TechPro wrote:And here I thought you were challenging the notion that people can choose what they want to be (their path) whether they decide to pursue riches, be a drunken bum, serve as a missionary, whatever. Silly me.
Whatever purpose or plan God has in mind for a person is important for that person to learn (assuming the person believes in a God) ... however each and every person can choose. That's my point.
I like my freedom to choose someone other than Huckabee.
But is that the right choice? Do you care? Should you care?
Obviously I care. Otherwise I'd never have bothered to post my opinion regarding him. Everyone who is eligible to vote in this upcoming election should care (duh) and so do you.
Is it the right choice to NOT vote for Huckabee? IMHO very much so, as long as a better choice exists (and IMHO a much better choice exists).
Aggressor Prime wrote:Huckabee is the closest canidate to fulfilling God's will due to his positions on critical issues: life (abortion and stem cell research) and order (marriage, economy, war, and border control).
I don't agree. Sure he's a fellow Christian, as am I, but I believe there are other candidates whose stances more closely resemble what I understand God's will to be on those same issues.
(Now notice something here... neither you nor I actually said anything informative in the above exchange. If you're going to state why you support someone, you have to support it with something more than a vague reference to God's will. And if you want to debate what God's will is on a particular issue, then let's take it to a new thread.)
That's what I don't like about the support I've seen for Huckabee. Except for here on the DBB, every single statement of support for him that I've heard was basically, "Well, he's a Christian, and my pastor likes him!"
Most important quote from that commentary:
"In fact, Gov. Mike Huckabee is the only candidate running for the presidency who has fully, clearly and consistently been Pro-Life and Pro-Family throughout his public career. He has always strongly supported both the Right to Life and Traditional Marriage Amendments to the Constitution, which most Catholics know are essential to the protection of these social values."
Kyouryuu wrote:I thought we were electing a President, not a Pope.
While it does take more than one man to wreck the Constitution, it doesn't help to elect people who have such wanton disdain for it.
Who said changing the constitution is wrecking it? We have changed it before to add some nice rights. We need to change it again to add some more nice rights.
Aggressor Prime wrote:Who said changing the constitution is wrecking it? We have changed it before to add some nice rights. We need to change it again to add some more nice rights.
If you're referring to the proposed marriage definition change Huckabee supports, it does nothing to "add" rights, it only serves to take them away. (The church does and should have rights to decide what it deems a righteous marriage to be, but the government should not be involved.)
That's what is so disturbing about Huckabee, even though I agree with him on some things. He seems to want to form the government in the image of the church, which is about as bad an idea as I've heard. Heck, the writers of our Constitution made it very clear that blending the church and state that way is the last thing they wanted.
We gain the right of keeping marriage holy. With the present threats to marriage, we need to politically define it to defend it. If we fail to define it, marriage will continue to collapse along with the state of American society. I don't think you want us to become another lost Roman Empire. Learn from history. A society can only survive in so much as it is kept orderly. That order begins with the family.
If you want to get the United States government out of it, you first have to have the Pope take control of the United States government (which I doubt will happen). Otherwise, marriage will stand undefined and homosexuals will get married. This will lead to the disgrace of marriage. You must understand. It doesn't matter if you are Catholic or not, everyone is God's child and therefore everyone must obey His rules if they want to keep order. Not believing in the devil won't keep him away. By letting homosexuals get married, society is affected and degraded leading to the fall of the United States. Of course if you hate America and wish to see her fall, go on and promote an undefined marriage.
Aggressor Prime wrote:If we fail to define it, marriage will continue to collapse along with the state of American society. I don't think you want us to become another lost Roman Empire. Learn from history. A society can only survive in so much as it is kept orderly. That order begins with the family.
Right... so you believe order begins with families, but that turning more people into families is a bad thing that causes society to collapse...
Aggressor Prime wrote:If we fail to define it, marriage will continue to collapse along with the state of American society. I don't think you want us to become another lost Roman Empire. Learn from history. A society can only survive in so much as it is kept orderly. That order begins with the family.
Right... so you believe order begins with families, but that turning more people into families is a bad thing that causes society to collapse...
Let me give an example. A good family, one built on God's definition of marriage (unconditional love in which the Trinity may be formed to create life), is a good brick. All other families are poor bricks. These bricks are used to build society. The more poor bricks used to build society, the weaker the structure of society becomes and the sooner society collapses.
Yeah but Aggressor I'm willing to bet you that there would be plenty of gay marriages that would be FAR more harmonious than heterosexual ones. Marriage in this country is a joke anyways, there is no sanctity in it anymore.
You are going to lose this fight Aggressor, one day you will. It's simply going to happen, maybe not tomorrow or the next day but you will lose. As soon as you people realize that this world is no longer a big episode of 'leave it to beaver', no pun intended.
Zuruck wrote:Yeah but Aggressor I'm willing to bet you that there would be plenty of gay marriages that would be FAR more harmonious than heterosexual ones. Marriage in this country is a joke anyways, there is no sanctity in it anymore.
You are going to lose this fight Aggressor, one day you will. It's simply going to happen, maybe not tomorrow or the next day but you will lose. As soon as you people realize that this world is no longer a big episode of 'leave it to beaver', no pun intended.
There is nothing harmonious about a marriage that cannot form the holy Trinity to produce children.
While you may want the Roman Catholic Church to give up, you will find out that the Church is not ruled by man but by God and therefore will never change her position on homosexual marriage, nor will I.
TechPro wrote:
People feeling like the constitution is in danger from just one person??? Get real.
One doesn’t have to actually amend the Constitution to get around it *cough* patriot act *cough*
The *cough* patriot act *cough* still required quite a few people to vote for it (it's an "act").
They voted for it without really reading it or knowing what it really allowed the government to do because the president ramrodded it down their throats. He did that by implying that anyone who didn't vote for it was not being patriotic. My point being that one person who is properly motivated can find a way to circumvent the Constitution.
Zuruck wrote:Yeah but Aggressor I'm willing to bet you that there would be plenty of gay marriages that would be FAR more harmonious than heterosexual ones. Marriage in this country is a joke anyways, there is no sanctity in it anymore.
You are going to lose this fight Aggressor, one day you will. It's simply going to happen, maybe not tomorrow or the next day but you will lose. As soon as you people realize that this world is no longer a big episode of 'leave it to beaver', no pun intended.
There is nothing harmonious about a marriage that cannot form the holy Trinity to produce children.
So you are saying that a couple that marries with the intent of having children then finds out they can't for one reason or another is now suddenly "not a good brick" and not "harmonious". When does the change occur, when they find out they can't have kids?
Gooberman wrote:Did you know "USA PATRIOT" in The USA PATRIOT Act is actually an acronym.
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
Some consulting firm must of made alot of money off of that.
Dedman wrote:
So you are saying that a couple that marries with the intent of having children then finds out they can't for one reason or another is now suddenly "not a good brick" and not "harmonious". When does the change occur, when they find out they can't have kids?
Not at all. The formation of the Trinity can endure in these special cases, even in cases in which a woman or man knows she/he is unable to reproduce before marriage (although such information should be revealed). However, a man and a woman are required to form two parts of this Trinity and a child or children the third. This child can be adopted. This does not relate to homosexual marriage as one part of the Trinity is missing, either the father or the mother.
Dedman wrote:
So you are saying that a couple that marries with the intent of having children then finds out they can't for one reason or another is now suddenly "not a good brick" and not "harmonious". When does the change occur, when they find out they can't have kids?
Not at all. The formation of the Trinity can endure in these special cases, even in cases in which a woman or man knows she/he is unable to reproduce before marriage (although such information should be revealed). However, a man and a woman are required to form two parts of this Trinity and a child or children the third. This child can be adopted. This does not relate to homosexual marriage as one part of the Trinity is missing, either the father or the mother.
Simply amazing. I guess God really does hate fags.
Aggressor Prime wrote: ... The formation of the Trinity can endure in these special cases, even in cases in which a woman or man knows she/he is unable to reproduce before marriage (although such information should be revealed). However, a man and a woman are required to form two parts of this Trinity and a child or children the third. This child can be adopted. ...
So... what if the Man and the Woman have more than one child? Let's say four children ... four plus the two parents ... that make a "Holy Sextupity" ?
roid wrote:Where is this "Trinity Marriage of Man, Woman and Child" stuff even comming from? I don't remember anything like this in the Bible. What is this?
My guess is it's somehow taken from the scriptures referring to the analogy of the marriage of Christ and the Church.
Catholic doctrine has a lot to say about sex, reproduction, etc. In my personal opinion, from what I understand of it (admittedly not as much as some others here), some parts of it are very firmly rooted in scripture and common sense, other parts are based on some very odd interpretations and traditions.
Dedman wrote:
So you are saying that a couple that marries with the intent of having children then finds out they can't for one reason or another is now suddenly "not a good brick" and not "harmonious". When does the change occur, when they find out they can't have kids?
Not at all. The formation of the Trinity can endure in these special cases, even in cases in which a woman or man knows she/he is unable to reproduce before marriage (although such information should be revealed). However, a man and a woman are required to form two parts of this Trinity and a child or children the third. This child can be adopted. This does not relate to homosexual marriage as one part of the Trinity is missing, either the father or the mother.
Simply amazing. I guess God really does hate fags.
No. God loves everyone. This is what is best for homosexuals whether they know it or not.
Dedman wrote:
So you are saying that a couple that marries with the intent of having children then finds out they can't for one reason or another is now suddenly "not a good brick" and not "harmonious". When does the change occur, when they find out they can't have kids?
Not at all. The formation of the Trinity can endure in these special cases, even in cases in which a woman or man knows she/he is unable to reproduce before marriage (although such information should be revealed). However, a man and a woman are required to form two parts of this Trinity and a child or children the third. This child can be adopted. This does not relate to homosexual marriage as one part of the Trinity is missing, either the father or the mother.
Simply amazing. I guess God really does hate fags.
No. God loves everyone. This is what is best for homosexuals whether they know it or not.
I couldn't disagree with you more. This is a pointless discussion. Have a fantasitc week.
Aggressor Prime wrote:No. God loves everyone. This is what is best for homosexuals whether they know it or not.
And you say homosexuals are scary?
Why don't people like you get bent out of shape when the heterosexual divorce rate in this country is so high? Why do gays get all the blame for this "erosion" of marriage when heterosexual couples can't even maintain what they have?
If two men love each other, they should be afforded the same rights as a married couple. If two women love each other, they should expect the same. Even if it's not called "marriage," why shouldn't they have the same legal rights when it comes to taxation?
I laugh every time it happens and offends people like you. The world isn't as it was in the 1950s, Beaver, and the more you kick and scream, the more desperate you look.
Otherwise I'd never have bothered to post my opinion regarding him. Everyone who is eligible to vote in this upcoming election should care (duh) and so do you.
J/K
I knew as an atheist I had no chance to be in your new world.. but this? Would you vote for Huckabee if you found out he was sterile?
(probably longer)