Huckabee Equates Homosexuality With Pedophilia & Bestiality
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Huckabee, Religion, Sexuality
Yup. He did. And you can’t tell me that it isn’t expected.
Maybe somebody should tell Huckabee that he’s running for President of the United States, not President of the Southern Baptist Convention.
QUESTION: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.HUCKABEE: 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. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.
He just couldn’t help himself could he? Just couldn’t keep these inane biases inside any longer. You know, because a loving bond between two consenting adults is, oh, nevermind…it’s so intensely dumb it’s not even worth rebutting.
Go sell crazy somewhere else Mike. We’re all full up here.
This entry was posted on Thursday, January 17th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Huckabee, Religion, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 17th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
And what him about burying that below-the-belt shot at polygamy, and by extension, Mormons and Romney in the middle of that mess of sentence …
This guy is a real piece of work.
January 17th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
supposed to say “what about him” - Apparently I am getting in touch with my inner dyslexic.
January 17th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Just two? The Koran clearly says a man can have two or three or four wives. What are you, some sort of Islamophobe?
January 17th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I doubt he will be the Republican nominee, and in the unlikely case that he is, I sense that he’d experience a Mondale-esque defeat. It would be a disaster for Republicans…
Huckabee seems like a decent and down-to-earth guy who genuinely cares about his country, but some of his positions are just too far out of the mainstream for the American presidency. And as a secular New Hampshirite, I am positive that a Huckabee candidacy would fail horribly in this state, even against a polarizing figure like Hillary. New Hampshire is a state where 48% of Republicans are in favor of civil unions, and 52% are pro-choice. Huckabee’s theocratic social views would crash and burn here with Republicans and Democrats alike.
Huck’s only chances for victory in a general election would exist in the Bible Belt, and maybe Utah, Idaho or Wyoming. And maybe not even those states if his holier-than-thou rhetoric continues.
January 17th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Tony: “New Hampshire is a state where 48% of Republicans are in favor of civil unions, and 52% are pro-choice.”
Are you sure you are not thinking democrats and RINOs? That’s a huge number for republicans who generally lean pro-life and in favor of traditional marriage.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I’m not a Huckabee fan, but I reject the sophistic argument that individuals that supports marriage as defined by the union of a man and a woman are a sort of crazy bunch.
Huckabee’s views resonate with a huge number of Americans that may choose not to vocalize them, so not to be labeled homophobes by the p.c. crowd.
I respect that he answered a loaded question by addressing one hot issue: the attack on tradional marriage.
It’s more than likely, that once we accomodate one group others will follow suit. He was - unlike it was spinned - merely describing the slippery slope we would face.
There are many good reasons why the majority of Americans don’t favor same-sex marriage or civil unions, but unfortunately, this topic has been so manipulated by homosexual activists and the media that discourse is impossible.
People can choose to engage in whatever they like, as long as it’s not infringing on others. However, they do not have the right to impose their lifestyle on everyone else and demand that we recognize it.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
I love it when you take the Al Gore tone…”we are sooooooo beyond this argument.” Yes, this is hard to believe, humanity has a huge bias towards it perpetuation. The Bastards!! A bias towards the biological-based union common to all societies for all of human history. Yes, it is hard to control ourselves, to break off these shackles of nature, tradition, and faith. We should rather obviously hand-over the keys of the most fundamental social unit (the family) to you…because you’re really sure that there is no difference in consenting adult relationships. In your view, children are a mere appendage to marriage - in which case, I would agree with you. Why should one human relationship have some special treatment over another? But marriage is more than a civil union - more than a relationship between two people — it the unit from which humanity is created.
With that said, I agree Huckabee is moron and I’m looking forward to him being gone.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Well it is just great that we all are in agreement about Huckabee. This is a real Kumbaya moment for the regular commenters here. Can’t you guys just feel the love?
That said, let me point out that Dos’s argument that marriage is marriage because it is “the unit from which humanity is created.” also can be used to justify claiming that any and every childless marriage should not deserve to be called a marriage because, you know - no kids, and if everybody did it that way it would be end of humanity. Presumably, polygamous marriages do meet the procreation test, so they do deserves the Dos marriage designation, as does potentially any and all heterosexual adulterous relationships. Did I get that right? I dunno, Dos, I think you would be a lot better off just sticking with the much simpler and easier to apply Elisabetta “marriage is defined by the long standing traditions that I choose to follow, so you have to also” test.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:06 am
You people cant just look at his position on the issue on the merits, can you? You’re so caught up in the way he says things. But if you really look at it, he’s right where folks like me in America are: most of us dont believe we should change the law to make it so that two men can marry each other.
You cannot have a human race and propagate the species with men marrying men and women marrying women. Huckabee understands once you change this basic principle of male and female and institutionalize this alternative lifestyle, you open a dangerous door.
Suddenly those gay couples want to have children. The next step would be cloned embryos, designing the DNA of your future children, all sorts of ethical questions needlessly opened up because we changed the definition of marriage. This is so dangerous. Huckabee’s the only GOP candidate really seeing the danger of such a thing, and that’s one of the reasons he has my support.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Of course you can have a human race and propagate the species whether you allow gay marriage or not. People do not simply choose to be gay. Homosexuals are now, always have been and always will be a minority population. Giving them rights like anyone else won’t change that and won’t affect heterosexual relationships, including marriage. Denying rights to gays isn’t defending marriage for the majority, the two don’t have a thing to do with one another.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Elisabetta said: “There are many good reasons why the majority of Americans don’t favor same-sex marriage or civil unions, but unfortunately, this topic has been so manipulated by homosexual activists and the media that discourse is impossible.”
Of course, there are plenty of good reasons why gays shouldn’t be married or joined in union. It threatens my privilege to a heterosexual marriage. Blacks shouldn’t be allowed to marry whites either, just like in the early 20th Century. It will cause our society to deteriorate, because if we extend marriage benefits to all consenting adults, we’re obviously on the road to man-child and man-animal marriage just like Huckabee claims. Nothing quite like segregation! Benefits for those who are worthy, while the rest can just “live their own lives” void of government recognition of a relationship. This argument surely can’t be wrong, can it?
Oh please, Elisabetta. Give me a break. Anyone who spews the “sanctity of marriage” crap as a reason why gays shouldn’t be entitled to some sort of union should really take a look at the calender. It’s not 1948 anymore. I’m sorry, but I just don’t share your relativist approach regarding folks who stand so strongly for traditional marriage. If you don’t like gay marriage or civil unions, then don’t get one. That simple.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Andrew Sullivan brought up a good point in relation to Huckabee’s statement:
The same folks who argue strongly against allowing 2 adults to get married if they are the same gender have said nothing - NOTHING - about banning divorce. Doesn’t Jesus say that you should stay married for life?
January 18th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
mw ~
Nice try, just wrong. Traditional marriage (1 man & 1 woman) has been tested over millennia and it always comes up a better option to all the other alternatives, including heterosexual co-habitation.
Tony ~
Your argument doesn’t hold water because the premise is wrong.
I understand a number of you have bought into the “innateness and unchangeability” of homosexuality primarily because of all the propaganda that has bombarded us over the past 20+ years, but if you look at real studies, instead of listening to the media and the activists, neither is true.
Also, what about those that were gay and are no longer?
Since they lived the life and at some point chose to abandon it that gives them an insight of the true aspects we don’t hear in the media.
Furthermore, to compare homosexuality (a behavior) to an innate, unchangeable characteristic (skin color/race/ethnicity) is like comparing apples to oranges and totally preposterous. In fact, this is the ONLY behavior that has received acclamation notwithstanding the dangers and the consequences that surround it.
HOW?
In 1973 the APA blackmailed by powerful homosexual lobbyists removed homosexuality as a mental illness from the Medical Journal. There was no scientific study for such a move. Following that, homosexuals activists began an incessant propaganda (with the help of the MSM) complete with a Manifesto http://www.forthechildreninc.com/issues/homosexuality/TheAgenda/InTheirOwnWords.html to fashion homosexuality as normal, unchangeable, good and on par with heterosexuality.
There is NO comparison between homosexuality and the despicable and inhuman treatment of Blacks, who were treated like animals or less, tortured, imprisoned and even killed because their skin color happened not to be white.
Homosexuals possess all the rights as the rest of the population. What they don’t have is the SPECIAL right to redefine marriage to suit their lifestyle, or to brainwash everyone with their propaganda. The same goes for polygamists and other groups whose behavior is deemed hurtful.
In the last election, every state that put the marriage amendment up to a vote received an overwhelming response that favored traditional marriage.
Obviously that’s a blow to the homosexual agenda. However, should society be coerced to effect changes based on people’s volatile feelings?
If that were the case, we’d have to accommodate those that believe incest, polygamy and pedophilia are OK. What unites all these groups is a behavior based on feelings, sensations and a set of thoughts that is far from healthy.
Some here may object to that, citing the involvement of a minor with an adult. All right.
Would it be any different if a father and an adult daughter wanted to have an intimate relationship? Would we cite “love” and “consent” as compelling reasons to legitimize the affair? Are there no ethical reasons in society to approve and disapprove of certain relationships?
And if the gist is “consenting adults” WHY then are homosexuals pushing to get into schools, and teach children about homosexuality? It’s not about tolerance, at all.
Lastly, it’s a shortsighted, ignorant position that assumes that changing the concept of marriage - long-standing and proven to be benefit society – in order to accommodate gays’ lifestyle won’t do any harm.
Look at Massachusetts where same-sex marriage was legislated from the bench AGAINST the wishes of the majority, where young children AGAINST their parents’ wishes have been for years indoctrinated into thinking that homosexuality is normal and OK. Where a lifestyle that carries many psychological and medical issues is promoted as “just another legit lifestyle”!?
Society, by and large - has been duped and forced to accepting a lifestyle on the same grounds as race!
Thanks goodness not everyone has been fooled, not because they are stupid or uncaring, but because unlike those that support homosexuality, ignoring the real facts about it, many people know there is more than meets the eye.
Tony, why don’t you take time to research the facts, hear what ex-gays have to say about it, instead of repeating misinformation?
As for been a relativist you fit the profile more than I do. As for not sharing my view, welcome to the real world!
January 18th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
openslather wrote: “Suddenly those gay couples want to have children. The next step would be cloned embryos, designing the DNA of your future children, all sorts of ethical questions needlessly opened up because we changed the definition of marriage”
Add adoption to the list, now legal in some states. The sale’s pitch says it’s about “love” and providing children with a “stable home.”
Forget, that a child needs a mom and a dad, not ‘two mommies and two daddies.
Forget, that “monogamous” to homosexuals doesn’t have the same meaning as to us.
Richard Howe, in his report “Honosexuality in America: Exposing the Myths,” uncovers the lies promoted by the homosexual agenda.
He writes, “The slick and somewhat successful public relations campaign hides the true face of the homosexual lifestyle. This can be demonstrated from two (indisputable) sources: former homosexuals who reveal what the typical homosexual lifestyle is like, and video tape of other homosexuals in certain public gatherings.”
Ever watched a gay parade? Anyone else acting up in like manner would be arrested!
And for those that say that divorce or death may leave a child to be raised by one parent. Though, not ideal, that is still better that messing up children’s minds with one-sided “role models” just because the agenda must go on. For the activists is all about power, not love.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
mw ~ “Nice try, just wrong. Traditional marriage (1 man & 1 woman) has been tested over millennia and it always comes up a better option to all the other alternatives, including heterosexual co-habitation.” - betta
Well, I find traditional marriage to work out best for me, but I understand that is my choice and my opinion. My choice is not affected by others choosing differently. And as a point of clarification - the above quote is a statement of Elisatta’s opinion, a strongly held opinion, but just an unsupported opinion nevertheless. It is not a statement of fact. So, after all the chaff she throws around, her whole harangue nets out to the exact same statement I made in the earlier comment:
Elisabetta believes that marriage is defined by the long standing traditions that she chooses to follow, so, according to Elisabetta everyone else has to believe that also.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Elisabetta - you are wacky. Who is to say what marriage is or isn’t?
I’ll admit, I’m socially progressive. If states or the federal government decide to grant marriage benefits to consenting adults such as gays, polygamists, siblings, etc… then until the people show their disagreement and vote the people out of office, the laws should stand. Maybe I am more of a relativist, as you claim… but only in regards to situations which do not violate the natural rights of others: life, liberty and property (with this reasoning I am also vehemently pro-life, but that’s a discussion for another day).
What you consider to be a break with morality isn’t necessarily a break with legality.
You’re right, homosexuals don’t necessarily have a RIGHT to marriage… nor do heterosexuals, since the neither the US Constitution nor its subsequent amendments discuss who is entitled to marriage or not. So until it’s amended, if the people decide to ban or allow gay or heterosexual marriage, they can. But even with the current status of the law, I stand firmly that your “traditionalism” is really just a euphemism for a reactionary fundamentalism that has no place in a progressive society.
Although I admit, I agree with you in some areas; for example: it’s not the place of the schools to teach kids about homosexuality, or about traditional family values. Public schools should primarily focus on science, language, math, history and geography… everything else is best left to the parents.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Elisabetta has no facts, just the propaganda of the religious right. Look at her source, Richard Howe.
No raging bigotry in the name of fundamentalist Christianity there, oh no. Elisabetta knows nothing except what her highly prejudiced sources say. Yet she expects us to believe it. She tries to pretend that homosexuals have never been mistreated in any way in our country because of their orientation. She also expects us to believe that youngsters, mostly in their teens, have freely chosen a sexual orientation that will more often than not (and in the not too distant past inevitably) earn them them rejection by their peer group and often their own parents. I’ve never heard people like Elisabetta and those she listens to come up with a good motivation for that. Ever. But of course she’s incapable of looking at anything but the “facts” provided by equally prejudiced individuals.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Pssst…. ISLAMOPHOBES!!!!
January 21st, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Expected reaction. Hold off patting yourselves.
While, I am accused of not providing facts, i.e., facts that don’t jive with your preconceptions, your position is wrapped up in worn-out, debunked propaganda. There has been no proof, no sources, not facts to buttress your stances. Could it be because you have none?
I am sorry mw but in order to respond to the hogwash posted I need some space. Thanks for understanding.
Mw ~ “The chaff, harangue”?
Considering that the majority here only engaged in one-liners, misinformation and feelings, I felt necessary to point out and present what you either don’t know or blatantly ignore.
Nice to know what ‘works best for you,’ but that is irrelevant. Also interesting that despite your dissing and demagoguery, the “proof” lies with your opinion, again.
OK, so your opinion is as good as mine, and carries some weight…but what is the basis for it?
Undoubtedly, it must be gut-wrenching for you (collectively) to move a millimeter from that hard-held position based on rhetoric, established prejudices and p.c.’s allegiance but if ALL you have is homosexual propaganda, I don’t see how you expect to convince others that you are “right” and others are wrong.. Browbeating, insults and out-right lies sway no one.
I presented some of the many facts out there. Rather than dealing with ANY of those, you (collectively) chose – in your unique manner but same intent, to besmirch the messenger and even the source of the message.
Jim grandstances: “Elisabetta has no facts, just the propaganda of the religious right. Look at her source, Richard Howe.”
You got me, Jim! How dare I not quote the MSM’s misinformation or homosexual activists (with their own agenda) or even you!?
In your open-minded thinking and tolerance, this guy’s research is automatically disavowed because he is on the ‘wrong side’ of the issue. Accusations of bigotry and taradiddles are the typical weapons of the ignorant. The aim is to silencing those that dissent with your views. Sorry, you have to do better than that, like sticking to the issues.
For starters:
1. Have you or anyone else here produced proof of WHY you believe what you do?
2. Are you able do debate the issues on their merits, instead of falling back on left wing, hateful propaganda?
Not only I didn’t expect anyone to take my words by “faith,” but also I offered a few sources out of many; advanced a logic argument (not one based on feelings – as yours); and encouraged those interested to look at the studies – on their own. It may come as a surprise to you, but the majority has not buckled under the pressure of the propaganda you submit to.
Also, based on your response here, I find it hard to believe, that you actually “listened to me” as you listened to others previously before concluding we are wrong and you are smart. Pardon me, but like mw, your debate was non-existent, unless you liken personal attacks to intelligent discussion. Though, to be fair, mw “shot me down “ (in his mind) with a single bullet. Whereas, you emptied a salvo of politically correct – still untrue - talking points. Nonetheless, neither you, nor mw addressed a single point I made. Instead you chucked it up to me “being incapable of looking at the facts.” Forget that none here present facts to dispute what I said.
Furthermore, I never said that gays were never mistreated, so don’t be like “hill and bill.” If you must quote me, do it accurately. In responding to Tony’s claim I wrote that homosexuality is not comparable to race and they have not been treated as Blacks were. It would be foolish to argue otherwise.
As for why some people are gays or why some choose the lifestyle the reasons are varied, but “been born that way” is not one of them. Of course, if you know more than those that have spent years researching this, or if you can prove all the ex-gays are lying, or if you can demolish anything I have previously said with substance, then you’ll have my undivided attention.
Tony, who and what defines “wackiness”? Your ideas are bunkum to me, but I didn’t refer to you - or the others - as deranged, even though some here fit the role. I believe that a reasoned, well-thought argument is more convincing for those with an open mind. You call yourself “progressive” but the concept doesn’t always translate into positive ideas. I don’t see you or others being broad-minded or tolerant with those of a different opinion. With the exception that you brought something positive to the discussion and seem to understand that school is not the place to promote the homosexual agenda. Like sex-education, it’s one sided and many of the realities of the behavior are omitted. That kind of misinformation has consequences, whether one likes it or not.
I contend that laws should only be changed when the party/ies interested in doing so have shown urging reasons/rationale for the alteration to take place. Volatile, changeable behaviors do not fall into that category.
Why should the law change JUST because a few say it should?
Why should we socially experiment before voicing our disapproval when there is plenty of information that details what the lifestyle and its consequences are all about?
I am confused about this statement, “If states or the federal government decide to grant marriage benefits to consenting adults such as gays, polygamists, siblings, etc… then until the people show their disagreement and vote the people out of office, the laws should stand.”
On one hand, you want the “law” to remain (which law?). On the other hand, you want the courts to change the law that exists at present? That smacks of disingenuousness.
Outside of few states, Massachusetts being one of them, that have granted either same-sex marriage or civil unions, the rest of the country has not. Those “laws” should have never happened without a referendum, because EVERY marriage amendment that has been put to a vote has told us clearly what the majority supports. Besides, I thought you said the “law should remain.”
Then you write, “What you consider to be a break with morality isn’t necessarily a break with legality.”
Consider that there was a time that slavery was legal, but we all know it was wrong. Just as abortion today is legal and – again, wrong.
However, change should not occur because the sound of “traditional” grates against your grain. It should only happen after compelling, valid reasons have been presented and all the ramifications considered. Free societies cannot exist without laws, in order to protect everyone. Many of those laws are based on moral principles. The family unit composed by one man/one woman and children (naturally or adopted) if there are, has been beneficial throughout all ages. When that breaks down with divorce, out-of wedlock pregnancies and worst, societies eventually cease to exist.