Mike Huckabee Talks About Homosexuality With Tyra
Mike Huckabee stopped by to talk to Tyra yesterday. Listen to what he says about gays. He also wants the gay vote, but I doubt that is going to happen.
Also, it is amazing how in 2008 there is presidential nominee that does not believe in evolution!
4 babblicious comments:
Hi,
Well, I’m a gop member but I don’t support Mike Huckabee at all.
After review of his econonomic plan for our nation it appears he will add nearly 50 million to our naitonal debt the first year is elected…. Which we can’t afford.
As far as Homosexuality our nation is seeing a rise in Homosexuality for two reasons.
1) GMO foods which effect the growth of young boys (yes it’s documented)
2) Hollywood hype
Now unlike others who oppose Homosexuality I have friends who have taken this path. In fact though I don’t agree with there choice at all I will not shun them from my friendship.
So while I have freiends who are homsosexual and I’m hetrosexual I do oppose the plans of homosexuality taught in schools.
In regards to family the gov own study shows children have a harder time with there own future when exposes to a home life whereas two so called “partners” raise a child.
I’m also sadden by the Homosexaul crowd who suggests that religion as a whole is the greest enemy to the homosexual lifestyle.
As far as the election I support Ron Paul and it’s my hope our nation returns to the value and roots it once stood for and may we never embrace the far left or the far right but may we support the law of the land and get ride of anyone who doesn’t.
I voted for him–he’s not a Washington establishlment elitist, but the kind of guy who rolls up his sleeves and gets something done, he doesn’t pander to anyone, has creative yet do-able ideas (like the Fair Tax instead of our present tax system), and he places a high value on limiting federal government and protecting Constitutional rights and national sovereignty. Tyra was awesome for giving him some time while still asking him some critical questions head-on. There’s still a chance, slim though it is, for a brokered convention….and as for gays, we heteros need to back off the selective condemnation.
Perhaps you should prepare to shake your head and wonder more at the persistence of skepticism about evolution. But, I find it highly questionable. And, it isn’t as though I’m a semi-illiterate who has not read the relevant material. I am confident that I am more familiar with the material and the thinking on both sides of the question than over 99% of the American public.
If I found the evidence for macro-evolution across species from a common ancestry) at all compelling, I would tweak my habits of interpreting data and go on. I understant the psychological force of the consensus of confession in the popular American culture and the consequential majority of textbooks, but I don’t find the evidence compelling at all.
The evolutionist confession is not one driven by the data, as often suggested. It is not a scientific (empirical)conclusion. It is a philosophic predisposition largely driven by the force of consensus.
Given the pervasiveness of that disposition in the culture, I believe it is essential that the theory be taught in schools. An American who deosn’t understand that is uneducated and culturally illiterate in a very critical way.But, they should teach the details of the metaphysical belief in macroevolution, while maintaining the bare modestry that recognizes that it IS, in fact, a metaphysical confession and not a “scientific” conclusion (a “fact”)
I also voted for Huckabee. He is simply the most able and thoughtful candidate to have apeared in the contest. And, I mean”thoughtful” in both senses of the term: in terms of ideas and in terms of consideration and engagement of the broad spectum of Americans.
I disagree with amending The Constitution of the United States on marriage, though. Not because I think the institution by the state of “gay marriage” is a good idea: I don’t. But, because I think the federal government ought have nothing to do with it. If we concede that the federal government has the jurisdiction to define marriage one way today, we concede that it has the jurisdiction to define marriage another way, tomorrow. Govenments don’t determine what marriage is. But, let anyone, with some modesty about how often and how much it may change, determine to whom they may assign the benefits of personal relationship, relative to benefits, contracts, etc.
Perhaps you should prepare to shake your head and wonder more at the persistence of skepticism about evolution. But, I find it highly questionable. And, it isn’t as though I’m a semi-illiterate who has not read the relevant material. I am confident that I am more familiar with the material and the thinking on both sides of the question than over 99% of the American public.
If I found the evidence for macro-evolution across species from a common ancestry) at all compelling, I would tweak my habits of interpreting data and go on. I understant the psychological force of the consensus of confession in the popular American culture and the consequential majority of textbooks, but I don’t find the evidence compelling at all.
The evolutionist confession is not one driven by the data, as often suggested. It is not a scientific (empirical)conclusion. It is a philosophic predisposition largely driven by the force of consensus.
Given the pervasiveness of that disposition in the culture, I believe it is essential that the theory be taught in schools. An American who deosn’t understand that is uneducated and culturally illiterate in a very critical way.But, they should teach the details of the metaphysical belief in macroevolution, while maintaining the bare modestry that recognizes that it IS, in fact, a metaphysical confession and not a “scientific” conclusion (a “fact”)
I also voted for Huckabee. He is simply the most able and thoughtful candidate to have apeared in the contest. And, I mean”thoughtful” in both senses of the term: in terms of ideas and in terms of consideration and engagement of the broad spectum of Americans.
I disagree with amending The Constitution of the United States on marriage, though. Not because I think the institution by the state of “gay marriage” is a good idea: I don’t. But, because I think the federal government ought have nothing to do with it. If we concede that the federal government has the jurisdiction to define marriage one way today, we concede that it has the jurisdiction to define marriage another way, tomorrow. Govenments don’t determine what marriage is. But, let anyone, with some modesty about how often and how much it may change, determine to whom they may assign the benefits of personal relationship, relative to benefits, contracts, etc.