Huckabee to gays: No sex for you

Mike Huckabee was taking a bit of a chance appearing on “Meet the Press” with just a few days left before the Iowa caucuses — an unimpressive showing would have created quite a bit of negative media buzz in the closing days — but the former governor didn’t make any errors that were so serious, they’re likely to hurt his campaign.

That said, he made several noteworthy comments. For example, there was this odd exchange on Huckabee’s opinions on homosexuality. (TP has the video)

RUSSERT: But when you say [“I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle”], do you believe you’re born gay or you choose to be gay?

HUCKABEE: I don’t know whether people are born that way. People who are gay say that they’re born that way. But one thing I know, that the behavior one practices is a choice. We may have certain tendencies, but how we behave and how we carry out our behavior….”

I see. So, Huckabee doesn’t actually care if someone is gay, he cares whether or not gays are celibate. “Tendencies” don’t matter to Huckabee, whether gays act on those tendencies is what counts.

And here I thought his years of bizarre criticism of the gay community were a sign of intolerance. I’ve clearly misjudged him.

Russert also quizzed Huckabee on his stated desire to take the nation “back for Christ.”

RUSSERT: And then, and then this comment. “I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.” Where does…

HUCKABEE: Which was, by the way, that phrase was one I think was 1998, is that when it was? The 1998 speech?

RUSSERT: Yeah.

HUCKABEE: To the Southern Baptist Convention. So it was a speech made to a Christian gathering, and, and certainly that would be appropriate to be said to a gathering of Southern Baptists.

I haven’t the foggiest idea what that means. Huckabee said he hopes people take the United States “back for Christ” — what difference does it make who his audience was? Either he wants to lead the country in an officially, explicitly Christian direction, or he doesn’t. Why would it be “appropriate” for him to make this proclamation in front of one audience and not another?

Maybe, a Huckabee supporter might say, none of this really matters, because he’s vowed not to let his faith dictate government policy. That’s true; he has offered that assurance.

But there’s that gubernatorial record of his that occasionally gets in the way of his campaign promises.

Five days after the tornado tore through the state, [Arkadelphia, Ark., a] city of 10,000 lay in ruins. The cyclone destroyed an office building, a bank, a pharmacy and 70 other businesses. The electricity was out. The National Guard patrolled the streets. Six people were dead.

In Little Rock, GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee was reviewing a disaster insurance measure that he intended to support when he became troubled: The bill, drawing on centuries-old legal terminology, referred to natural disasters as “acts of God.”

In a time of emergency, Huckabee would hold up the measure for more than three weeks to press his personal objection that the Almighty could not be blamed for the region’s loss. In the process, he drew damaging headlines and created new strains in his relations with the state’s legislature, the General Assembly.

Now, to be fair, it’s worth noting that there’s no indication that Huckabee’s decision to delay the bill adversely affected anyone. But the state legislation in question sought to protect tornado victims from insurance companies that might cancel their policies, and used language — “acts of God” — which is standard in many insurance policies.

One state senator noted, “Instead of getting focused on getting aid to the areas, he’s in an uproar over words. It was kind of silly.”

Huckabee told Russert yesterday that the best way to consider whether he would blend faith and public policy is to look at “how I served as a governor.” That’s hardly reassuring.

“…certainly that would be appropriate to be said to a gathering of Southern Baptists.”

Sounds like Huckabee was deliberately misunderstanding the question, trying to link it to the tempest that swirled around his recent uses of the word “Christ.” It’s as if he’s saying, “It would be appropriate to use the word ‘Christ’ among Southern Baptists” while ignoring the part about urging SBs, himself included, to “take this nation back.” Whatever that means, which is what he was asked to explain, which he didn’t.

  • More proof that Theo-Con = Pervert.

    MuthaHucka is just another Kreepy Khristian Kandidate who can’t stop thinking about who does what with whom. If you try to tell him there’s a good deal more to any stable relationship than sex he doesn’t want to hear it. It spoils the fantasy of non-stop orgies. If he sees two guys or two women holding hands he doesn’t want to think of them shopping for groceries, taking in a movie, packing their kid’s lunch bag, no! He’s made them into his own private fetish so they have to play by his rules and those rules say they’re nothing but sex maniacs.

    And at night when his wife has given him a peck on the cheek and fallen asleep, he lays there, thinking “It just isn’t fair!”

    All we can do is wait for the skeleton to flop out of his closet. I bet it’s wearing a lot of leather.

  • I don’t want to equate being born gay to being born an achoholic but if I were born gay or straight, it would be up to me whether to act on my sexual urges. If I had the wrong genes and were unable to stop drinking after I started then it would be up to me whether or not to act on my urge to drink.

    Why can’t someone believe the way Huckabee believes?

  • This attitude of what it means to be gay is common, CB, and it’s a good thing to make this clear to all.

    “Converting” gays is deemed successful when the gay person has no sex at all or has it with the opposite sex. Both are deemed “success.”

    Nevermind that the Bible equates wanting to sin with sin… they see actual follow-through as the crime to be prevented.

    Celibacy is the expected “lifestyle” of Christian people with homosexual orientation (the attraction you’re hardwired with). This view is common among fundamentalists and their cavalier declaration that God expects celibacy of people is the part I find repugnant. I understand the motive, but their casual acceptance of such a tremendous sacrifice just because THEY don’t see gay sex as remotely attractive is to be condemned. Celibate Christian gays are trying harder to please God that almost any clergyman yet fundamentalists are probably inclined to say that avoiding gay intimacy would be “the least they can do” to achieve piety.

    Even being tempted by such a “lifestyle” would seem horrifyingly hedonistic to them. They have NO grasp of “putting themselves in another’s shoes.” Perhaps it would scare them too much.

  • TAiO (#2) said it all. Thank you.

    nw (#4), Huckleberry is entitled to his private (bizarre) beliefs, but he’s not entitled to his own facts. Alcoholism is a disease with known harmful effects. The American Psychiatric Association dropped homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1973.

  • I think, Neil, that someone can believe that…one can believe anything, but there are a couple of challenges. First, your comparison is inherently perjorative. Alcoholism is a disease, not simply a state of being, and I don’t think you have a growing school of thought, culturally influenced, that says, “Alcoholism is good.” There’s no Parents and Friends of Lushes and Drunks. In your comparison, it’s still about flaws and wrong genes and absence of willpower. I don’t see, by your construct, using diabetes as the parallel, probably because it’s seen as morally neutral even though that’s a disease and an equally bad comparison to homosexuality. And that’s leaving better comparisons (race, ethicity and other “born-withs”) out of the discussion.

    I might not like it, but I could feel less offended by the Huckabee type line if he at the same time said, “But let’s step back from urges and actions. People who are homosexual should be able to live where they want, not be fired from their jobs, not be abused or harrassed or maimed or killed because of it. They should have the same rights and protections as any other citizen.” But that never happens, primarily because it is all about behavior–real or imagined–that some people obsess about when it comes to homosexuals. The truth of it, for most gay people, is probably just as dull and mundane as hetero sex.

  • How sure are we that Governor Huckabee is indeed sincere in his (so-called) “Christian” convictions?

    And how do we know that he isn’t really in it with Al Cohol (the better to create the proper aura of legitimacy for his pseudoreligious excesses), and what steps is he taking exactly to “cover up the tracks” lest suspicions be aroused by the (so-called) “Evil Liberal Media Conspiracy”–“detoxifying” herbal teas produced by Scientologist front companies, perhaps?

    As if that weren’t enough:

    Isn’t it true that Huckabee’s theology degree may be nothing more than cheap boasting (again, perhaps under Al Cohol’s influence)?

  • Look, can we eliminate the phrase “to be fair,” as well as the behavior it describes, from our lexicon? The era of “being fair” has been over for years, and the failure to recognize that fact has been part of the problem.

  • I don’t want to bash gays. I don’t think there is anything wrong with being gay.

    However, I do think it is EASIER to be straight in this society than it is to be gay. I would want my son to be straight rather than gay because it is easier. Just like i would want my son to be 5′ 10″ rather than 4′ 10″. Not that there is much I could do about either issue.

    My point is that Hucakabee thinks that homosexual sex is WRONG. It is a viewpoint that he is entitled to have. He thinks that if you are gay that you should resist the ‘sin’ of homosexual sex.

    Look, I think Huckabee is crazy about a number of issues and I really am disappointed that he has chosen to give up some of his Christian principles to be more of a Republican.

    The entire Republican party has decided that gays are bad people so why should Huckabee be singled out for saying that gay sex is wrong when every republican running has to say the same thing or won’t be able to get the nomination.

    Even Rudy now supports anti gay measures he used to support.

  • Neil, why should you or Huckabee care whether people have gay sex? How on earth does it affect your lives, your marriages, your families, your suburbs, your state or country? It is quite simply none of your business. Your obsession with gay sex is tiresome and embarrassing.

  • I’d write a long reply here, Neil, about how ignorant and wrong you are, but you’re so stupid, you wouldn’t get it. Can you just disappear again? Please?

  • Re: #4

    1st: Alcoholism is a genetic based disease and a person is at risk if there is alcoholism in their family. My father was an alcoholic, and likely so was his father. But fortunately, while I like my beer, I am not an alcoholic–my sister on the other hand, is. Alcoholism is a very destructive disease and often has violent overtones. Generally, without help, an alcoholic will die fairly young and, as in the case of my father, commit suicide.
    2nd: Homosexuality is not genetic based and outside of having sex with the same gender, there is nothing about their sexual activity different than being hetrosexual. Talk about homosexual lifestyle and/or culture are coded words to imply some sort of abnormal or even deviate behavior and to discriminate and feel morally superior to a gay person. Moreover, it is the double and discriminating standard set by uptight individuals like Huckabee (who have a high level of influence on public opinion and perceptions), that a homosexual should never have sex unless of course it is with the opposite sex. So if your homosexual, but live in a closet and do not have sex, your not really homosexual in Huckabee’s way of thinking. BTW, my oldest daughter is a lesbian and is married to a wonderful woman.

  • By Huckleberry’s reasoning, Larry Craig’s bathroom toe-tapping is probably fine, since he didn’t actually have gay sex…he was merely flirting with his shoes.

    These Rethuglicans just crack me up. Too bad the media takes their rantings seriously.

  • “….it was a speech made to a Christian gathering, and, and certainly that would be appropriate to be said to a gathering of Southern Baptists.”

    I’d hate to hear what he would have told the Council of Conservative Citizens.

  • I don’t want to equate being born gay to being born an achoholic but if I were born gay or straight, it would be up to me whether to act on my sexual urges. If I had the wrong genes and were unable to stop drinking after I started then it would be up to me whether or not to act on my urge to drink.

    OK, now sit down and draw up a list of problems associated with alcoholism and a similar one for being gay. I think you’ll notice that the list of “problems” for gays are all external: Dumb shits trying to beat you up or firing you for being gay. The list for the addict will be internal: Health problems, criminal record, harm to family members and friends. etc. You might start to wonder if your analogy is crap because you’re comparing apples and watermelons.

    I would want my son to be straight rather than gay because it is easier. Just like i would want my son to be 5′ 10″ rather than 4′ 10″. Not that there
    is much I could do about either issue.

    It is also “easier” to be male, Caucasian and Christian. I guess the ladies should march down to the doctors for a sex change, African-Americans can get the Michael Jackson treatment and all non-Chrisitans can scurry to the nearest church.

    But you’re ignoring a number of things chief of which is why it is easier to be straight (or male or … etc). If society weren’t still full of bigots with so-called leaders like Huckabee egging them on things would be a fuck of a lot different.

  • I’ll take mild exception with one thing JB says (#15) – the latest research seems to indicate that there is indeed a genetic bases for sexual orientation. Whatever the basis of that orientation, it definitely is “hard wired” and not something one can change. I could no more chose to become “Straight” than I could choose to change my eye color from blue to brown. Sure, I could wear colored contacts or date women, but that wouldn’t change who I am.

    It’s the logical chain of this argument that irks me:

    You choose to be gay.
    You choose to have gay sex.
    Gay sex is bad.
    You choose a bad thing.
    You should be punished because you chose a bad thing.
    If bad things happen to you (lose a job, lose your kids, get fagbashed), it’s your fault because you made bad choices.

    Such hogwash!

    I work hard, I obey the rules. My partner and I pay our taxes. We stop at red lights. We give to charity. We mow our lawn,

    What’s more…

    We don’t toe-tap in men’s rooms. We don’t charge the gov’t for security during extramarital trysts. We don’t call hookers from the Senate floor. I don’t dump my partner for a “trophy spouse” after 31 years of marriage.

    So let the Rethuglicans without sin cast the first stone.

  • Take the country back for Christ. I always thought personal beliefs were for individuals. How does christ feel about health care for children. Food and shelter for the poor. You know, entitlement programs that the neo con conservative values voters want to eliminate. I don’t want to be forced to worship geesus. My parents although well meaning were hypocrites like the huckster.

  • Huckabee wants a national don’t ask, don’t tell policy. Just imagine asking straights to forego sex for their whole lives. There might be a bit of an uproar.

    That phrase “taking this naiton back for Christ” might be typical Christian rhetoric, but it sounds like a threat to me.

  • an interesting foreign policy ‘trap’ question from russert had to do with afghanistan, and he asked huckabee something about whether they were sunni or shiite. i don’t recall huck’s answer, but he was clearly flipping a coin and hoping it came up right.

  • To a point Mr. Huckabee is right. Being born gay is not a choice, just like being born straight is not a choice. And living a gay lifestyle is a choice, just like living a straight lifestyle is a choice. Why, then, would it be less disingenuous for a gay person to live a straight lifestyle (many do) than a straight person to live a gay lifestyle? If a gay person chooses to live a gay lifestyle, wouldn’t then all straight people be choosing to live straight lifestyles? All that being said, doesn’t it stand to reason that all of us, whether gay or straight, chooses our own lifestyle? Mr. Huckabee has chosen his lifestyle and it is based on the sexual identity he was born with. Would it not seem right that people with other sexual identities be allowed to choose their own lifestyles as well? In other words, don’t we all have the right to choose our own lifestyles? Certainly Mr. Huckabee was allowed to choose his own. Am I wrong?

  • Ultimately the Christian mantra per St. Paul is no sex for anyone except when deliberately procreating. Since gays and lesbians can’t procreate within their mates, they cannot have sex.

    Seems pretty straight forward and dismal.

  • Neil:
    If you could write anything that we haven’t already read or heard from some other hatemonger i would actually invite your entries, but you have nothing to offer that hasn’t already been expressed and neither does Huckabee.
    If ever you have a moment of free will please channel it and accomplish one thing for your son -> give him a mind for acceptance and intelligence – trust me, his life will be a lot easier….even if he is only 4′ 10″.

  • The urge to exchange long protein strings is strong in our species, gay or straight.
    How DARE anyone suggest that gays should practice celibacy for acceptance into the magic land Huckabee inhabits?

    This is repulsive and intrusive. The repugs have made this non-issue into one of their banner rallying points. Why the hell would anyone CARE about the practices of their neighbors?

    There are very important contributions gays give our society.
    One, they aren’t adding to the population problem.
    Two, they adopt the unwanted children whom fundamentalist screechers force to be born with their “concerns ” over abortion. Once the baby is born, those who pray loudest ignore them, until such time that they come up for the death penalty. Then they’re out there in support of killing a person whose life was wasted from the beginning.

    Why are the loudest, self-proclaimed “Christians” so full of hate, intolerance and a sense that they are entitled by a 2000 year-old book to probe into other people’s business?

  • Actually I’m with Huckster on taking “acts of God” out of legislation. It’s not only a stupid phrase it’s an inappropriate injection of deism in government. But if we do keep the phrase let’s start suing the malicious Deity. And if there are acts of God in the Pat Robertson sense of a mendacious being, then let’s arrest God as well.

  • Re #10,

    Neil, I hear a certain segment of Americans make that argument, while at the same time ignoring the homophobia and anti-homosexual laws in this country and wonder…

    … are you really that stupid?

    Yes, it’s hard to be Gay in America. This country and parts of its culture puts unnecessay burdens on homosexuals, and then YOU wonder why anyone wouldn’t want to avoid those burdens and just pretend to be straight. If you’d just stand up to the culture and say, whether it’s a choice or it’s hardwired this is America, and it’s really none of our business what they are doing in their bedrooms, so stop with the homophobia already, things would be a lot fairer.

    As for “taking this country back for Christ”, it’s my belief (faith, actually) that Jesus doesn’t know or care what America is. He only cares about the faith and deeds of each individual. Countries are but the fine dust in the balance.

  • jen flowers said:
    “Ultimately the Christian mantra per St. Paul is no sex for anyone except when deliberately procreating. Since gays and lesbians can’t procreate within their mates, they cannot have sex.”

    Jesus and Saul both thought the world was about to end, sex would be over anyway, and those of us who were good would be living in the Kingdom of God (here on Earth, to be clear).

    Jesus even promised this would happen before the last of his disciples died.

    Well, let me point out, John is dead. The Kingdom of God has not come to Earth. And if we’d all followed Jesus’ perscription there’d be no humans living on this planet right now.

    So I believe it’s time to dump this whole anti-sex thing and get on with life.

  • That Mike Huckabee…he smiles and flirts with the talking heads, adding just enough “Golly’s” and “Gee Whiz’s” to make people think this is a really nice and decent man.

    But reading what he says allows a person to judge what’s underneath that golly-gee-country-boy exterior – a calculating and bigoted reigious zealot who knows he can sell snake oil to anyone if he plays to people’s inner fears and their inner bigot. The scary part is that it could work, especially when people like Russert just let the nonsense he says stand, and don’t keep challenging him until his arguments fall apart – as they should.

    The bit about it being appropriate to talk about taking back the nation for Christ to Southern Baptists is an example. After that exchange, Huckabee went on to say that he’s Mr. Inclusive – not interested in shoving religion down people’s throats – and being careful to include non-believers in his arms-wide-open-for-all remarks. It should have led Russert to ask why people should not conclude that if he’s saying he wants to take the nation back for Christ to people who would like to do just that, and he’s backing away from that to be oh-so-ecumenical on MTP, why shouldn’t the voters wonder which audience he was pandering to, and which set of remarks is the real Huckabee.

    Huckabee also talked eloquently about the value of human life, the respect for all life. That could have made a jarring contrast to his bragging about the 16 death-row inmates “he” executed as governor, but that never came up. Or his gee-this-is-fun pheasant-killing outing, made all the more fun by his tasteless remarks about “naming” the killed birds for presidential contenders. But Russert went nowhere with that, except to get Huckabee to say that only those who provide abortion should be punished. I could have more respect for Huckabee if he was as anti-death penalty as he was anti-abortion, but I’m sure he’s one of those who likes to make the distiction between innocent life and convicted-in-a-court-of-law life, even if that court of law has been shown to convict innocent people. Oh, well.

    Huckabee was very clear with Russert that religion and faith drive every decision he makes – which is fine if those decisions are about his life and his choices, but I have no faith that people who say this are able to live and govern with the understanding that it is not their right to impose those beliefs on an entire nation.

  • Why do I suspect there will be a very special men’s room moment (or memoir) followed by self-righteous denials?

    Please don’t foresake us, Mike Suckapee!

  • If Huckabee believes in a personal and omniscient God,
    Then shouldn’t he respect his God’s choice in making some people homosexual?

    As it is, sounds like Huckabee is anti his God.

  • I just love liberals.

    I always thought that being liberal meant that you understood that different people from different cultures have different ways of looking at things.

    Obviously, a number of the people on this blog are very closed minded.

    First of all, I am all in favor of gay rights.

    Second of all, I would guess there is something like a ‘gay’ gene. My best friend only sibling is gay and about 75% of the people on her father’s side of the family are gay. Of course, I could be wrong about why those people are gay but it doesn’t really matter. I figure that sooner or later science will figure out whether or not there is a ‘gay’ gene. In the meantime. I like all my gay friends and coworkers. (OK not true, the coworkers who are pains in the ass are annoying but not because they are gay.)

    So my point still stands.

    You can dislike Huckabee for a lot of different reasons. you can even dislike him because he thinks gay sex is wrong. We all have our reasons for disliking Huckabee.

    However, a lot of conservative Christians think that gay sex is wrong.

    Of course, most people posting on this blog also think that believing ig God is wrong too.

    The Democrats are going to lose a lot of elections if they make faith in God as a litmus test.

  • Actually I’m with Huckster on taking “acts of God” out of legislation. It’s not only a stupid phrase it’s an inappropriate injection of deism in government. But if we do keep the phrase let’s start suing the malicious Deity. And if there are acts of God in the Pat Robertson sense of a mendacious being, then let’s arrest God as well.

    Actually this is an antiquated legal term. It just means it wasn’t caused by some other person (other than the one claiming injury). IOW, it’s an act of nature. But, “act of God,” “act of nature,” “just one of those things” — does it really matter what the term is as long as it’s understood?

    What kind of moron gets himself into elected office, the governorship of a state, and then has a cow over a legal term?

    Pathetic.

  • JB Wally wrote:

    “2nd: Homosexuality is not genetic based”

    To those who would say the same, are you research scientists with unequivocal proof that it’s not genetically based? The latest scientific research says that it probably is pending further research.

    This whole argument and all the pious opinions make me weary!

    Happy New Year!

  • “Of course, most people posting on this blog also think that believing ig God is wrong too.”

    This may be true. However, how many people on this blog are advocating making god worship illegal? Or how many are in favor of limiting the rights of god-worshippers to make them second class citizens?

  • I always thought that being liberal meant that you understood that different people from different cultures have different ways of looking at things.

    Yes, we’ve been treated to your “thoughts” so it isn’t surprising that you’re whining because people have told you you’re Dead. Wrong.

    By your feeble reasoning liberals have to put up with evil bullshit from anyone who slithers out of a drain just to be “inclusive.” I’m not sure where the hell you got that notion but I suspect you scratched your colon when you pulled it into the light. Once again you are Dead. Wrong. Just as you’re dead wrong if you think anyone is impressed by your best friend’s sister’s gay sibling, or the fact you don’t run away screaming from your co-workers. Pathetic jackass.

  • Editor: “It’s a dangerous story for this paper.”
    Bradlee: “How dangerous?”
    Editor: “Well, it’s not that we’re using nameless sources that bothers me.
    Or that everything we print, the White House denies. Or that no other papers are reprinting our stuff.”
    Bradlee: “What then?”
    Editor: “Look, there are two thousand reporters in this town; Are there
    five on Watergate? When did the Washington Post suddenly get the monopoly on wisdom? Why would the Republicans do it? McGovern’s self-destructed just like Humphries, Muskie, the bunch of them. I don’t believe this story. It doesn’t make sense.”
    Huckabee: “I’ll tell you, excuse my interupting, what does make sense.”
    Editor: “No, okay, go ahead.”
    Huckabee: “My running for President”
    Bradlee: “In the South?”
    Huckabee: “All over really.”
    Editor: “Okay Mike, thanks for…”
    Huckabee: “I used to get the worst headaches. Then I lost a ton of…”
    Editor: We know.”
    Huckabee: “Oh, and my back; I had the worst pain right where…”
    Editor: “We really need to get back to work here, so…”
    Huckabee: “And, whoa, I would eat like incredible amounts of just…”
    Bradlee: “Please, I think, can you just…”
    Huckabee: “Then my doctor explained how, that if I didn’t…”
    Bradlee: “Mike, stop, damn-it!”
    Huckabee: “That’s right, his almost exact words. He told me that if…”
    Editor: “Oh, Lord.”

  • As an atheist — I do take some exception to the phrase “acts of God”. The irony is that a self-proclaimed Baptist minister takes exception because he doesn’t want God cast in a negative light… funny.

    As for “taking the nation back for Christ”. I agree with another poster, it does sound like a threat to me on the First Amendment. Something this country can do without is another President that can’t be bothered with reading the Constitution and upholding their oath of office.

  • May the Good Lord save us from all these self-rightous “Haters”. Maybe when he looses the election, he’ll have time to actually read the bible and see what the Good Lord actually said. Then we’ll see if he’s a true christian when he publically appoligizes to us for all the crap he caused us.

  • 4. On December 31st, 2007 at 9:31 am, neil wilson said:
    I don’t want to equate being born gay to being born an achoholic but if I were born gay or straight, it would be up to me whether to act on my sexual urges. If I had the wrong genes and were unable to stop drinking after I started then it would be up to me whether or not to act on my urge to drink.

    Why can’t someone believe the way Huckabee believes?

    I don’t want to equate being a Republican’t to being a pedophilic junkie but if I were an obstructionist arsehole who is screwing up the governmental process just because I wasn’t running every last piece of it the way I want to, it would be up to me whether to act on my urge to screw the american people. If I had the wrong genes and were unable to stop molesting children while ingesting Hillbilly Heroin after I started then it would be up to me whether or not to act on my urge to molest children while huffing oxycontin.

    Why can’t someone believe the way I believe? Maybe I should get elected so I can force everyone to choose to accept my way of thinking (or choose to be exiled from the community).

  • neil wilson said:
    “I just love liberals.

    I always thought that being liberal meant that you understood that different people from different cultures have different ways of looking at things.”

    Where did you get the stupid idea that tolerance means accepting intolerance?

  • To expond on #45.

    I read a magazine once about a tolerate ecumenical religious group that allowed any church to join as long as it’s doctrine included religious tolerance. That is, as long as the doctrine accepted that other religions could be valid ways to worship God and go to Heaven.

    And the story was about an intolerant church that demanded that they be allowed to join this group. And they couldn’t understand why they did not qualify.

  • Neil:

    You’re a moron, plain and simple. Anyone can believe the way Huckabee believes. The rest of us live in this little universe called reality. Granted, my girlfriend and I are second-class citizens with no rights or protections in this reality, but here we have to live. Sure, I could go back to pretending to be straight, but Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is awfully hollow when you’re living a big fat lie.

  • No sex for us gays?!
    Guess my Olivia cruise is out.
    Thanks Mike
    Wish you were this passionate about finding out about fraud with no bid contracts

  • So it’s OK to have sex if you’re born straight, but not OK if you’re born homosexual. You need to exercise self control if you’re born “that way”.

    Mike: it must be nice to be so certain you know what’s right, and what’s right happens to be what you would be doing anyway.

  • #49, Dave said:

    “Mike: it must be nice to be so certain you know what’s right, and what’s right happens to be what you would be doing anyway.”

    Hey, it could be worse. Craig and Haggard KNOW what they are doing is wrong, and they still do it.

  • People, people! What are we worried about? Huckabee probably will win in Iowa. A state that is NOT representative of the U.S. demographics. A state that has a large christian right following. Let him have his day in the sun. The republican party may as well just commit suicide if he becomes the nominee, and the mainstream republicans know it. He’ll never make it out of super tuesday unscathed. John McCain is on the rise in New Hampshire, and with Guiliani, I’m not a big fan, but Rudy has the right idea. He has been sunning himself in Florida, waiting for the good fight. Huckabees homespun charm…(beware that smile as he thrusts the scalpel in you), just won’t play in NY, IL, Ca….etc.

  • Where did you get the stupid idea that tolerance means accepting intolerance?

    It must be nice to be so certain that your ways are better than the ways of people who disagree with you.

    I have good friends who believe all sorts of things I disagree with.

    I know vegetarians who think it is wrong not to eat meat. I know people who think abortion is murder and the people should go to jail. I know religious people who think I am going to hell. I know other people who think my belief in God is stupid.

    #47 Keori thinks I am a moron. I wonder why she thinks that. I have written nothing that isn’t pro gay rights. I have just said that Huckabee is entitled to believe whatever he wants to believe. It is a pity that allowing people to think differently than I do qualifies me as a moron.

    But, hey. everyone is entitled to their beliefs

  • 51. On December 31st, 2007 at 1:42 pm, Malik Scott said:
    People, people! What are we worried about?

    You know, I know you’re right but I am fucking sick of hearing from bigotted wanks like Huckabee declaring huge sections of the population are Evil, and I never miss a chance to lodge my disapproval of both their crap and the deluded apologists who creep after saying we should listen to this bullshit politely because everyone is entitled to their opinion. Bollocks to all of them.

    However, thanks for tossing a little ice into a heated discussion.

    Random thought: Strange how Huck has time to worry about activities between consenting adults but he was O so eager to let a rapist out of prison. Not that I’m suggesting Huck is some sort of sick twisted fuck who thinks women are less valuable or less than human or somehow get what they deserve when someone assaults them.

    That would be intolerant

  • Neil,

    I agree with you that everyone is entitled to their beliefs, no matter how ill-informed, unrealistic, or harmful to others. Such is the cornerstone of democracy. I merely take great exception to the notion that those beliefs are somehow acceptable in positions of public authority, especially in the Oval Office. Just because thousands of singleminded religious idiots believe something doesn’t stop that opinion from being bad public policy.

    My opinion that you’re a moron is not based on our potentially differing opinions on anything you might have written on gay rights. It’s based on your attempt to compare being gay to being an alcoholic. How on earth can you possibly compare the two? Are you that intellectually bankrupt? Please explain how slowly poisoning yourself to death, destroying your liver and pancreatic functions, and falling into a cycle of inability to function on a daily basis is somehow on par with being in love with someone of the same gender. I’m really curious to know your exact reasoning.

    By the way, am I supposed to congratulate you for having friends with a variety of personal beliefs and lifestyles? You didn’t specify.

  • Sidebar to The Answer is Orange
    Lets get it right, its not that women are less valuable, Huckabee belongs to that twisted group that thinks that although a mans rape of a woman is violent and reprehensible, at LEAST it involves straight sex. Loving consentual gay sex will always be a few rungs below on their ladder.

  • I’m no supporter of Huckabee’s, and I dread another born-again President after the ghastly experiences of the Bush years. But that said, it does make a big difference to whom he addressed his remark about “taking the United States back for Christ.” When addressed to an audience of fellow Evangelical preachers, it means that he will do what he can in his capacity as a Baptist Minister to achieve that goal, and I think you’d find that most Christian preachers use similar boilerplate language in those situations. There’s a big difference between that and saying he’d use the power of the Presidency to achieve the same goal. Of course, that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t do it.

  • Often when poeple label something “wrong” that means they would not do such a thing.

    With the exception penis/vaginal touch, any other intimate physical acitivity is gender/preference neutral.

    Good chance if you dig into the minds of those who are most obsessed and hateful against gays, I’m betting you’d find a self hating in denial gay being.

  • You’re going to make yourself crazy trying to find the logic in these people’s positions on things. UltraChristians are not rational people, you know. They claim to be pro- life, but suppport capital punishment and wars for political capital. They claim that teaching abstinence will stop teen pregnancy, but have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and venereal disease in their own communities. They follow a god that they say taught them to care for the poor and the sick, but are fighting tooth and nail to cut the poor and the sick off from any help whatsoever. And who can understand Huckabee’s position on homosexuality? If HE can’t figure it out, how is he ever going to make sense explaining it to anyone?

  • Here’s the thing.

    It is ridiculous in this country that people like Huckabee expect to control the private lives of consenting adults because he is repulsed by the thoughts of what other people do. It’s ‘icky’.

    Well guess what Mike, it’s not a matter of disciplining other people’s consensual behavior
    so you don’t have to think about it. You see, you can close your eyes and think about it and
    get all heebed out, and that didn’t require anyone to do anything.

    It’s really about disciplining your own thoughts, Mike.

    Don’t like to think about it? Fine. Don’t.

  • Re #52,

    Neil, you need to use quotes.

    If you ask why don’t liberals ‘accept’ other people’s opinions, I will answer again that it is not the point of tolerance to accept intolerance, and what you are suggesting is that as a Liberal I’m ‘supposed’ to accept other peoples opinions, no matter how hateful, ignorant or vicious they are.

    Sorry, NO! It does not work that way.

    As for those who think your belief in God is stupid. Fine, does your belief in God cause you to try to impose laws against the will of the majority of Americans? You can believe in God all you want for all I care (that’s liberalism) but if you try to use that belief to impose a Christian version of Sheria law on America then you are Wrong and I will be happy to tell you so, and I won’t TOLERATE it.

  • Keori

    I know someone who has such problem with alcohol that it is almost like an allergic reaction. His doctor says it is a genetic problem and he is lucky to be sober. Virtually everyone in his family is dead from alcohol poisoning.

    I am guessing that you did not choose to be gay. I am guessing that you were born that way. Not knowing you at all, I could be completely off the mark. My friend sure didn’t choose to be an alcoholic. He sure didn’t choose to have every blood relative but two die before they were 30.

    Society, and genetics, are preventing my friend from enjoying what most other people enjoy. Society, and genetics, will severely punish him for doing what other people can do.

    Now comes the part that will really tick you off

    My friend can choose not to have a drink. You can choose not to have a drink.
    My friend can choose to remain celibate. You can choose to remain celibate.

    Are they similar situations? Not really. However, IF someone thinks that a certain type of sex is wrong then they think that kind of sex is wrong.

  • Lance:

    Society has decided that polygamy is wrong. I can’t have two wifes.

    However, there are well established religions that allow more than one wife. Both ‘traditional’ Mormons (sorry don’t remember the exact name of the religion) and Islam allow for more than one wife.

    Even though the first amendment appears to protect freedom of religion, US law forbids it.

    Society has decided that having sex with a 12 year old is wrong. Isn’t that a moral decision imposed by the majority on the minority?

    Society has said that smoking pot is wrong. Isn’t that a moral decision imposed by the majority on the minority?

    Socrates had an example of whether it was right or wrong to eat your dead ancestors. Some societies thought is was something that needed to be done. Other societies thought it was disgusting.

    Some societies thought that slavery was acceptable. Wasn’t freeing the slaves something that was imposed on a group of people who thought slavery was morally acceptable?

    I am a liberal. It is hard for me to see things in black and white the way you do.

  • […] Huckabee is entitled to believe whatever he wants to believe. — neil wilson, @52

    Certainly, he is. And, if he were just some powerless Joe Schmoe, it would not be at all worrisome (though still loathsome enough to drop him from “best friends” list). You can ignore what some powerless prick is saying and, if he tries to to act out his beliefs (beat up a gay, fire him/her from the job) hopefully, he’d be clapped in jail quicker that could could say eff-off.

    But Huckster is trying to maneuver himself into a position where he might be able to cram his beliefs down all our throats and make us obey them, like it or not. That’s why our tolerance for differing points of view cannot stretch far enough to accept his beliefs. Would you defend a presidential candidate’s beliefs if he were saying that every baby born with blue eyes had to be smothered at birth, because God told him only brown-eyed babies were fit to live?

  • However, IF someone thinks that a certain type of sex is wrong then they think that kind of sex is wrong.

    And if a number of people believe that that “someone” is unfit to be POTUS because of that belief, than they believe that person is unfit. Criticism of Mike Huckabee’s belief that gays are not bad “per se,” but “merely” need to refrain from engaging in sex to remain within his good graces, is not intolerant. I simply am making a determination that Huckabee does not deserve my consideration as a viable presidential candidate let alone my vote. AND if I choose to be put off by the manner that his faith guides his public policies rather that inspired by it, this is not intolerance. It is a judgement I am free to exercise as a citizen – and one who is heartily tired of the holier-than-thou imposition of faith into the the political discourse of this country. My conclusionns on Mike Huckabee do not condemn him as a man or demand he stop practicing his faith as he wishes to do. I simply have decided that his faith-based declarations about evolution, and gay sin are disqualifiers in my eyes.

    BTW, love the way you equate – please do not try to deny it – consensual homosexual sex with sex with children and substance abuse.

  • Anyone…I repeat, ANYONE…who condemns homosexuals and/or homosexuality, is himself or herself, a closeted homosexual or bisexual.

    One of the proofs is in their own, oft-repeated, claim that being gay is a “choice.”

    Who else, but a repressed homosexual or bisexual would know of such a choice?

    Clearly, they are indicating that they, themselves, made just such a choice, a choice to remain closeted, while pretending to be fully heterosexual.

    Since religious homohobes want us gays, lesbians and bisexuals to marry unsuspecting members of the opposite sex, then would they mind it if we did so with their own sons and daughters?

    Somehow, I doubt it.

  • Neil,

    Thanks for your attempt, but it was a pretty weak one. You still have not explained how alcoholism is like being gay. You have attempted to explain society’s reaction to both, but that’s it. Sorry, I’m not buying it. I’m not even renting it on an hourly basis. While I feel sorry for your buddy’s inability to enjoy champagne this evening, no one in America is going to beat or kill him, terminate his employment, deny him housing, or prevent him from entering into a legal contract or honestly serving in the military because of it. I won’t even touch the fact that his genetic condition has the potential to kill him, where mine does not. Your comparison failed spectacularly.

    At least we two can agree that everyone will have their opinion. The difference is that when I smell horseshit I’ll take it out to the manure pile where it belongs instead of leaving it on the carpet out of misplaced respect for the horse’s ass that dropped the load. Like The Answer is Orange, I too am sick of these fascist sheep bawling their hateful, primitive, deluded religious garbage and then making it law. Just as disgusting are the apologists who think that we all have to smile politely and keep polishing the turd with the chamois of “everyone is entitled to their opinion.” Well, polish that turd all you like; at the end of the day it’s still a turd, it still stinks like hell, and it has no place in intellectual discourse, much less being encoded in law. Get that thing out to the manure heap where it belongs.

  • Neil,

    In regards to your #62, good god. Have you ever heard of the phrase “informed consent?” As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, I take great offense to the idea that laws against sex with 12 year olds are merely an arbitrary moral imposition. 12 year olds can’t give informed consent to have sex, especially with someone ten to twenty years their senior. For that matter, neither can a corpse or an animal. Slaves couldn’t give informed consent to have their bodily autonomy taken away. There’s moral imposition, and then there’s preventing exploitation by predators. If you’re going to play devil’s advocate concerning governmental moral impositions, please keep it relevant.

  • Dear me, NW left out a reference to society’s intolerance of bestiality. I guess Rick “FFM” Santorum has the copyright on mentioning dog boning in conjuction with gays.

    It really is boggling. May I direct your attention to the White House. For the past seven years it has been occupied by a waste of skin that thinks facts are for sissies. Leadership means whatever he believes is right.

    How has that worked out for the country, the entire fucking planet?

    Right.

    Now we have another man who would be king who “believes” things. Scary things. Hateful things. And lo and behold some one comes along and says of this wanna be “Well if he wants to believe something no one should have a problem with it.” And you have to ask yourself: Is this person stupid or was he asleep for the past seven years?

  • For the last seven years the White House has been occupied by a moron who thinks that because he “won” the election of 2000 he gests to impose his his supposedly ‘christian’ values on America.

    Which is why we don’t want to give Huckabee a chance.

  • I think there are scores of reasons to oppose Huckabee. One, but only one, of those reasons is his absurd position on homosexuality.

    However, if you sit there with a litmus test and say that the person I support must, MUST, MUST agree with you on all of these things then you are a narrow minded consersvative bigot.

  • Neil Wilson wrote:

    “Lance … I am a liberal. It is hard for me to see things in black and white the way you do.”

    Do I see things in black and white?

    I see it as not having an obligation as a ‘liberal’ to tolerate people’s intolerance when it leads to hate crimes and civil disabilities.

    You’re a weird sort of liberal to equate adult homosexuality and sexual conduct with child abuse.
    You’re a weird sort of liberal to equate homosexuality with alcoholism and sexual conduct with drinking.

    In fact, are you really liberal? Or just one of those “my best friends brother’s gay and I don’t beat the crap out of him whenever I see him” wanabee thought liberal closet homophobes?

  • Neil spewed,

    “However, if you sit there with a litmus test and say that the person I support must, MUST, MUST agree with you on all of these things then you are a narrow minded consersvative bigot.”

    The candidate I support must, Must, MUST see me, the constituent, first and foremost as a living, breathing human being with conscious thoughts and feelings. That doesn’t make me a narrow-minded conservative bigot. It makes me a person.

    If these Bible-humping thugs accorded me and my partner a tenth of the respect they lavish on non-sentient IVF embryos sitting in a dry ice cooler, I’d have very little to complain about. As things stand now, I see no reason to listen to the opinions of anyone who won’t even consider me a human being, much less an actual citizen with all the same rights and protections under the law as the rest of the populace.

    Mike Huckabee supports putting gay men with AIDS in camps, Neil. IN CAMPS. Did that magically slip your mind? Not to invoke Godwin’s Rule, but the last person to order gay people put in camps was Adolf Hitler. As far as I’ve heard, Huckabee hasn’t retracted that statement. A man who is willing to let rapists walk free to murder again while imprisoning men who have committed no crime in a leper colony is not worthy of my time, and is certainly not fit to be the President. Screw you and Mike Huckabee both. Neither one of you deserve the energy it takes to consider your opinions. Have a fantastic New Year.

  • Forgive me if this has already been said, but alcoholism is a disease, as are diabetes, cancer, and a host of other things that no one “chooses” to have. Being gay, however, is no more a disease than having brown eyes or blond hair, or being left-handed.

    Diseases like alcoholism progress even if you choose not to drink, so that someone with years of sobriety picks up a drink and finds that he or she is not where they were at the time they got sober, but in a far worse place.

    Disease has a process – being gay does not. One does not start out being a little bit gay, anymore than one starts out being a little left-handed.

    Neil – I have not followed all of what you have said, but I think you have lost this argument. For you, it seems to be about behavior, and that it’s okay to be gay as long as you aren’t offending anyone by actually having sex. Unless I have missed something, and gay people are choosing to have sex in the middle of the sidewalk, or in the middle of the grocery store, or at major intersections on America’s roads, how on earth would you even know who is engaging in this “behavior?”

    Please stop.

  • Shorter NW: I know you are but what am I?

    I’ve been paging through my Liberal Handbook and I still can’t find the part where it says I have to put up with anything some bigot drools on the floor because it is the liberal thing to do. In fact, if I sit and think about political movements traditionally labeled liberal for 3.5 seconds I can’t come up with a single one that has been premised on acceptance of the status quo or agreeing with the beliefs of people who support the status quo. If I think for another 2.3 seconds I can see that if people calmly accepted the status quo because it isn’t nice to disagree with other people’s beliefs the US would still be a British Colony. For starters.

    Oh well, thank goodness we’re not all brain dead cowards.

  • How humorous the logic here. Let’s try a few threads:

    Thread #1: Born that way so I must behave that way.
    Logic Statement: How I was born is how I must be allowed to behave
    Logic in Action: I was born with the tendency to not be monogomous, therefore, I will sleep with whoever I choose, whenever I choose.
    Result of Action: I hurt myself by not ever getting close to one person in an intimate relationship due to lack of trust in relationship, plus, when I am with someone, I don’t give them respect because I am thinking about all the others I have also been with and comparing the current person to the others.

    Thread #2: Sexual Actions done by consenting adults is off limits to public moral code
    Logic Statement: Whatever happens behind closed doors is out of the realm of public policy if it is between consenting adults.
    Logic in Action: My partner and I can do whatever we want and it will not impact the public.
    Result of Action: I feel like my moral openness should be respected by society and therefore disrepect those who disagree with my moral openness.

    The point of Huckabee’s statement is simple, when one examines it from his religious faith. It is taught by Paul in the Bible that the “best” moral position for man (woman) is to celibate. This is irregardless of hetero- or homo-sexual orientation. The next “best” state for man and woman is to live in a monogamous relationship, only having relationship with each other. Thus, the condemnation of adultry and urging to be celibate prior to marriage. The reason for this is man and woman bring different prespectives to a relationship. Man and woman think differently, and therefore, complete each other when bound in a committed relationship. All other states are less than optimal due to introduction of less than desirable tendancies, such as comparison of mates, promotion of self over sacrificial love for the other, etc. So, it makes perfect sense for Mike Huckabee, as a Pastor to have this stance. To have any other stance would be denial and a weakened position of his faith.

    The Christian Church as a whole are not in 100% agreement on the status of gays, much like they all don’t agree on baptism. Some denominations, like UCC, fully accept gays and gay marriage. Others, like the Southern Baptists are on the other end of the spectrum. To condemn all Christians for a denominations position is done out of ignorance on those who perform the condemnation. Its like condemning the Baptists for not believing in infant baptism. We as Christians respect that each other due have differences of interpretation.

    That being stated, it is however against the 1st Admendment for government to decide religious policy. For example, it would be totally out of line for the government to outlaw infant baptism. The issue with gay marriage is one where the government is overstepping its boundary. It is taking a religious sacrament and deciding a doctrinal issue. It is my opinion that the reason gays want the state to decide for gay marriage is to force denominations to abide by secular government doctrine. Churches have to abide by ADA and Equal Rights laws, how is it they would not eventually be forced to also abide by state marriage decrees. The question isn’t whether the state should approve gay marriages, but why is the state involved with a religious sacrament? If the state wants to endow certain rights on groups of people, this is perfectly fine, but why does the state need to take a religious stand and have a position on marriage?

  • tc – the state is not involved with a religious sacrament, because it is not the religious sacrament that deems you married in the eyes of the law, and entitled to all the government benefits – it is the license issued by the government, which, aided by the civil powers vested in clergy, seals the deal in the eyes of the law, assuming you have chosen to be married in the church of your choice and with the requisite civil license. You are still deemed “married” in the eyes of the law if that sacrament is never entered into as long as you have participated in a civil ceremony; millions of people have been married this way.

    The government oversteps no doctrinal religious boundaries, because it has no interest in any religious doctrine. The government does not require a religious ceremony to make marriage legal, and by the same token, you can enter into the sacrament of marriage and not be deemed “married” in the eyes of the law, so let’s not let the convenience of the terms “married” and “marriage” confuse the issue.

    The issue of religions accepting gay couples for the sacrament of marriage is not between church and state, but exists solely between the church and its hierarchy and its parishioners.

  • TC:

    And here I thought it couldn’t get any more offensive than Neil. First homosexuals are pedophiles, then necrophiliacs, bestialists, and now we’re all sluts with trust issues because we didn’t save ourselves for marriage. Wow. How many hets do you know who have slept with only their spouse? Yeah, I didn’t think so, either. Moving on.

    “If the state wants to endow certain rights on groups of people, this is perfectly fine, but why does the state need to take a religious stand and have a position on marriage?”

    1. It’s not a religious stand, it’s a civil stand. The State is not the Church, therefore, it’s a civil stand. Get it right.

    2. Because marriage is no longer a religious institution. The State regulates it with licenses, taxation, privileged communication, spousal social security and survivor benefits, immigration law, the list goes on and on. The State needs to take a CIVIL stand on marriage because it is a CIVIL issue. It is indeed a violation of the First Amendment for the State to dictate to the Church. The State can’t force a religious denomination to perform any kind of marriage it doesn’t want to bless. The State can’t force the Catholic Church to perform marriages for people who have been divorced. I’m sure that somewhere there are still churches whose clergy won’t perform interracial marriages. The State can’t force them to. However, those couples are in no way prevented from getting a CIVIL marriage license and becoming married under the law by a JP or officer of the court, and accorded all the rights and privileges therein. By the same token, my friend the Episopalian clergyman could say all the pretty little prayers she wanted to over me and my partner, but we still wouldn’t be married according to the State. Nothing would change.

    You also wrote: “It is my opinion that the reason gays want the state to decide for gay marriage is to force denominations to abide by secular government doctrine.”

    Well, darling, your opinion would be grossly misinformed. I want to state to decide in favor of gay marriage because I would like for my law-abiding, tax-paying, US citizen partner and myself to have the same equal protections under the law as our het next door neighbors. I don’t give a damn whether some kook in a robe waving a Bible approves or not. He’s not the one I have to deal with for health care coverage, or survivor benefits, or next of kin issues in the ER, or the ungodly amount of taxes my partner will have to pay on her inheritance of my estate when I die.

    Given organized religion’s general view of gays and women, I see no reason why I should give a shit about its opinion or seek its approval. You can keep your religion. I’ll take equal civil rights from the State without a peep from the Church, thanks.

    Good grief, you seem well-spoken enough. How about a little critical thinking to go with those pretty words?

  • Keori is a single issue voter. That is fine. She can pick a person who is pro-war, wants to destroy the environment, and eliminate social security as long as they support gay rights.

    Anne: what exactly is a disease? It seems to me that one type of disease is where you have a gene that causes you to react differently than the social norm.

    Is autism a disease?

    Now, since we are talking about gays and Huckabee please show me anything that I wrote that shows I am not completely in favor of gay rights or show me where I said anything that suggests you should vote for Huckabee?

    All I have been saying is that there is no real point in attacking huckabee for any particular issue.

  • “This may be true. However, how many people on this blog are advocating making god worship illegal? Or how many are in favor of limiting the rights of god-worshippers to make them second class citizens?”

    Those who believe in the War on Christmas) have their own definition of discrimination. They “think” that wishing someone a happy holiday (rather than a Merry Christmas and I MEAN CHRISTMAS DAMMIT!) constitutes an effort to make god worship illegal. They’re still at center stage in society and our holiday season, but they feel reduced to bit players (i.e. second-class citizens) because they used to have a monologue and now must settle for a mere starring role.

    It points to a very juvenile perception among (some) Christians as to their proper role in American society. As well as a weak grasp of what America actually is.

    Keori: it’s worth nothing that Huckabee’s brilliant suggestion to put AIDS sufferers in concentration camp (er, quarantine centers) was made in 1992, not 1982. Back in the beginning of the AIDS era, there was much paranoia about how the disease was spread (witness Ryan White’s legal struggle to attend public school). You could almost forgive someone for the quarantine idea back then. But this was 1992, when the verdict was IN about the transmission of AIDS. One must conclude that either Huckabee was ignorant of the well-established basic facts, or that he understood the basic facts and had an unsavory opinion about the behavior of gay men. If he knew that an exchange of bodily fluids was necessary to transmit HIV, the only justification for quarantine would be the presumption that gay men with AIDs were unable or unwilling to exercise safety measures. It points to a perception that gay men are by definition predatory.

    “Saint” Paul said “Better to marry than to burn.” Clearly, celibacy is the preferred lifestyle. So the Christian position is, ideally, celibacy with marriage as a fall back position (and preferably a celibate marriage unless you are trying to conceive children). I guess given my infertility at 40, my husband and I are allowed to continue having sex for another 5-6 years more, and then we’ll have to call it day when menopause hits. So doctrinally, it’s ALL nonmarital sex that’s a bad lifestyle choice. It’s just, by some simple coincidence, that only straight couples or polygamous groups, are allowed to marry.

    Keori and TC: Again, I’m with Keori. Religious groups SHOULD consider themselves utterly unaffected by a civil right for gay couples to marry. They’re still free to deny church weddings to anybody they like, for whatever reason they like. They’re still allowed to require hoop-jumping such as the absurdity of premarital counseling where the couple listens to sage advice from someone who is SUPPOSED to be a virgin. Society already is filled with couples who are legally married but who would not make the cut in this or that church. These people include previously divorced persons, those in theologically mixed marriages, atheists, and probably, sadly, racially mixed marriages. Society manages this just fine. As a private group — essentially it’s a glorified book club — a church is allowed to practice whatever form of discrimination it wishes, so long as it doesn’t fall afoul of public accommondation laws. It can’t have a white drinking fountain, for instance. Just like I could found my own book club and exclude knuckle-scraping idiots from it.

    So how are churches affected by gay marriage. They’ll still be able to teach their parishoners to be bigots. But they’ll have to know that gay couples are quietly going about their business, same as straights. They’ll have to withstand the fact that gay couples will collect workplace benefits. They’ll have to know that gay couples can be treated as next of kin in hospitals. They’ll have to know that gay couples can file joint tax returns. The horror! The HORROR!

  • Liberalskeptic: I was in elementary school during the Ryan White controversy. I well remember my father raving and ranting and threatening to take us kids out of school if they let “those people” in with us. The fact that the Huckster made that statement in 1992, years after the truth was known, just makes it less pardonable. It’s appalling no matter the chronology. Though, given Huckabee’s basic lack of understanding about ANY facts on ANY subject, no one should be the least bit surprised.

    Thank you for your support on civil marriage equality. It’s nice to hear a sane voice on the subject.

    Neil, your doctor must love you. You get so much exercise jumping to conclusions, I bet you’re in fantastic shape. Luckily for me, the people who are pro-war and want to destroy the environment tend to hate gays as well, so I get to not vote for them for a multitude of reasons. It’s so considerate of them to clump the issues together like that.

    The only candidates who have shown themselves to fully support treating gays like equal citizens are Gravel and Kucinich, and sadly neither of them have a snowball’s chance in Waikiki of winning. So it looks like I and all other LGBT citizens get another election year of looking at the civil rights table, hoping that whoever wins might deign to throw us a crumb. Damn, guess it’s back to voting on all the issues in the Dem primaries. I sure as hell will never vote Republican. I won’t vote for Huckabee in particular because he’s an ignorant Christofascist prick.

  • neil wilson said:

    “Keori is a single issue voter. That is fine. She can pick a person who is pro-war, wants to destroy the environment, and eliminate social security as long as they support gay rights.”

    I think Keori destroyed this lunacy, but on what basis do you conclude that Homosexuals are all single issue voters?

    “Anne: what exactly is a disease? It seems to me that one type of disease is where you have a gene that causes you to react differently than the social norm.”

    Wrong. If Homosexual tendencies arise from genetic coding they are not a ‘disease’, they are a species wide safety valve meant to reduce reproduction in a species suffering from population pressure. Our ‘social norms’ are artificies created against our very natures, and as such far more likely to fit the definition of ‘disease’.

    “All I have been saying is that there is no real point in attacking Huckabee for any particular issue.”

    Nonsense! There is every reason to attack Huckabee on this and every other issue where he is totally wrong. If we had done a better job of attacking Boy George II in 2000 for his wrong-headed positions we might have avoided seven really bad years.

  • Lance:

    You didn’t even try and read what I wrote. You jumped to absurd conclusions.

    I think Keori destroyed this lunacy, but on what basis do you conclude that Homosexuals are all single issue voters?

    I never inferred that ALL homosexuals are single issue voters. I said that Keori was.

    I don’t know if being homosexual is a choice or not. I don’t know if it is genetic or not. I also don’t know why evolution has kept homosexuality around since it seems that it would reduce the number of offspring that survive.

    Now, substitue the word ‘autism’ for ‘homosexual’. The above paragraph would also be true.

    I just asked a couple of people with Asperger’s whether they would like to not have the ‘syndrome’. All of them said they like the way they are. Asperger’s is high level autism.

    Let me ask you a question. If you could somehow decide if your child had autism, aspergers or was homosexual or not at the time of conception, which would you pick???

    PS I used to argue with my roommate in college back in 1979 that I thought it was very important to allow gays to get married.

  • Comments are closed.