“Well, at least he’s okay on marriage between a woman and an animal and a child and an animal. Who says he’s not open-minded?”

I think i’m going to go watch that movie “I <3 Huckabee’s” and go feel warm and fuzzy inside..

This guys a douche.

My views:

1. I absoulutely believe that recognizing gay marriage would slip slope to polygamy (its all consenting adults — consent is really the defining issue). The slope ends there.

2. Huckabee (and others who make this argument) is essentially condemning SODOMY. “Gay Marriage” is not a comparable term to bestiality and pedophilia. It’s a small distinction but I think it is important. Basically he is saying “Bestiality and pedophila are illegal, and sodomy should be too”.

3. I think the government should get out of the marriage business, or alternatively call heterosexual marriage a “civil union”.

4. Part of me does have compassion for those who feel legalizing gay marriage would “devalue” or “threaten” hetero marriage. It is easy to dismiss this as rubbish but an argument can be made, especially when taking the polygamy argument into account. In the end, one needs to balance the benefits and downsides of proposed changes.

To me, polygamy has such a different premise than homosexuality. It seems to be an archaic institution that allows a male to benefit greatly, and I think that’s why it’s still so prevalent in male-dominated societies like the Middle East.

Think about it… how many polygamous marriages include one woman and several men? I think most women would agree that one man is plenty to have to put up with.

I personally think that marriage or civil unions should be limited to a merger between two people, irrelevant of gender. Three’s a crowd…

One of the seminal experiences of my life was getting caught playing “doctor” with another boy, and his mother’s reaction. Her reproach hurt, and, in fact, still hurts.

That brought back bad memories for me, as the exact same thing happened when I was a kid. We were barely in school when it occurred and hardly anything even took place, but the boy’s mother freaked out, called my mother to come get me, and took her son to the doctor to make sure there was “nothing wrong with him.” The funny part is I don’t remember my parents even getting that upset about it.

Anyway… great comment. You expressed yourself beautifully.

I, personally, am gay. I’ve known I was *different* since kindergarden, and before. One of the seminal experiences of my life was getting caught playing “doctor” with another boy, and his mother’s reaction. Her reproach hurt, and, in fact, still hurts. But it didn’t change what I am.

While there are many similarities between the race struggle and that of homosexuals, there are some key differences; primarily, you can tell someone’s race just by looking, so it’s impossible for them to hide. Gays, like myself, on the other hand, can hide their orientation until much later in life, when they’ve had kids and have a royally screwed up marriage. Fortunately, the emotional damage I wrought on my now ex-wife was non-permanent, she’s remarried and we are good friends who can cooperatively parent our wonderful children.

I think the comparison is much better made to creed. You can’t generally tell someone’s religion by looking at them (though some, like some gays, are much more demonstrative). Creed is, unlike homosexuality, a choice, but — even so — enjoys a protected status. Yet those who would deny homosexuals equality continuously claim that the “fact” that it’s a choice should remove any eligibility for privilege! Shameful hypocrisy!

As for your rhetorical question on age, there are clear biological reasons why a person’s judgment improves as they age, and so there must be some legal recognition of this. Or why is there a legal marrying age? That’s a totally separate question from whether “marriage” should be limited by gender.

As for my point on freewheeling lifestyles — society provides benefits for those who marry; this serves as an incentive to leave those days of youthful indiscretion behind. If the social expectation is that you will eventually marry and settle down as a stable family group, then people are much more likely to do so. When that’s not an option — is, in fact, discouraged, then, of course, people are more likely to live in their youth.

I would be happy if, legally, civil union and marriage were identical concepts, with the understanding that “religious” marriage was the sole province of churches, and carried no legal advantages or disadvantages. So, I personally don’t care what you call it, as long as its *exactly* the same thing.

BTW, tonight’s election results are sweet.

I am much more than a gay person, but I understand in today’s world that I would be seen as little more than that if I were to run for public office (which I don’t intend to do). While I’m glad that Huckabee is being honest about his views, I think there is a large difference between his views and mine. Huckabee’s views on marriage hurt people; mine do not.

His moral convictions may be completely genuine, but they are discriminatory against other tax-paying, hard-working Americans. Allowing loving gay couples to have federally-recognized unions will not destroy marriage in any capacity; it will strengthen it.

The fact that he would openly make statements about gay marriage around the same time that he talked about a desire to alter the Constitution to fit the Bible is more than enough reason for me to question his intent.

I do not consider my beliefs sacred at all. Neither are his. One man’s religious beliefs should not dictate policy in a secular country, but it’s obvious that those are his plans.

Also, your opinion may not match the overall tone of this website, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t consider it valuable. Keep on posting!!