Olbermann: "Huckabee compares gay marriage to pedophilia and bestiality."

[Knightskye]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFwt3csABJU

Shucks, Huck.

 

[wildflower]

I can't stand Olberman.

I hate to defend the Huckster, but he was not "comparing" gay marriage to pedophilia or bestiality in the way you seem to think.

I think he was just making the point that if the definition of marriage can be changed to anything we want it to be, then anything goes.

And btw, a man in another country (I forget where) DID marry his goat, it was in the news not too long ago.

I think you totally missed his point.

 

[JordanQ72]

And he's right

 

[Paulbot_9876]

I can't stand Olberman.

I hate to defend the Huckster, but he was not "comparing" gay marriage to pedophilia or bestiality in the way you seem to think.

I think he was just making the point that if the definition of marriage can be changed to anything we want it to be, then anything goes.

And btw, a man in another country (I forget where) DID marry his goat, it was in the news not too long ago.

I think you totally missed his point.

we are not in another country......
we are in america......
freedom of religion and belief..... if someone believed in marrage with an animal here...legally he could marry it by law.....freedom of religion....but i am sure the lynch mob would fry his bride and eat her if she was a pig or cow.....mwaahaahaahaaa

 

[Sandy]

I can't stand Olberman.

I hate to defend the Huckster, but he was not "comparing" gay marriage to pedophilia or bestiality in the way you seem to think.

I think he was just making the point that if the definition of marriage can be changed to anything we want it to be, then anything goes.

And btw, a man in another country (I forget where) DID marry his goat, it was in the news not too long ago.

I think you totally missed his point.

Yes, that is what he meant and what he is saying is that one thing will lead to another.......and he is right. Things will start not having meaning and society will continue losing a semblance of structure and stability. Social engineered situation with one goal to gain order out of chaos.

Think about this, definition of marriage changes for example......definition of freedom changes....definition of sovereignity changes, it all goes together to promote a loosening of borders mindset in the populace.

Psychological warfare.

 

[CelestialRender]

I can't stand Olberman.

I hate to defend the Huckster, but he was not "comparing" gay marriage to pedophilia or bestiality in the way you seem to think.

I think he was just making the point that if the definition of marriage can be changed to anything we want it to be, then anything goes.

And btw, a man in another country (I forget where) DID marry his goat, it was in the news not too long ago.

I think you totally missed his point.

Changing the definition of something doesn't mean it has no definition.

It's really quite terrible logic.

 

[wildflower]

Yes, that is what he meant and what he is saying is that one thing will lead to another.......and he is right. Things will start not having meaning and society will continue losing a semblance of structure and stability. Social engineered situation with one goal to gain order out of chaos.

Think about this, definition of marriage changes for example......definition of freedom changes....definition of sovereignity changes, it all goes together to promote a loosening of borders mindset in the populace.

Psychological warfare.

For some reason I'm reminded of the book Brave New World. I haven't read that in ages, I should read it again.

 

[Telkandore]

First of all, there's nothing in the Constitution that says anything about marriage being between a man and a woman, so there are no strict constructionist grounds to argue against this.

Second of all, it's a completely fallacious argument anyway. People are like "it's a slippery slope," and somehow act like that's a good justification for the argument. The term "slippery slope" is the name of an official logical fallacy where a logical conclusion is deduced from unrelated, illogical premises.

Thirdly, and perhaps most disconcertingly, is the blatant and transparent bigotry of such an argument. Even if you say you aren't you are still suggesting that homosexuals are sub-humans.

I'm very surprised that a good amount of you oppose gay marriage, as Ron's platform would support it (well, defer it to the states; but Ron would never try to make it illegal). If you follow his anti-collectivism thought and start looking at people as individuals equal in the eyes of the law or God or whatever, you realize gay marriage is just a union of love between two, consenting human beings.

 

[JordanQ72]

consenting human beings.

Pedophiles would argue over how we determine 'consenting', with historical examples.

PETA would argue over the 'human being' part. I'm not sure how, but I'm sure their reasoning is sound in their own heads.

 

[wildflower]

Pedophiles would argue over how we determine 'consenting', with historical examples.

Yep, and they already have argued that sex between men and boys should be socially acceptable. I'd be interested in hearing if Telkandore would support that, if they are in love, and if it's consensual.

 

[ValidusCustodiae]

I'm very surprised that a good amount of you oppose gay marriage, as Ron's platform would support it (well, defer it to the states; but Ron would never try to make it illegal). If you follow his anti-collectivism thought and start looking at people as individuals equal in the eyes of the law or God or whatever, you realize gay marriage is just a union of love between two, consenting human beings.

Actually, I don't think Ron Paul would support states making laws that directly infringe upon Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. In other words, since the Constitution guarantees the right of adults to peacefully and freely assemble, there's no basis for the government saying suddenly that does not apply to groups of 2 same sex who want to call that assembly marriage. Let's not forget the 10th amendment as well, which bars the states from taking away freedoms listed in the Constitution.

I see marriage as any other contract, and people have an unlimited right to contract.

 

[libertythor]

Pedophiles would argue over how we determine 'consenting', with historical examples.

PETA would argue over the 'human being' part. I'm not sure how, but I'm sure their reasoning is sound in their own heads.

Consenting adults then!

 

[Sandy]

First of all, there's nothing in the Constitution that says anything about marriage being between a man and a woman, so there are no strict constructionist grounds to argue against this.

Second of all, it's a completely fallacious argument anyway. People are like "it's a slippery slope," and somehow act like that's a good justification for the argument. The term "slippery slope" is the name of an official logical fallacy where a logical conclusion is deduced from unrelated, illogical premises.

Thirdly, and perhaps most disconcertingly, is the blatant and transparent bigotry of such an argument. Even if you say you aren't you are still suggesting that homosexuals are sub-humans.

I'm very surprised that a good amount of you oppose gay marriage, as Ron's platform would support it (well, defer it to the states; but Ron would never try to make it illegal). If you follow his anti-collectivism thought and start looking at people as individuals equal in the eyes of the law or God or whatever, you realize gay marriage is just a union of love between two, consenting human beings.

'Bigotry', this is the famous Marxist argument, and the above response shows how much indoctrination and pscyh warfare has gone on in this country, and Marxist 'political correctness' is what spreads through communist countries. The writer of this post won't believe what I'm saying, and if he goes back and studies history and societies where this has happened, he will no longer say 'slippery slope' is a logical fallacy. All it take is to study history, it does repeat itself.

Guess what, a large amount of people since this country was founded opposed gay marriage, they have also opposed pedophelia, multiple marriages, etc. The label bigotry was not thrown around. Were the older generations bigots towards pedophiles? I mean, pedophiles could say it's just a union of love between two and if you don't agree you are a collective thinker, and that is does no damage to the child. That you are a bigot towards pedophiles if you disagree. If one wants to get married to a child, and you oppose the idea, you are a bigot and intolerant.

Do you know what communist social collectivism is? An anything goes society, where less and less is deemed unnatural. What do you think of multiple marriages? It leads to the major subjugation of women, big under the thumb situation, abuse, loss of freedom. Societies that have this, men who don't have wives or few steal other men's women because of the competition. Women are kidnapped. You better bet I'd be for making it illegal if it was brought before my state. Oh, but it's love, and you are a collectivist and bigot if you think otherwise.

The social engineers are promoting and fomenting all of this and they have an agenda. There is a drama show on TV about a multiple marriage family, there is an agenda to gradually introduce these ideas and make these things seem normal, ok, and harmless. Subtle pedophelia is showing up in films, saw it in a movie with Nicole Kidman and I shut the movie off.

By the way, my aunt died of AIDS, and I knew tons of gay men from her support group, I don't hate homosexuals and am well aware they are humans. You just go around claiming people are bigots when you don't know what the hell you are talking about. THAT is collectivist thinking, stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[Salamando]

I don't understand how an animal can get married, how can an animal acknowledge wanting to get married? Huckabee's comments are extremely disgusting.

 

[Telkandore]

Consenting adults then!

That's what I meant. When I say consent I mean its current legal definition. There's no reason to change the age of consent and I never suggested that once.

'Bigotry', this is the famous Marxist argument, and the above response shows how much indoctrination and pscyh warfare has gone on in this country, and Marxist 'political correctness' is what spreads through communist countries. The writer of this post won't believe what I'm saying, and if he goes back and studies history and societies where this has happened, he will no longer say 'slippery slope' is a logical fallacy. All it take is to study history, it does repeat itself.

Guess what, a large amount of people since this country was founded opposed gay marriage, they have also opposed pedophelia, multiple marriages, etc. The label bigotry was not thrown around. Were the older generations bigots towards pedophiles? I mean, pedophiles could say it's just a union of love between two and if you don't agree you are a collective thinker, and that is does no damage to the child. That you are a bigot towards pedophiles if you disagree. If one wants to get married to a child, and you oppose the idea, you are a bigot and intolerant

You can now add the straw man to your list of fallacies; I never mentioned pedophiles or alteration of consent age once. And if you think this kind of "slippery slope" is concerning, you should be WAY more wary of banning gay marriage. Using your logic, if the government can d;ecide who you can or cannot marry, what's to stop them at sexual orientation? They could start saying you can only marry redheads if your last name starts with B because OMGZOR THE SLIPPINESS!!

And of any community on the net, this one should realize that the "war on family values" is frivolous propaganda designed to rile up racists and xenophobes. Such petty "morality" is a method of control, and religious law was invented to facilitate social control and the biological persistence of our species. Look at every major world religion and their core values are VERY similar because they were all created to the same ends. None of them allow alcohol, since drunkenness prohibits obedience and productivity. Thou shalt not kill because wars endanger survival. None of them support homosexuality because homosexuality can't elongate our bloodline.

No "divine laws" are ever actually divine. Morality is there to control you. Read some Nietzsche.

 

[wildflower]

Morality is there to control you. Read some Nietzsche.

lol. How old are you, just out of curiosity?

 

[idiom]

Telkandore you need to read Nietzsche again...

 

[Marc3579]

Brining Nietzche into a discussion... This could get interesting! :>

 

[Telkandore]

20. Why? Is it immature to understand the truth about asceticism and universal moral codes? The reason fox news covers such foolish "moral" issues is to rile illogical emotional support. No one's gonna force you to get a gay marriage, you know. This has nothing to do with you so why don't you just let other people live their own lives? Go read some of the things people were saying about the havoc racial integration would wreak.

And if you're still convinced gay marriage is completely, religiously despicable, it still doesn't matter very much. Civil unions are state-issued and have nothing to do with anyone church. The government can't force churches to start marrying gay people, but gay couples deserve every single tax credit/visiting right etc. of heterosexual couples.

 

[rfbz]

Second of all, it's a completely fallacious argument anyway. People are like "it's a slippery slope," and somehow act like that's a good justification for the argument. The term "slippery slope" is the name of an official logical fallacy where a logical conclusion is deduced from unrelated, illogical premises.

I find Huckabee deplorable and this latest comment to be ridiculous, as well as him wanting to amend the constitution to reflect the bible. But I don't think the slippery slope argument is necessarily a fallacy, it's just that people overuse it as in this case where I highly doubt allowing gay marriage would lead to allowing marriage with animals.

I think there are times where the slippery slope argument is pretty valid. Take the patriot act for example. A neocon might be able to persuade the public using "valid" reasoning that it is necessary to fight terrorism. But it does open the door for our acceptance on the intrusion of our rights, where further on down the line we may be less resistant because of it when more legislation is passed.