorback’s offense line.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:05 pmTRULY FUNNY!!! LOL!!!
Comment by View from the Shire — January 17, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
Glad we could amuse you.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:06 pmWingnut here, to all MOONBATS, talk to ya later!
January 17th, 2008 at 3:06 pmAnd Huckabee appears to not even have room temperature IQ.
Comment by Veritas — January 17, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
And he didn’t have the benefit of legacy parents who could get him the best education money can buy.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:07 pmWhat a mental ward this place is. I weep for your children.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:08 pmMaybe next, he’ll charter a plane and fly it into Dem National Headquarters. “NOW THAT WOULD SOLIDIFY THE EQUASION!â€
Comment by View from the Shire
Ann Coulter, is that you?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:08 pmdim:
Yeah, they look like they “go together”. As for the eugenics thing? I don’t care so much about looks as I do anti-modernism, anti-progress, anti-enlightenment. *Those* things I’d like to see eradicated from Americans.
Shayne at 67:
You beat me to it. Yeah, environmentalism ranks right up there with drug abuse alright.
(Why no rolleyes emoticon here?! I could sooo use it.)
January 17th, 2008 at 3:08 pmWhat a mental ward this place is. I weep for your children.
Comment by View from the Shire — January 17, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
How ironic. I weep for yours!
January 17th, 2008 at 3:10 pmDear Jesus,
January 17th, 2008 at 3:10 pmPlease grant our leaders the wisdom to STFU! Amen.
You wouldn’t KNOW a MOONBAT any more than you could tell the difference between a COW, YOUR SISTER OR your LAST SEXUAL PARTNER!! ROTFL!!!
Comment by republicans hate facts — January 17, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
Last sexual partner was your MOM, just after your WIFE.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:10 pmNow that I’ve sunk to your pathetic level, I’ll lock your cell for you.
What a mental ward this place is. I weep for your children.
Comment by View from the Shire — January 17, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
Sen. Boner, is that you?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:11 pmPlease just ignore the trolls. Well, at least ignore the non interesting ones.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:12 pmrepublicans hate facts
We should caucus face to face? You up for it?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:12 pmMike “man and animal” Huckabee, meet Rick “man on dog” Santorum.
What is it with certain Republicans and bestiality? Why is it that when someone brings up a civil-rights issue impacting a sizable plurality of Americans (that just happens to revolve around sexual orientation), their minds turn to the practice of zoophilic sex? This kind of non-sequitur is psych ward material, to say the least.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:12 pmcwillis:
It’s an instant attention grabber. And it must work with their base or it wouldn’t be their “go to” line.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:13 pmDaryll? Why aren’t you piping up and defending your
January 17th, 2008 at 3:14 pmPresiMinisterAllechht?
I choose to back up my loose talk, how bout you? Bet you would rather choose to hide behind the pads in your cell and remain a ghost, never to show what you really are.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:15 pmWhat a mental ward this place is. I weep for your children.
Comment by View from the Shire — January 17, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
and how’s your litter?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:17 pmmore genetically diverse than the last one, i hope.
Huck was actually compared and equated with radical islamo-fascists. WOW! Maybe next, he’ll charter a plane and fly it into Dem National Headquarters. “NOW THAT WOULD SOLIDIFY THE EQUASION!â€
Comment by View from the Shire — January 17, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
FUNDAMENTALISTS = FUNDAMENTALISTS
It’s our fundie president that started a war based on lies that caused these deaths:
“The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war.
Oh but he’s holier than thou because HE’s only killed brown people, right?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:17 pmInstead, you’ll prob just have Judd block my IP and move on with your pathetic, hate filled, never really amount to anything life.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:17 pmrepublicans hate facts
We should caucus face to face? You up for it?
Comment by View from the Shire
Don’t do it. He has already called for an act of terroism against Americans. He might show up with a bunch of dynamite strapped to his waist.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:17 pmWhat a mental ward this place is. I weep for your children.
Comment by View from the Shire — January 17, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
That’s OK, our children weep over people like you.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:19 pmView, what name did you used to go by?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:20 pmI’m a trucker and travel coast to coast. My truck is my home unless I stay in a motel. I truly do see both coasts in a months time, so direct me to your ward, and I bring a nurse to the caucus.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:22 pmInstead, you’ll prob just have Judd block my IP and move on with your pathetic, hate filled, never really amount to anything life.
Comment by View from the Shire — January 17, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
Y A W N
January 17th, 2008 at 3:23 pmI truly do see both coasts in a months time, so direct me to your ward, and I bring a nurse to the caucus.
Comment by View from the Shire — January 17, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
you can just keep the blow-up nurse in the truck!
January 17th, 2008 at 3:23 pmHe might show up with a bunch of dynamite strapped to his waist.
Comment by shoeless — January 17, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
Hell no, he’s expect some poor kid to do that for him too. Just like he expects them to fight the war he loves. Right, View? You don’t want to get your hands dirty do you?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:24 pmHmmm, plan on meeting View in a Texas boxing ring ~ “it” will never show but attempt to make us believe it was you who didn’t show!
January 17th, 2008 at 3:25 pmHow is it that new trolls know more about the admins and banning around this place than I do? What ever could that mean?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:25 pmI realize I’m late to this party, so if somebody else posted this, I apologize.
Huckabee really needs to find some fresh new arguments to bolster his somewhat bizarre beliefs, because these retreads are getting tiresome.
We have heard the argument that if you permit two people of the same sex to marry, soon people will be permitted to marry animals. This argument was used time and time again in this country to justify the prohibition of interracial marriage — up until 1967 when the Supreme Court finally declared any ban on interracial marriage to be unconstitutional. That was over 40 years ago, interracial marriages don’t even attract any attention anymore, and marriages between people and animals are still unrecognized.
Just add this to the growing pile of Huckabee lunacy.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:25 pmI’m a trucker and travel coast to coast. My truck is my home unless I stay in a motel. I truly do see both coasts in a months time, so direct me to your ward, and I bring a nurse to the caucus.
Comment by View from the Shire — January 17, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
This one’s not even trailer trash, he’s semi trash. Impressive.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:25 pmView, what name did you used to go by?
Comment by Wilco — January 17, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
Haven’t gone by any. The Judd reference made you ask? I investigate and dig a little before I act, or react. Use to be in IT, got fired and can’t hold position in field for certain unmentionable hack reasons. Now a trucker. Not as lucrative, but I get to see this country and meet folks like “Rep” from time to time.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:26 pmThanks you,missmolly, for an on-topic post.
And yes, I agree wholeheartedly about the interracial marriage history. No doubt the anti-modernists like Huckabee would have been against interracial marriage, too.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:27 pmHmmm, plan on meeting View in a Texas boxing ring ~ “it†will never show but attempt to make us believe it was you who didn’t show!
Comment by ebbAndflow — January 17, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
Wayne is still waiting for Dr. Dog or whatever his name was to show up for his ass whooping.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:27 pmShayne, without folks like me to bring you everything that moves in this country, you would have nothing.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:28 pmShayne, without folks like me to bring you everything that moves in this country, you would have nothing.
Comment by View from the Shire — January 17, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
My husband’s whole family are truckers but oddly they managed to buy nice homes to live in. Do you people EVER get the point?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:30 pmShayne, without folks like me to bring you everything that moves in this country, you would have nothing.
Comment by View from the Shire
So, you haul things that move? You mean like animals?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:31 pmView, what name did you used to go by?
Comment by Wilco
Ann Coulter
January 17th, 2008 at 3:32 pmShayne, without folks like me to bring you everything that moves in this country, you would have nothing.
Comment by View from the Shire
and we thank ya, View.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:34 pmmighty obliged, we are!
don’t know what us MOONBATS would do without the likes of View and his trusty blow-up nurse doll.
keep on truck’n!
My husband’s whole family are truckers but oddly they managed to buy nice homes to live in. Do you people EVER get the point?
Comment by Shayne — January 17, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
Jumbo mortgage they can’t afford, huh? That’s what I hate about Americans — consume, consume, consume.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:35 pmHow can anyone this ignorant get anywhere near public office? It is just amazing that the ChristoFascist people, also ignorant and bigoted, would vote for these types of idiots.
My dog loves me, but just for food and fetching toys.
How much does your dog love you Phuckleberry? And why are you even thinking of such crap? You repukes are a very sick bunch for sure.
Buck Fush
January 17th, 2008 at 3:35 pmJust add this to the growing pile of Huckabee lunacy.
Comment by missmolly — January 17, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
Sorry, missmolly, thread has degenerated quickly.
Its the old slippery-slope arguement – just a little more insulting. Why is it that somehow gay people get lumped into beastialitists? Comparing two men marrying to a man marrying an animal is akin to a vegetarian saying he doesn’t eat meat because he is not a cannibal.
I do believe humans have the ability to distinguish between these “miniscule” little differences.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:37 pmDon’t worry Tomas, Shayne’s family will most assuridly tax the system with another foreclosure. I know a drop house in Tucson, AZ that they can stay at. May be a little crowded, but hey, they prob advocate letting the Illegals stay, so why not BUNK UP!
January 17th, 2008 at 3:37 pmThe Archbishop of Urine now drives a truck. How quaint. Quite the step down for you, isn’t it?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:40 pm…
Huckabee really needs to find some fresh new arguments to bolster his somewhat bizarre beliefs, because these retreads are getting tiresome.
We have heard the argument that if you permit two people of the same sex to marry, soon people will be permitted to marry animals.
…
Comment by missmolly — January 17, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
Preacher Huckabee knows that Leviticus 18 lists three reprehensible practices: child sacrifice, men on men sex, and bestiality. There is a suggestion that there is a hierarchy of depravity. If you say that abortion is child sacrifice and that homosexual relationship are tolerated, then why be surprised at the third one.
Dr Dobson makes a point of showing how this can happen with polygamy. Note the authority for the appeal.
http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/homosexuality/A000004753.cfm
If God says a marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman – this is what Christ confirms in Matthew 19 – then marriage is protected.
If you say a marriage is whatever the government permits the governed to say it is, then marriage will become nothing – sex between people and animals.
Simply substitue the word of your choice in the phrase, “…have to step up to prove that a _________ relationship is detrimental to society.â€
Progress toward becoming a nation that is not worth preserving.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:42 pmComment by View from the Shire — January 17, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
Shayne is the Omarosa of Thinkprogress.org. The mutant is detrimental to the mission of progressivism. This poser believes that progressivism is an elite club with upscale homes and unrivaled cockiness.
As a latino, however, I will have to disagree with your views on immigration. I am for open immigration to displace the likes of Shayne.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:44 pmComment by republicans hate facts — January 17, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
Gringo, shut the f.u.c.k up.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:45 pmThreads never stop going to $hit when trolls are engaged in “debate”.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:45 pmComment by dim wit — January 17, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
Huckabee is pandering to people who are afraid of change. His strategy is two-fold — 1) make them even MORE afraid (”marriage will be destroyed”), and then 2) position himself as the savior who will prevent this calamity from happening.
Right now, he’s preaching to a very loyal choir. He’s going to have to woo more than the evangelicals to get the GOP nomination. And even if he somehow manages that feat, he’ll have a hard time playing his greatest hits to a national audience of all parties without being tossed aside as a complete fool.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:46 pmProgress toward becoming a nation that is not worth preserving.
Comment by bitblt — January 17, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
as the name may suggest, I’m a little slow. But what the fu(k are you talking about?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:47 pmmissmolly:
His populist economic stance virtually guarantee that corporate money will be arrayed against him should he even get close to the nomination.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:48 pmBut where is in American legislation is it stated that marriage is a solely Christian rite?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:48 pmCurse no editing capability!
Should be “virtually guarantees”…
January 17th, 2008 at 3:49 pm#38 Shayne:
But he used olive oil, it’s not like he had lanolin rubbed all over him. That would be sick.
Indeed. Ashcroft would have approved. That’s the proper procedure for “anointment”. But Crisco is even more ‘Merkun.
Cheers,
January 17th, 2008 at 3:50 pmWhy should marriage be completely dependant upon the Christian definition?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:50 pmJefferson ~
January 17th, 2008 at 3:50 pm…(O)ur rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. In neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg (Notes on Virginia, 1785.
Comment by republicans hate facts — January 17, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
Gringo, move back to Europe.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:51 pm“No animals were hurt in the incident, according to deputies.”
Nothing baaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhd happened.
Cheers,
January 17th, 2008 at 3:51 pmJust because the Bible had to lay it out that people shouldn’t marry animals (remember, back then we were about 3 hairs short of being babboons) doesn’t mean we liberals are currently stupid enough to find ourselves in the situation where we’ve got to pay alimony to the rabbit I have nightly sex with. We keep that shit on the side where it belongs.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:52 pmTomas, when are the latinos sgoing to take over the country?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:52 pmRHF:
True…hence the quotation marks around the word debate.
It’s really too bad that he comes from a fundamentalist background. (Yes? He is a fundamentalist?) It would be nice if another, saner, Republican candidate addressed economic disparity in this country.
It’s real problem, one not addressed in the corporate news, and only Edwards and Huckabee are talking about it on the national, political level.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:53 pmWho say Huckabee on the Colbert Report? Now that was hilarious. Can’t say Huch doesn’t have a sense of humour … either that or the jokes went completely over his head. ;-)
Cheers,
January 17th, 2008 at 3:56 pm“say” shouldda been “saw”
January 17th, 2008 at 3:56 pm#94 View from the Shire:
[to "republicans hate facts"] We should caucus face to face? You up for it?
Tsk-tsk…. Huckabee wouldn’t approve. Only doggie-style is permitted by the Good Book.
Cheers,
January 17th, 2008 at 3:59 pmTomas, when are the latinos sgoing to take over the country?
Comment by Wilco — January 17, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
As soon as we conquer the likes of you. You believe Gibson is the only one?
January 17th, 2008 at 4:00 pmSince non-Christians will go to hell just as surely as homosexuals, should they too not be kept from marrying? Isn’t their sin just as not up to God’s Standards as homosexuality?
January 17th, 2008 at 4:00 pmzuch:
I always find Huckabee very charming and funny on the Colbert Report. I won’t vote for him, mind you, but he’s funny.
And I liked those weird Huckabee/Chuck Norris fist commercials, too.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:01 pmTomas, you’re Joker, no?
January 17th, 2008 at 4:02 pmFor some reason the fake Hispanic “Tomas” is cracking me up.
Not sure why.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:03 pmWilco:
Joker was before my time here, though I hear the name from time to time. Was this his schtick?
January 17th, 2008 at 4:04 pmComment by republicans hate facts — January 17, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
GOP racism? I’m here in the fight against racism on latino immigrants. That’s why I demand this party get on the road with the votes the latino community gave them in 2006 and approve an amnesty package.
You better watch it white boy. You’ll be shipped back to Europe with your combative antics.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:07 pmFrosty, depending on who he posts as, yes.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:08 pmOnce he posted as a dead soldier and attacked the soldier’s friend on here.
This might not be him. His writing style is slightly different but the latino revolution theme is certainly native to Joker.
For some reason the fake Hispanic “Tomas†is cracking me up.
Not sure why.
Comment by Frosty Cupcake — January 17, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
Would that be because you’re a racist?
We’re trying not to get you to laugh, but to give you a message: Get out of our country. Go back to Europe.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:09 pmI see the Rightards are in full march and the racist idiot Joker is here again, hey Joker, FUalltohellandback you sick racist phuck.
Phuckleberry is not gonna win anything when he says pukes out crap like this.
Buck Fush
January 17th, 2008 at 4:09 pmJumbo mortgage they can’t afford, huh? That’s what I hate about Americans — consume, consume, consume.
Comment by Tomas — January 17, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Since we’ve all owned our homes for well over 20 years you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about, Joker. Say bye, bye.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:10 pmHow is America YOUR country?
January 17th, 2008 at 4:10 pmI mean, I can understand an argument about some southern lands ceded by Mexico being returned.
But all of America?
Yes, that’s laughable.
Comment by Wilco — January 17, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
It’s a real joker to see you in my country, on my land. Might want to pack up. We’ll cover your travel expenses.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:11 pmWe should caucus face to face? You up for it?
Comment by View from the Shire
Those are hobbits, not trolls dummy. Why is you rethuglicans always talk tough when you don’t have to back it up?
January 17th, 2008 at 4:11 pmAhh, thanks, Wilco. :-)
January 17th, 2008 at 4:12 pmI say this because democrats have failed to push immigration reform. They like seeing people rounded up, so they need to leave along with every repub.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:12 pmComment by Wilco — January 17, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
Interest accumulates over time. You stole the southwest, but tacking on interest gives us the entire country.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:14 pmoh man, sorry to repost this. but that there was one strange assed threat.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:15 pmFrosty, sure thing.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:15 pmHe’s generally a despicable human being.
Tomas doesn’t sound like a Native American name.
What the hell is he talking about ‘our’ country?
January 17th, 2008 at 4:15 pmProgress toward becoming a nation that is not worth preserving.
Comment by bitblt — January 17, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
as the name may suggest, I’m a little slow. But what the fu(k are you talking about?
Comment by dim wit — January 17, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
U.S. Army drill sergeants wear, or a least they use to, a round badge on their right shirt pocket. The badge has thirteen stars and a slogan: “This we’ll defend.†The idea is that they’ll defend the American way of life.
Is the American way of life worth defending?
If the nation is not worth preserving, who’ll defend it? Who’ll think it’s worth continuing?
Simply put, do you want to fight and die ( and pay taxes) and swear to defend the Constitution of the U.S. so that two guys in Massachusetts can commit perversion and called it a marriage? Do you want to fight and die( and pay taxes ) and swear to defend the Constitution of the U.S. so that a woman can express her freedom by destroying her unborn?
People are united for a reason. When the reasons for unity go away, why should the people stay united?
So called “homosexual rights†will be a nation breaker in this country.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:16 pmTomas, you need to check your history. The land wasn’t stolen. It was ceded by the Mexican government.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:16 pmNow, if you were pretending to be navite american instead of hispanic, then you’d have a much better argument about stolen lands.
Comment by bitblt — January 17, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
1) Anyone using Leviticus to bolster an argument really needs to use ALL of it — not just the portions that support that person’s petty bigotries. If you are going to live by Leviticus 18, then you must also live by Leviticus 19, etc. When you are ready to also condemn wearing garments of more than one thread, growing more than one crop in a field, eating shellfish, eating pork, avoiding contact with menstruating women, stoning blasphemers to death, etc., I will take your Leviticus argument seriously. Until then, you are just cherry-picking.
2) Abortion and “child sacrifice” are two completely different things. I know of no one who supports the right of women to make their own decisions during their first trimester who also supports the right to kill children already born. And your argument that someone who would tolerate homosexual relationships would also tolerate bestiality and killing children is baseless. Just because all are mentioned in the same chapter of Leviticus doesn’t make them some sort of “package deal”.
3) Your argument regarding the ACLU and polygamy is mildly interesting, but has nothing to do with gay marriage. Not only that, but just because the ACLU is making a challenge doesn’t mean they are going to win. In fact, I’d say they have an uphill battle on this one. However, if the ACLU is making this argument now, in a state where gay marriage is illegal, how would legalizing gay marriage change anything? Gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy, just as gay marriage has nothing to do with bestiality. Despite what Dobson says.
4) Civil marriage (marriage recognized by the government) and religious marriage (marriage recognized by the church) are two different things. Our government has made it a practice to recognize church marriages as legal, but churches have never been under any obligation to recognize civil marriages (and in the case of the Catholic church not recognizing the marriages of divorced people, this happens a fair amount of the time). Churches would not be under any obligation to recognize marriages between gays just because the government does. Creating a legal definition of “marriage” based upon Christian scripture violates the establishment clause of the first amendment, anyway — so your argument of Matthew 19 has no merit. The words of Jesus may “protect” marriage as far as the church is concerned, but not as far as the government is concerned.
One thing you fail to address in responding to my argument is the main point I had — that we heard all these arguments when the fight was against interracial marriage. Interracial marriage has been legal nationwide for 40 years now. And while the institute of marriage as a whole isn’t as respected as it used to be, that’s certainly not the fault of interracial couples. Allowing committed monogamous gay couples to marry won’t crush society, either.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:18 pmdo you want to fight and die ( and pay taxes) and swear to defend the Constitution of the U.S. so that two guys in Massachusetts can commit perversion and called it a marriage? Do you want to fight and die( and pay taxes ) and swear to defend the Constitution of the U.S. so that a woman can express her freedom by destroying her unborn?
I did fight for my country and to preserve the Constitution and laws of the land. If Massachussets wants to pass such a law, the 10th Amendment gives them the right to do so.
Get over it.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:19 pmDaryll’s back from the banned, er damned!
Dog help us!
January 17th, 2008 at 4:19 pmComment by RUCerious — January 17, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
What did Jefferson know compared to that genius Chuckleberry?
January 17th, 2008 at 4:21 pmDog the dyslexic god!
Or is it the other way around?
January 17th, 2008 at 4:21 pmThat’s what I hate about Americans — consume, consume, consume.
Comment by Tomas — January 17, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
It’s okay – you’re loved in return. Hence the push for immigration “reform.” As for “your country,” the Mexican-American war had consequences, my friend.
Remember the Alamo!
January 17th, 2008 at 4:22 pmGringo, move back to Europe.
Comment by Tomas — January 17, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
Your people didn’t learn Spanish from native Americans idiot. Go back to Spain.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:23 pm“Daryll’s back from the banned, er damned!”
Dog help us!
Comment by RUCerious — January 17, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
Ha! :D
And Bush is a worthless ying!
January 17th, 2008 at 4:23 pmWould that be because you’re a racist?
We’re trying not to get you to laugh, but to give you a message: Get out of our country. Go back to Europe.
Comment by Tomas — January 17, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
No, you’d be an idiot even if you were from England.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:27 pmComment by Wilco — January 17, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
That’s your fairy tell. But in time, this base will pay. The failure of the 110th Congress to pass immigration reform did all of you in.
Here is an important man, a hero all of you should keep in mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_%C3%81ngel_Guti%C3%A9rrez
January 17th, 2008 at 4:28 pmIt’s a real joker to see you in my country, on my land. Might want to pack up. We’ll cover your travel expenses.
Comment by Tomas — January 17, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
Who settled here first England or Spain, dumbass? Who cares you guys picked Mexico to kill off the natives and the British picked the US. You come from murderers just like we do and your ancestors are SPANISH, idiot.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:29 pmSo called “homosexual rights†will be a nation breaker in this country.
Comment by bitblt — January 17, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
No, reichwing tools like you are a nation breaker.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:31 pmComment by Shayne — January 17, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
Feisty one. Too bad it won’t help, as you’re on your way out. Enjoy Europe, gringo. This is our land.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:31 pm…two guys in Massachusetts can commit perversion …
Comment by bitblt
Seriously man, your obsession is showing. You would much happier if you would just come out of the closet. Homosexuality is not the stigma it used to be, and you will free your soul by being yourself.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:31 pmOK, now Daryll is cracking me up. Apparently I’m just in a ridiculous mood today.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:34 pmComment by Shayne — January 17, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
It’s just too late, racist gringo. You dominance is through. We have done the dirty work for your country, and it’s time for you to step aside so we can enjoy the fruits of our labor. Your revision on history is worth nothing.
Long live Aztlan pride.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:34 pm#179 bitblt:
Simply put, do you want to fight and die ( and pay taxes) and swear to defend the Constitution of the U.S. so that two guys in Massachusetts can commit perversion and called it a marriage? Do you want to fight and die( and pay taxes ) and swear to defend the Constitution of the U.S. so that a woman can express her freedom by destroying her unborn?
People are united for a reason. When the reasons for unity go away, why should the people stay united?
So called “homosexual rights†will be a nation breaker in this country.
… and the South will rise again!!!
Cheers,
January 17th, 2008 at 4:39 pmSo called “homosexual rights†will be a nation breaker in this country.
Comment by bitblt — January 17, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
Balderdash. Gay marriage isn’t even the most important issue facing America in the minds of the vast majority of Americans — the war in Iraq, health care, the economy and jobs, and even global warming rank far higher on the priority scale. Americans are divided on ALL these issues, yet we survive. How can gay marriage destroy us when these more important issues haven’t managed to do that yet?
January 17th, 2008 at 4:40 pmhttp://www.brownpride.us/
January 17th, 2008 at 4:41 pm“…and vote for the most relevant candidate, President-Elect Huckabee!”
Comment by Daryll — January 17, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
Um…if he’s already “President-Elect”, why should we bother voting for him?
January 17th, 2008 at 4:42 pmHow can gay marriage destroy us when these more important issues haven’t managed to do that yet?
Comment by missmolly
Two words: dudes kissing!
January 17th, 2008 at 4:42 pmTomás – you can’t keep up the pretense much longer – the wheels are falling off your ‘arguments’.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:45 pmPlease, don’t tell me to go back to Europe – you are on my land!
Hey Daryll, have I told you lately where you can stick your scriptures? Bend over Tomas.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:46 pmIf only we could find some gay terrorists. The freak’s heads would explode from the convergence of all things scary. In the year 2008, what thinking person could still be so alarmed by such a total nonissue?
January 17th, 2008 at 4:46 pmIf the nation is not worth preserving, who’ll defend it? Who’ll think it’s worth continuing?
Comment by bitblt — January 17, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
You truly believe that if gay marriage is recognized, that we will be attacked? Or that if we pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that we won’t be? Wow — I didn’t know that terrorists flew into the WTC and the Pentagon because of gays.
I continue to have faith that if our nation is ever attacked in that manner again, Americans will unite and defend this country no matter what the status of gay marriage is.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:47 pmDaryll by all means please keep talking to Tomas.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:47 pmComment by ebbAndflow — January 17, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
Dream on. You never owned this place.
You had your chance to be different from Republicans last year by approving the relief, the formal citizenship of where we’re meant to be. We’re entitled to the jobs here, and your party was responsible for making that happen. Now you’ll go!
January 17th, 2008 at 4:48 pmgay terrorist abortion doctors with memberships with the ACLU!
January 17th, 2008 at 4:48 pmComment by Shayne — January 17, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
Residency over, gringo. You had your chance.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:50 pmAnd our community was nice enough to give you a chance too.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:51 pmTomás you assume way too much – the land belongs to First Nations!
January 17th, 2008 at 4:52 pmEven us hillbillies think huckabee is crazy as sh*t, and there is no way in hell we would eat fried squirrel. Rewrite the bible and leave the constitution alone!!!!!!!!!
January 17th, 2008 at 4:54 pmWell, according to Woody Guthrie, this land is your land and my land.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:54 pmAnd you can trust him. He has a fascist-killing guitar.
How can gay marriage destroy us when these more important issues haven’t managed to do that yet?
Comment by missmolly
Two words: dudes kissing!
Comment by Wilco
In his book Blinded By The Right, David Brock explains the whole phenomena behind the huge number of closeted right-wing Republican homophobic homosexuals. In order to be a right-wing extremist requires a certain amount of self-loathing. For closeted gays, self-loathing becomes a way of life. They become right-wing Republicans because they need the reinforcement of being part of a group which loaths them. This repression causes all sorts of psychological problems which manifest themselves in hatred of various groups of people, particularly open homosexuals. In right-wing circles, it is OK to be gay (and most wingnuts know, or at least suspect, which of their friends and colleagues are gay), just as long as you remain closeted.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:54 pmOh my God. There’s something *seriously* wrong with that man – !
January 17th, 2008 at 4:55 pmUm…if he’s already “President-Electâ€, why should we bother voting for him?
Comment by missmolly — January 17, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
Good one missmolly, I think you made Exley’s head assplode.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:55 pmgay terrorist abortion doctors with memberships with the ACLU!
Comment by Wilco — January 17, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
Come now. The freaks won’t sleep for weeks. That’s just mean. Oddly enough being in NE, in the NH, VT, MA sector, everybody still gets up, the sun still comes up, people still go to work. Even the formally opposed can’t seem to find anything falling apart since we all took our little step forward. It really isn’t so scary once you pull your head out of your ass
January 17th, 2008 at 4:58 pmI’m checking all my 150+ bibles…hmmmm…nothing about 1 man and 3 women…allright!
January 17th, 2008 at 4:58 pmHey Daryll I am off to my night job soon at the seafood place. Any suggestion as to what I can do to help all those folks who will be buying all that shellfish? I am super concerned for their souls! I have considered refusing to ship their orders if it includes shellfish sort of like those weird pharmacists but I am not sure that would be best. Please advise!!!
January 17th, 2008 at 5:01 pmComment by Daryll — January 17, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
Gringo, get deported. Pick out your smallest suitcase and fold shayne right in there.
January 17th, 2008 at 5:01 pmComment by Tomas — January 17, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
You’re silly. Are you like Lou Dobbs’ producer or something drunk at work from a lunch-hour birthday party?
Good luck with your overthrow of the US borne of a blog filled with people who think you’re retarded, retard.
January 17th, 2008 at 5:09 pmDaryll
January 17th, 2008 at 5:15 pmI am really running short on time and really need your thoughts on how I should move forward on this shellfish matter. How will God treat me if I continue to aid and abet these sinners? I am not kidding. You have caused me to reflect on my earlier choices and I now see the need to make some very serious decisions about my future and how this unholy thing I have been doing will impact me in the afterlife. I would really appreciate any feedback which may help me work through these troubled times
Good luck with your overthrow of the US borne of a blog filled with people who think you’re retarded, retard.
Comment by imorgan82 — January 17, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
US Born? No, you think I’m being nice by issuing a broad generalization. I think ‘Gringo-born’ is what I’ve meant for some time. ;)
Get packing!
January 17th, 2008 at 5:24 pmTomas, if you love Jesus and are a truthful person, truthfully answer my question posed in post 225. Remember, God is hearing and watching you!
Comment by Daryll — January 17, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
Good Point! Now answer mine please. Keep in mind the hearing and the watching
January 17th, 2008 at 5:29 pmWow. Tomas and Daryll two blabbering fools at once!
January 17th, 2008 at 5:31 pmSo Daryll is into THREE WAYS with ANOTHER MAN!!! ROTFL!! How PREDICTABLE!!! ;)
Comment by republicans hate facts — January 17, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
No that’s just Daryll doing it with his other personalities. You know he’s crazy. We should really call him Sybil.
January 17th, 2008 at 5:33 pmYou know Daryll, the Samaritan was an IMMIGRANT – RIGHT? ROTLF, you’re DUMB! ;)
Comment by republicans hate facts — January 17, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
Daryll’s special place in hell is reserved for him.
January 17th, 2008 at 5:34 pmThis is a covenant between the man, woman and God.
Comment by Daryll — January 17, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
Daryll, you are getting MUCH CLOSER to the spiritual as well as democratic truth. A religious marriage is indeed a covenant between those marrying and God. There is no government, no other people, nothing else involved.
In our country, a non-believer and a Christian can legally marry. However, some Christians hold that such a marriage would not be sanctioned by the Bible and, therefore, God. Why is there no outrage about this, no talk of a Constitutional amendment to make these marriages illegal and, thereby, in accordance with God’s law?
Will you ever acknowledge that the government allowing people to marry whom they want and recording that for legal reasons is NOT forcing anyone to actually do so but continuing to also allow people to follow their own conscience and covenant with God? It’s called “freedom” in the secular world and “free will” in the religious world. Will you continue to deny both?
January 17th, 2008 at 5:41 pmComment by PatrioticLiberalChristian — January 17, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
Very well said but please get in line. I am struggling just to get an answer as to wheter or not I am damned for eternity over these freakin’shrimp!
January 17th, 2008 at 5:43 pmThere is no such thing as “homosexual rights.” There are equal rights for homosexuals, right there in the 5th and 14th amendments to the U. S. Constitution which I swore to defend when I enlisted in the U. S. Army a few decades ago.
In Loving v. Virginia, which overturned laws banning miscegenation, the Supreme Court declared that marriage is a “fundamental right.” The Justices did not hold that it is a fundamental right only that joins only a man and a woman.
If the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law means anything at all, then it must guarantee equal rights for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.
January 17th, 2008 at 5:44 pmSo Daryll is into THREE WAYS with ANOTHER MAN!!! ROTFL!! How PREDICTABLE!!! ;)
Comment by republicans hate facts — January 17, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
Daryll’s whole religion is based on the result of a 3-way:
Mary +
January 17th, 2008 at 5:49 pmJoseph +
Holy Ghost =
Jesus
Sorry, dbadass, but you obviously are unaware of the Christian Pharisees Hierarchy of Sinful Acts which clearly indicates that sexual issues are much more, well, sexy and have priority over such, well, shrimpy issues.
January 17th, 2008 at 5:51 pmI wonder what happens if you mix really interesting sex with shellfish. Is that like one of the signs of the Apocalypse? Maybe this is why I dig raw oysters and crazy sex so much.
January 17th, 2008 at 6:08 pmGawd, I was in meetings all afternoon and missed my chance to heap some well deserved scorn on Saint D. and his new challenge, the possibly illegal immigrant (Mr. Pee) Tomas…
January 17th, 2008 at 6:18 pmCrap.
Tomas sounds like latinking from the fall. Same aggressive ignorance, or is it ignorant aggression?
January 17th, 2008 at 7:16 pmDrywall, welcome home. How did your pictures of dudes having sex on the beach in Rio turn out? Did you get busted for public masturbation this time?
January 17th, 2008 at 7:17 pmI just made a YouTube video…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sY8PbTuycis
January 17th, 2008 at 7:47 pmThe Huckster seems to have an unusual interest in homosexuality and bestiality, almost a fixation.
January 17th, 2008 at 8:11 pmSorta sounds like previous deviants: Ted Haggard, Dale Vitter, Larry Craig et al
#211 Wilco
gay terrorist abortion doctors with memberships with the ACLU!
Back in my college days (quite some time back, I’m afraid, but still a bit topical), my friends’ favourite boogeypersons were the Black Lesbian Grape-pickers Union. Economy of frights…. But if you can work in abortion there in one word or less, my hat’s off to you…. ;-)
Cheers,
January 17th, 2008 at 8:26 pmFWIW, we recently ran into the issue where my partner was not allowed in to visit me when I was hospitalised. She had to lie and say she was my wife to get in. So now we’re thinking of moving things up a bit so this doesn’t happen again.
Sad to say that even in “liberal” California, this is the state of affairs.
If we we a gay couple, we would have no recourse…..
Cheers,
January 17th, 2008 at 8:31 pmWho settled here first England or Spain?
Comment by Shayne — January 17, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
The first permanant European settlement here on the mainland was the Spanish city of St. Augustine in 1565. Of course had the Spanish not murdered the French settlers who had a settlement 40 miles north of here a year before then we might all be speaking French now!
January 17th, 2008 at 9:09 pmNone of this is about protecting marriage, otherwise he’d be pushing for a constitutional amendment banning divorce. This is just about hating gays and using that hatred as a wedge issue to scare voters and scare up money.
It most certainly has nothing to do with Jesus, a guy who refused to condemn a prostitute when all the self-righteous holier-than-thou people in his neighborhood wanted to stone her. By the way, they’re all in hell now, wondering why Jesus hates their freedoms.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:30 pmSeeing the republican hypocrisy on homosexuality, how long before we see bestiality as well?
January 18th, 2008 at 12:04 amRemember, God is hearing and watching you!
Comment by Daryll — January 17, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
prove that, d.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:38 am.
PRESERVE MARRIAGE
~ OUTLAW DIVORCE!
.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:44 amWhen the “c”hristians in America start to follow 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, then maybe their Biblical arguments will begin to hold some water.
34. The women are to keep silent in the churches ; for they are not permitted to speak , but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says .
35. If they desire to learn anything , let them ask their own husbands at home ; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church .
Until such time, all they are doing is picking & choosing the narrow portions of the Bible that fit their prejudices, and have no true Biblical standing to use othre verses to advocate their hate for homosexuals.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:48 amIn Loving v. Virginia, which overturned laws banning miscegenation, the Supreme Court declared that marriage is a “fundamental right.†The Justices did not hold that it is a fundamental right only that joins only a man and a woman.
If the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law means anything at all, then it must guarantee equal rights for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.
Comment by Don in Texas — January 17, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
Miscegenation is not the topic here, and what constitutes a marriage was not the focus of Loving v. Virginia.
Believe the Justices would have had to explicitly say that the right of marriage extends to a same-same gender couples. The Justices were not “permitting marriage†in their decision, nor where they deciding what a marriage was.
Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.
My opinion, of course, is the institution of marriage has the mark of the Creator written all over it.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:33 amThat mark is not going to be removed.
When the “câ€hristians in America start to follow 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, then maybe their Biblical arguments will begin to hold some water.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — January 18, 2008 @ 6:48 am
Since you directed this scripture to bitblt once before, I’ll ask: What are you trying to say?
In my experience, Conservative Christian churches do this. I can make no sense of this comment.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:40 am#261 – “In my experience, Conservative Christian churches do this. I can make no sense of this comment.” Comment by bitblt — January 18, 2008 @ 9:40 am
Really? Conservative “c”hristians tell women to shut up when they’re in Church like the Bible clearly states? Can you name the Church where this happens? I’d REALLY like to see a woman say nothing at all in Chruch, like 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 clearly states they should.
What I’m pointing out is that when you take one verse of the Bible, and raise it as your rallying point, but then completely ignore another verse, you’re “picking & choosing” the verses of the Bible that oh-so conveniently support your own prejudices.
If you’re being truly honest, you would admit that “pick & choose” is the Conservative “c”hristian modus operandi.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:34 am#262 – I wrote “I’d REALLY like to see a woman say nothing at all in Chruch, like 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 clearly states they should.”
I should have written “I’d REALLY like to see a Church where a woman says nothing at all, like 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 clearly states they should.”
January 18th, 2008 at 10:40 am#260 – “My opinion, of course, is the institution of marriage has the mark of the Creator written all over it. That mark is not going to be removed.” Comment by bitblt — January 18, 2008 @ 9:33 am
Well, we all have opinions. . . . ;-)
It seems that many countries (Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain) have endorsed same-sex marriage, so does that mean that the “mark of the Creator” is written all over same-sex marriage in those countries?
January 18th, 2008 at 10:48 amIt seems that many countries (Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain) have endorsed same-sex marriage, so does that mean that the “mark of the Creator†is written all over same-sex marriage in those countries?
Comment by Democrat Soldier — January 18, 2008 @ 10:48 am
It’s not the mark of the Creator written all over those so-called same same marriages.
Christ says in Matthew 19 that the Creator intended for a man and a woman to be one flesh. Two same-same gender people cannot be “one flesh.” No government on earth can make two same-same gender people “one flesh.”
This scripture is the source of my opinion.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:16 am#265 – “Christ says in Matthew 19 that the Creator intended for a man and a woman to be one flesh. Two same-same gender people cannot be “one flesh.†No government on earth can make two same-same gender people “one flesh.— Comment by bitblt — January 18, 2008 @ 11:16 am
Actually, they can, and did.
If you want, I’ll explain how two same-sex people can become “one flesh”. . . . . ;-) (Oh, come on! You’ve got to find SOME humor in this argument of ours! Unless you’re not really human. . . .)
If you follow scripture, then women can marry when they “grow into womanhood”. “Womanhood” can begin as early as 9 years of age, averages around 12-13. Do you support scripture in that regard?
How about the practice of polygamy, which is wide-spread in the Bible. Do you support that portion of the scripture?
January 18th, 2008 at 11:34 amIf the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law means anything at all, then it must guarantee equal rights for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.
Comment by Don in Texas
That is exactly why the fascist fundies want a Constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. They understand that, if the issue ever came before the Supreme Court, it would be forced to rule in favor of the Constitution and make same sex marriage legal.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:17 pm#265 – “Christ says in Matthew 19 that the Creator intended for a man and a woman to be one flesh. Two same-same gender people cannot be “one flesh.†No government on earth can make two same-same gender people “one flesh.â€â€ Comment by bitblt — January 18, 2008 @ 11:16 am
Actually, they can, and did.
If you want, I’ll explain how two same-sex people can become “one fleshâ€. . . . . ;-) (Oh, come on! You’ve got to find SOME humor in this argument of ours! Unless you’re not really human. . . .)
If you follow scripture, then women can marry when they “grow into womanhoodâ€. “Womanhood†can begin as early as 9 years of age, averages around 12-13. Do you support scripture in that regard?
How about the practice of polygamy, which is wide-spread in the Bible. Do you support that portion of the scripture?
Comment by Democrat Soldier — January 18, 2008 @ 11:34 am
Actually, they can, and did.
No they can’t, and they didn’t. They simply “perverted†the meaning of marriage. I don’t recognize and same-same gender couple as “married.†Think you can make me?
If you want, I’ll explain how two same-sex people can become “one fleshâ€. . . . . ;-) (Oh, come on! You’ve got to find SOME humor in this argument of ours! Unless you’re not really human. . . .)
This is a subject that demands gravitas so please skip any humor associated with the mechanics of homosexual sex. People suffer over gender issues and you want to go for a cheap laugh.
I believe you’re deliberately perverting scripture by making this remark. This one flesh designation from Genesis reflects God’s invitation for mankind to participant in creation expressed in Genesis 1:28. “…be fruitful and multiple…â€
A man and a woman – a husband and a wife in a marriage – produce offspring. This is what God intended. It is beneficial to both the family and to the society in which they live. When children are born outside of a marriage it is destructive to the people involved, as well as to the society.
If this is not good enough for you, then you can tell the Creator!
If you follow scripture, then women can marry when they “grow into womanhoodâ€. “Womanhood†can begin as early as 9 years of age, averages around 12-13. Do you support scripture in that regard?
You really need a book, chapter, and verse to support your suggestion…especially the part about the ages.
Scientifically, since the age at which this seems to happen has been decreasing, you can’t assume that that age was the same age 2000, 3000, or more years ago. Nonetheless, would it be wrong for a woman to marry at 13? No. Would it be a good idea in twenty-first century U.S.A? Not in my opinion.
My opinion is that woman in the Old Testament were protected emotionally and physically by their families, by their fathers, and by their husbands to an extent that can only be imagined in the present day. They were also protected by a tradition of sanctity of marriage.
This sanctity is destroyed when a sexual relationship between two same-same gender people is called a marriage. But destroying that sanctity is what this is all about, isn’t it?
How about the practice of polygamy, which is widespread in the Bible. Do you support that portion of the scripture?
The Bible never says, “Thou shalt commit polygamy!†Further, I’m not a Jew, and Apostle Paul makes it more than clear that one doesn’t have to be a Jew to be a Christian.
The practice of polygamy is not wide spread in the Bible. Believe you can count the number of recorded instances of polygamy among God’s people on one or two hands.
Nowhere in the Bible is it endorsed, encourage, or permitted. It happened, and in most cases the Bible remarks on the negative consequences resulting from the practice. Much of the Old Testament is history and not does not require repeating.
If you want to say Conservative Christians don’t deal with scripture correctly, fine. Be that as it may, that doesn’t change the fact that scripture says a man and a woman will be “one flesh†and Jesus endorses this as the Creator’s intent in Matthew 19.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:42 pm#268 – Dude, you seriously need to un-pucker. You’re getting your knickers ties in a knot, and I used to do the same, and it just aint healthy. Learn to laugh when the occasion calls for it, or you’re headed to an early grave! Turst, this is one subject which requires laughter on BOTH sides!
“A man and a woman – a husband and a wife in a marriage – produce offspring. This is what God intended. It is beneficial to both the family and to the society in which they live. When children are born outside of a marriage it is destructive to the people involved, as well as to the society.
If this is not good enough for you, then you can tell the Creator!”
Procreation is necessary for the species to continue, but to assume that children born out of wedlock will bring destruction to the society ignores historical precedence. Adultry is nothing new, and is almost as common in the Bible as it is in the US. Just because a man and woman marry does not mean they will have children. If that’s the only reason for opposite-sex marriage, let’s pass some laws that require children when marriage happens!
“The Bible never says, “Thou shalt commit polygamy!†”
No, but the Bible never says “Thou shall NOT commit polygamy!” and I dare you to find ten Biblical verses that outlaw polygamy! Just because the Bible neve says “Thou shall…” does not mean it implies “Thou shall not…” Come on, prove a negative to me and everyone on this forum! I would really love to see that one.
“Be that as it may, that doesn’t change the fact that scripture says a man and a woman will be “one flesh†and Jesus endorses this as the Creator’s intent in Matthew 19.”
The Bible also states quite clearly that women should shut up when they are in Church, and I haven’t seen anyone on the left OR right argue that they should.
Can we both agree that there is more in the Bible that is ignored than is followed, or are you playing “pick and choose” with scripture as well?
As for the intent, marriage is something that has seen more changes between its inception and now than can be claimed between the inception of the US and the last turn of the century. For some reason, it’s only the last 50 years that have conservaitves screeching like bashees. Are they not students of history?
Could you succinctly explain how same-sex marriage will make your marriage dry up and blow away? There has still not been one single explination that makes any kind of sense from anyone.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:09 pm#269 Democratic Soldier:
Could you succinctly explain how same-sex marriage will make your marriage dry up and blow away? There has still not been one single explination that makes any kind of sense from anyone.
Ummm, maybe all the bearded Republicans will come out of the closet and dump their “beards” for a partner more to their “style”….
Just a thought….
Cheers,
January 18th, 2008 at 1:44 pm…
He’s also showing his lack of comprehension of biblical teachings which espouse The Golden Rule above all else: Love thy neighbor as thyself which translates into “total tolerance†of the lifestyles of others. He’s a pretty textbook “christo-hypocrite†– most radical christofascists are!
Comment by Veritas — January 17, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
Huckabee well understands the Golden Rule.
“The Golden Rule above all else:…†I don’t think so.
“…translates into ‘total tolerance’ of the lifestyle of others…†That’s not even close.
Remember Christ was interest in both attitudes and actions. This interest is in contrast to the Jewish Law which is about actions. In the Golden Rule Christ tells how to have the attitude that leads to the proper actions.
Here’s the rest of the story.
Note that Christ doesn’t say there is something wrong with the Law and the Prophets. He says this attitude – the Gold Rule – produces the attitude to understand how to follow the Law and the Prophets.
The Law referenced in this verse would include sexual sin, which Christ condemns elsewhere, as well as murder. You don’t want someone to hate you to the point that they want to murder you, so don’t you hate someone to the point that you want to murder them. You don’t want someone to commit adultery with your wife, so respect the rights of another husband to have his own wife. If you don’t commit adultery with another man’s wife, then you and she are both safe from punishment. You can make the application to homosexual sin, which is also condemned by the Law.
So what is above all else? Love God and love your neighbors as yourself. The Gold Rule looks to be a variation on “…love your neighbor as yourself..†When Christ says these two: “Love God and love your neighbors as yourself,.†he’s suggesting you can only do the second by doing first. It seems likely, at least to me, that one can’t perform the Golden Rule unless they are willing to put the Love of God above their personal desires – including the sexual desires.
This verse follows the Golden Rule.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
#217 – ““The Golden Rule above all else:…†I don’t think so.
“…translates into ‘total tolerance’ of the lifestyle of others…†That’s not even close.” Comment by bitblt — January 18, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
I must agree with Bitbit on this patricular issue. The Golden Rule was a way to explain to the people at the time that you shouldn’t stone your neighbor for following rules that you don’t agree with. One should accept that some people just don’t agree with your rules and should be treated with the same courtesy that you would expect of them towards you. This does not mean that if they threaten your life that you should curl up and die. This rule was more about the perry “rules” that some peope cling to just so they can feel better about themselves and use to “bash” their neighbors over the head in an attempt to raise themselves higher in their own eyes.
I don’t go around saying “Hey, straight couple holding hands! Stop shoving your sexuality in may face! Keep it in the bedroom!”, so they should treat me the same way. That is, if they subscribe to the Golden Rule.
Some have jokingly said that when the (non)-Rev. Phelps shows up at a funeral with signs “God Hates Fags” that we should show up at his “church” and play Black Sabbath at loud levels. it would, of course, be treating him in a similar fashion as he treats others, and dince he “claims” to follow scripture, it is only fitting that he reap what he sows, it would also be wrong.
Perosnally, I like the totally unambiguous verse about rich people not being able to buy theuir way into heaven: Mathew 19:21-24
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Nothing can be mistranslated about that one! ;-)
January 18th, 2008 at 3:38 pmComment by Democrat Soldier — January 18, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
The rest of the story…ah, the prequel…or what did Christ say to the young man in the verses before Matthew 19:20.
Obviously Christ was concerned with the young man’s behavior, actions, and his respect for the law.
It’s disingenuous of you not to include this.
And as to your account of the Golden Rule, are you intentionally perverting scriptures now?
January 18th, 2008 at 3:59 pmGays should be allowed to marry. Why shouldn’t they be just as miserable as the rest of us?
January 18th, 2008 at 4:35 pmAny leader who fully admits to basing his/her decisions on one very old book is embarrassing to all Americans.
Join the Atheist Revolution.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:17 pmWell, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal.
This entire line of reasoning is disturbing. Huckabee, and those like him, are comparing mutual, consensual acts and contractual agreements between adults with illegal sexual acts and relationships with minors and with animals.
Gay marriage and polygamy do NOT hurt straight marriage. They are not a slippery slope towards bestiality and pedophilia.
The entire argument is bunk. It is a pure projection of personal, generally religious-biased views upon everybody else around them. They cannot prove that ANYONE besides those having their rights taken away are being hurt.
Who is hurt when a gay couple marries, or when a consensual polygamous partnership is entered? Absolutely no one. On the contrary, such marriages, such partnerships are generally a stabilizing factor in a person’s life.
Who is hurt when a gay marriage or consensual polygamous partnership is prevented from being joined by those CONSENTING ADULTS wishing to do so? Certainly those being prevented from entering a legitimate legal contract. Certainly those religious institutions that recognize the sanctity of such a union. Anyone besides those involved in the relationship? No way, no how.
This is the exact same bullsh#t argument that was used to justify anti-miscegenation laws (aka laws banning interracial marriage).
Selfish fundamentalist a$$holes.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:56 pmMike Huckabee wants new Amendments to the U.S. Constitution to assure that the law of this nation is consistent with the Holy Bible. We now have 27 Amendments. Here are several new Constitutional Amendments that are urgently needed to assure that we follow the Word of God. Biblical citations are given to fully support the fact that each new Amendment is the will of God.
28th. Homosexuals must be killed
‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Leviticus 20:13)
29th. Jesus is Lord of the United State, all infidels must be executed
(Replaces the 1st Amendment)
“ If a man or woman living among you is found to have worshiped other gods, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.†(Deuteronomy 17:2) “Everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, must to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.†(2 Chronicles 15:12)
30th. Slavery is again legal in the United States
(Replaces the 13th Amendment)
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5) “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.” (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) “Slaves, submit to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate but also to those who are harsh.†(1 Peter 2:18 )
31st. Working on Sunday is forbidden and will be punished by death
“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God.†(Exodus 20:8)
“On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the Sabbath of complete rest to the Lord. Anyone who does work on that day, shall be put to death. (Exodus 35:2)
32nd. All children who curse their parents will be executed
” ‘If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head. (Leviticus 20:9)
33rd. Adultery will be punished by the death penalty
“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
34th. Women who have premarital sex will be executed
“If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.†(Deuteronomy 22:20)
35th. Wives must always submit to their husbands
“You wives will submit to your husbands as you do to the Lord. For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his body, the church; he gave his life to be her Savior. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything.†(Ephesians 5:22-24 NLT) “Wives, be subordinate to your husbands, as is proper in the Lord.†(Colossians 3:18)
36th. Blasphemy will be punished by death
“Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.†(Leviticus 24:16)
37th. Children who strike a parent will be punished by death
“Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.†(Exodus 21:15)
38th. Parents may sell their daughters into slavery
January 19th, 2008 at 12:40 am“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.†(Exodus 21:7)
#273 – “It’s disingenuous of you not to include this.” Comment by bitblt — January 18, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
How so? Do the previous verses change the statement “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a camel than it is for a rich man to enter into Heaven”? No, they don’t. Still unsure what you mean by being disingenuous, unless you’re talking about yourself and your “pick & choose” approach to the scriptures.
“And as to your account of the Golden Rule, are you intentionally perverting scriptures now?” Comment by bitblt — January 18, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
Not even by your wild stretch of the imagination! If we are expected to treat others as we would have them treat us, then the “c”hirstian Right want gays to pass legislation that would ban “c”hristians from being able to adopt children, and to pass legislation that would make it legal for “c”hristians to be fired for their religious views.
If the “c”hristian Right is treating others as they would want to be treated, then you have to admit that this is how they want to be treated themselves.
Unless you’re being disingenuous yourself!
January 21st, 2008 at 8:06 am#277 – Comment by Lawrence — January 19, 2008 @ 12:40 am
You’re looking at the Bible from a distinctly non-”c”hristian perspective. Doncha know that some verses of the Bible aren’t recognized by these self-described “c”hristians? It’s known as the “pcik & choose” “c”hristian Right approach to the Bible!
To these “c”hristians, the Bible is full of verses that just don’t apply at all. It’s only the ones that (oh-so conveniently) fit their prejudices that are important and the rest are meaningless.
January 21st, 2008 at 8:10 amNot even by your wild stretch of the imagination! If we are expected to treat others as we would have them treat us, then the “câ€hirstian Right want gays to pass legislation that would ban “câ€hristians from being able to adopt children, and to pass legislation that would make it legal for “câ€hristians to be fired for their religious views.
If the “câ€hristian Right is treating others as they would want to be treated, then you have to admit that this is how they want to be treated themselves.
Unless you’re being disingenuous yourself!
Comment by Democrat Soldier — January 21, 2008 @ 8:06 am
I think that you’re trying to make the case that the Bible, and Christ himself, permits homosexuality. bitblt will require considerable more persuasion that this.
This is the post on the Golden Rule (commonly known as but not a Biblical term) to which bitblt responded:.
He’s also showing his lack of comprehension of biblical teachings which espouse The Golden Rule above all else: Love thy neighbor as thyself which translates into “total tolerance†of the lifestyles of others. He’s a pretty textbook “christo-hypocrite†– most radical christofascists are!
Comment by Veritas — January 17, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
Doesn’t this poster say, in essence, that Christ says it’s Ok to tolerate sin because the others have to tolerate sin in you. The Golden Rule does not translate into “’total tolerance’ of the lifestyle of others.†I believe this poster is trying to say that because Christ stated the Golden Rule, Christians have to tolerate homosexuals.
That’s not what the Golden Rule is about, and in my opinion, this poster is perverting scripture. He’s saying that Christ tolerates sin. How could anyone say this about the man who said that if you look at a woman lustfully, you’ve committed adultery with her in your heart. Christ raised the level of appropriate behavior to heights unknown in the Old Testament when He said it’s not just about actions, it’s about attitude. The Golden Rule is about attitude.
The verses to which this post refers are as follows:
http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Matthew+7&version=31
Matthew 7:12
The “Law and the Prophets†to which Christ refers are the Law of Moses and the precepts of the Prophets. Doesn’t the Law of Moses, the book of Leviticus, plainly condemn some behaviors, especially illicit sexual behaviors such as incest, adultery, and homosexuality.
Christ says that when one avoids these behaviors he doesn’t cause others to participate in these behaviors.
It’s simple. You don’t want another man to commit adultery with your wife, so don’t commit adultery with another man’s wife. Isn’t this like the ultimate in respect when one respects the relationship between a man and a woman. Isn’t this the respect everyone desires.
The Law is still about avoiding sin. Christ never sets that aside – certainly not in the Golden Rule.
January 21st, 2008 at 9:20 am#280 – “The Law is still about avoiding sin. Christ never sets that aside – certainly not in the Golden Rule.” Comment by bitblt — January 21, 2008 @ 9:20 am
I think I see where you’re getting confused. I’m not trying to use the “Golden rule” in an attempt to spin what’s in the Bible. I’m using the rule to explain the logic of the “c”hristian Right.
IF the “c”hristian Right are following this rule, then they are acting in the way they want others to treat them.
They “pick & choose” one verse in the Bible to support their prejudice while completely ignoring verses that don’t support their prejudice.
Even Bitbit must agree that when someone “claims” to follow the scripture, then turns around and ignores scripture, then their hypocrisy is so fragrant it would make political mudlsinging smell like roses.
When one verse in Leviticus concerning same-sex relations MUST be followed, but then another verse in Leviticus about killing children whoi curse their parents MUST be ignored, evin Bitbit cannot support that kind of hypocrisy.
Unless Bitbit is a hypocrite himself. (Herself?)
So, Bitbit, what is it? Is Bitbit a hypocrite, or will Bitbit condemn the hypocrites who “claim” to follow scripture?
Why does Bitbit refer to Bitbit as “Bitbit”? Are you not a native American English speaker, where you refer to yourself as your name rather than “I” or “me”???
January 21st, 2008 at 11:36 amWhen one verse in Leviticus concerning same-sex relations MUST be followed, but then another verse in Leviticus about killing children whoi curse their parents MUST be ignored, evin Bitbit cannot support that kind of hypocrisy.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — January 21, 2008 @ 11:36 am
Justify this statement using the New Testament or using the words of Christ or any of the Apostles and I’ll respond to your post. Until you can do that I’ll consider this your opinion.
Christians are not Jews.
Even Bitbit must agree that when someone “claims†to follow the scripture, then turns around and ignores scripture, then their hypocrisy is so fragrant it would make political mudlsinging smell like roses.
Don’t believe this is a claim that you’ve made.
Otherwise, see
January 21st, 2008 at 12:23 pmComment by bitblt — January 21, 2008 @ 9:20 am
Comment by Democrat Soldier — January 21, 2008 @ 11:36 am
bitblt is a tenth generation American.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:24 pm#282 – “Justify this statement using the New Testament or using the words of Christ or any of the Apostles and I’ll respond to your post. Until you can do that I’ll consider this your opinion.” Comment by bitblt — January 21, 2008 @ 9:20 am
In other words: you have proven yourself to be a “pick & choose” ‘c’hirsitan who only uses verses of the Bible that fit your prejudices.
Based on you assertion, you cannot use Leviticus to complain about same-sex relationsips, as you are not a Jew.
“Don’t believe this is a claim that you’ve made.” Comment by bitblt — January 21, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
I just did, and you are unable to sustain your argument.
“bitblt is a tenth generation American.” Comment by bitblt — January 21, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
Bitbit has been listening to Fmr. Sen. Dole too long, and now refers to Bitbit as “bitbit” rather than “I” or “me” or “myself”.
Bitbit needs to check his prior grades in school and read up on pronouns.
The song by Sxhoolhouse Rocks about “Rufus Xavier Sasparilla” might give you a few pointers on how American English works.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:20 amComment by Democrat Soldier — January 22, 2008 @ 10:20 am
Don’t believe that you’ve made the claim that you, DS, are someone who follows scripture.
Which makes me wonder why you are even interested in trying to use bitblt’s belief against him.
bitblt understands that DS is a specialist in discovering hypocrisy and inconsistencies. bitblt further understands that that everyone likes to do what they do best.
It is not clear to bitblt whether or not DS is at all influenced by scripture. Otherwise, bitblt believes that DS would not be trying to beat bitblt with his own belief.
I, bitblt, believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that belief in Christ is the way to eternal life. Scripture is story of how the Creator, God, gave people the ultimate sacrifice for their sins: Jesus Christ.
bitblt further believes that Matthew 19, verses 4 and following, where Christ references the Genesis account of God making a man and a woman one flesh in marriage, is the ultimate authority as to appropriate sexual behavior.
Christ was a Jew. That’s why he quotes Genesis to answer questions about adultery – an inappropriate sexual behavior. He could have quoted the Law, but He was apparently interested in intent – God’s intent.
Note the phrase, “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.†Believe this phrase is commonly used in modern day marriage vows.
bitblt further believes that this scripture answers the question of, “What is appropriate sexual behavior?†for all Christians.
Based on you assertion, you cannot use Leviticus to complain about same-sex relationsips, as you are not a Jew.
bitblt can certainly use all of the Old Testament for learning, which is what the New Testament says is the purpose of the Old Testament. Since appropriate and inappropriate sexual behaviors are topics in both the OT and NT, the OT is a useful resource.
It is true that as a Christian bitblt has no obligation to participate in the accusation, condemnation, or execution of those guilty of capital crimes under the Old Testament Law of Moses. It’s also true that as a Christian bitblt has no desire to participate in the accusation, condemnation, or execution of those guilty of capital crimes. It is the case that a Jew, under the Law of Moses, who makes an accusation, is expected to throw the first stone. However, under this Law there must be more that one accuser.
bitblt refers to himself in the third person because it’s a reminder that ideas are under discussion, not personalities.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm