Huckabee Directly Equates Homosexuality With Bestiality
At some point you'd think Mike Huckabee's views would be seen as so controversial that there's no way he could possibly be a contender for the nomination of one of America's two main political parties.
Especially now. In an interview with Beliefnet.com, a religion Web site, Huck has just clarified his view that the Constitution should be amended to be brought in line with God's will -- and he directly equated homosexuality with bestiality.
Huck, in elaborating on his views that the Constitution should be subjected to Biblical standards, had just wrapped up a discussion of the fact that marriage has meant "a man and a woman in a relationship for life." With this context firmly established, this exchange followed:
QUESTIONER: 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.
That's pretty clear cut. Changing the definition of marriage so it can mean "two men" or "two women" is equivalent to changing it to mean "a man and an animal." No ambiguity here whatsoever.
Late Update: John Aravosis makes a key point about this latest Huckism:
This guy thinks it's fair game to talk about Romney's Mormonism? Fine, then let's have the media start talking about Huckabee's fringe views on Christianity.
Really, there's been surprisingly little discussion of this.
Separately, it's worth pointing out that Huck's quote above doesn't even use the tried-and-true "slippery slope" argument to couch his view that homosexuality is akin to bestiality. It's a direct equivalence.
Comments (217)
Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 12:03 PM:Ya gotta love "slippery slope" arguments. Though logically they are completely devoid of reason, they have a significant pull over rank-and-file Republican voters.
Dare I say it, if those assertions are true, Republican rank-and-file voters thus lack reason!
Gay marriage = polygamy = bestiality
I've heard this garbage before, and it disgusts me to no end.
cms wrote on January 17, 2008 12:05 PM:Not to mention him equating homosexuality with pedophilia. This guy is scary and the media has to stop finding him "charming." This is an outrageous belief for anyone, let alone a presidential candidate, to have.
Where's Dan Savage? Time to make Huckabee into a dirty word.
CT Voter wrote on January 17, 2008 12:06 PM:What a loathsome ignoramus.
What is it with Republicans and their obsession with sex between humans and animals?
If he's elected president, I'm moving to Canada.
D wrote on January 17, 2008 12:07 PM:What about divorce and adultery? Both are explicitly condemned in the Bible. Jesus said clearly that divorce is only permitted when a spouse commits adultery. "No fault" divorce is a new invention, and adultery was illegal in most states until the 20th century. Why not Constitutional amendments on these issues, Huckabee?
Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 12:07 PM:Actually the old testament countenanced both a man and 3 women and a man and a child (very young woman). I assume the Huckster intends to put these practices back in force as well.
Steve wrote on January 17, 2008 12:09 PM:You guys have to realize that there are millions upon millions of Americans that agree with Huckabee.
Ted wrote on January 17, 2008 12:11 PM:How about these Bible scriptures (from Exodus and Leviticus)?
"If you lend money to any of My people who are poor among you, you shall not be like a moneylender to him; you shall not charge him interest."
"If one of your brethren becomes poor, and falls into poverty among you, then you shall help him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you."
I'd like to see the Republicans take those on.
M Miller wrote on January 17, 2008 12:14 PM:Where's Dan Savage? Time to make Huckabee into a dirty word.
Too late! I and my friends use HUCK to replace a a word that rhymes with it. Like a dumb Huck.
It all started when one of my friends said something about "Dumb %uck Huck". It hasn't ended since.
Now I don't feel as bad.
Amy wrote on January 17, 2008 12:15 PM:Nominate him. Please.
lampwick wrote on January 17, 2008 12:17 PM:So it's ok to slather a squirrel in oil and fry it on a popcorn popper, but not to marry and have sex with it? That hardly seems fair.
pkoso wrote on January 17, 2008 12:18 PM:note also the "man and three women"...meaning, "you can't have no mormons running muck in the white house. next thing you know, we've got three first ladies!"
sorry, romney.
DaveE wrote on January 17, 2008 12:18 PM:Ted wrote on January 17, 2008 12:11 PM:How about these Bible scriptures (from Exodus and Leviticus)?
"If you lend money to any of My people who are poor among you, you shall not be like a moneylender to him; you shall not charge him interest."
"If one of your brethren becomes poor, and falls into poverty among you, then you shall help him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you."
I'd like to see the Republicans take those on.
I hope people do understand that it is quite possible to be conservatively religious and still find Huckabee's beliefs to be an abomination and extremely anti-Biblical.
He's more like one of the Pharisees described in the New Testament. Read what Jesus had to say about them ! !
Voteless In DC wrote on January 17, 2008 12:18 PM:Seems to me his "a man and three women" comment was also a not so subtle hit on Romney's Mormon faith.
Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 12:19 PM:Laughing....
So it's ok to slather a squirrel in oil and fry it on a popcorn popper, but not to marry and have sex with it? That hardly seems fair.
Carolyn wrote on January 17, 2008 12:27 PM:I don't understand why there is no outcry about Huckabee's refusal to release his sermons. If he thinks that the Constitution should be amended to be in line with God's law and he claims to take his marching orders from God, don't you think that the American public has a right to know what he thinks that law and those orders are?
Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 12:29 PM:Sargent says:
Really, there's been surprisingly little discussion of this.
Perhaps, there is a clue there. Maybe, most of America considers this a fringe issue just as Huck is a fringe candidate and America does not want to get bogged down in same-sex issues anymoreso than race or gender issues when it comes to this Presidential campaign.
Americans are sick and tired of identity politics. That mentality is nothing but a clusterphuck and has resulted in nothing but gridlock and the important policy issues not being addressed.
The focus is on the economy, healthcare and foreign policy i.e. the war.
If YOU Sargent focus on that maybe we could have real political discussions on this board.
We are SICK of WEDGE issues and VALUE issues.
They are DEAD.
We are interested in moving this country forward and governing so that we can accomplish something that benefits the vast majority of Americans when it comes to healthcare, education and JOBS!!
Phuck these identity issues. Let them die.
It is time to move on from that crap.
We do not care anylonger who people phuck, nor what color they are or if they wear a skirt.
We are Americans, one people, with common goals for a democratic country that has a humane focus on our citizens needs.
colonpowwow wrote on January 17, 2008 12:30 PM:One can only hope that the radical Christian right, that dependable 14%-of-the-electorate Republican base, is able to get this guy to be their nominee. That will drive every moderate Republican and independent into the Democratic Party.
It's common knowlege that Americans like to elect their President from what they perceive to be the mushy middle. That's why, love 'em or hate 'em, Clinton, Obama, McCain, and even to an extent, Romney, are leading for their party's nomination by positioning themselves as centrists - left of center for Dems and right of center for Republicans.
I know I'll now hear from Comrade Edwards's supporters (you know, the "anti-Corporate-Capitalist Capitalist" who voted with Corporate America on the Bankruptcy Acts (the 1999 version that Clinton vetoed as too harsh on the poor and middle class, and the successful 2001 Act), and voted against both Wellstone Amendments.
But Edwards has tried to reinvent himself by positioning himself to the left of both Democratic leaders, so his national poll numbers placing him a distant third, actually reinforces my point. That, and I'm talking about actual contenders.
brian wrote on January 17, 2008 12:31 PM:
Republicans forever wish to change the constitution.
Better idea : ADHERE to the constitution.
The government has operated in violation of the constitution in the last six years. Republicans prefer the president to be a Tsar or Despot.
Restore the constitution. We are in danger of mere despotism.
Recommended reading : Montesquieu, "The Spirit of the Laws"
Paul wrote on January 17, 2008 12:33 PM:You want to review Huckabee's religious views. Check out Max Blumenthal's piece in The Nation, "The Real Mike Huckabee"
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/blumenthal
judyinnm wrote on January 17, 2008 12:34 PM:CT Voter - A lot of Republicans grew up on farms - bestiality is not unknown in rural areas.
Publicus wrote on January 17, 2008 12:34 PM:Ah...the disinfecting power of light and exposure. Huckabee has no chance in the general election....
Stew wrote on January 17, 2008 12:35 PM:There's nothing shocking here; Huck has seen his novelty campaign take a dive after the Iowa victory and he's desparately trying to draw attention to himself. After he loses in South Carolina (which he will) you can stick a fork in it.
Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 12:35 PM:An answer to Steve @ 12:09
We all know that the forces of evil, known as the religious right, exist. We are opposed to pandering to them. The banker republicans pandered to them for the last 30 years and finally that seems to be destroying the republican party. As the republicans rip themselves to shreds, we will finally be able to see exactly how many "millions" are in the forces of evil. My long term guess has been not as many as they think. Once clearly exposed as the pointless minority they are, they will be shoved to the margin where they belong.
brucifer wrote on January 17, 2008 12:35 PM:Ahhh, Reverend-Governor Huck, I have a question or so I need 't ask ya. When yer finaish't renegoseeating the Constitushin can we please, for the love 'a god, use pidgeons for the animal sacrawfice. God love the aroma 'a roastin' flesh and it don't matter a whit 't Him if it's sheeps or pidgeons. We gots too many 'a them pidgeons anyway. They's all the while shittin on the Confedrat Monamint. And when ken we starts to killin them witches and queers. And if my daughter sasses back 't me like she done this very mornin, when ken I take her out and stone her. Good luck wit yer revampin the one nation under guard.
Sundog wrote on January 17, 2008 12:37 PM:No, no, no, no.
Eager as I am to hate Huckabee, can't anyone read here? This IS the slippery slope argument, just poorly expressed. That's what he means by "Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again".
Gp2k wrote on January 17, 2008 12:41 PM:A man and three women?
Isn't that pretty much Giuliani?
kindness wrote on January 17, 2008 12:43 PM:Let us not forget that the bible does indeed say it's OK to own slaves. But also realize the bible tell's you you have to treat your slaves nicely.
Michael A wrote on January 17, 2008 12:43 PM:I agree sundog. I don't see him saying what the headline is and all the spin. I don't agree with what he is saying, but nonetheless he is not equating bestiality with homosexuality. Also, I don't hate the guy and I don't hate anyone. I am concerned about this bozo for a host of legitimate reasons. I don't think it is wise to make up over the top reasons to tarnish him, which detracts from legitimate concerns.
Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 12:45 PM:Is it bestiality if you do it with a bear?
huc ah buh fuc ah buh wrote on January 17, 2008 12:46 PM:so, does this mean Cheney's daughter is a fucking dog?
Salmo Salar wrote on January 17, 2008 12:49 PM:Well if you follow Huck's logic that we shouldn't screw around with historical precedent, then voting rights for women and minorities would also be considered radical changes to the constitution. Maybe this is how they plan on taking out women and blacks in future elections now that the sham voter fraud (Help Some Americans not to Vote Act) has been exposed for what it truly is.
Paul Stamler wrote on January 17, 2008 12:50 PM:Let's see, how many wives did King Solomon have? And how many concubines? The Bible says he fed them all on ambrosia. Like the guy in the Adult Sunday School class asked, "Never mind the ambrosia -- what did *he* eat?"
All joking aside, don't make the mistake of underestimating Huckabee. I heard him on the NPR program "On Point", and he is very persuasive, and very smart. If he became the nominee, he could be a formidable campaigner.
There's nothing more dangerous than a really smart person with insane ideas.
Peace,
Paul
The MSM reported repeatedly on the Huck's comments about the Constitution and the Living God and barely made mention that he's basically calling for a Christian theocracy.
Why not just have one be all and end all amendment to the constitution, that is that the previous constitution is hereby moot and all governance in these United States shall henceforth be ascribed by closeted, homophobic evangelical leaders' interpretations of the Old Testament?
Mad Dog Rackham wrote on January 17, 2008 12:51 PM:I just assumed Huckabee is right. I mean, a gay friend of mine is always talking about his preference for bears...
pseudonymous in nc wrote on January 17, 2008 12:54 PM:Ah, it's 'man on dog' 2.0. What did its first iteration give us? *Former* Senator Rick Santorum.
And 'Voteless' is right: there was another one of Huckster's little dog-whistles about Romney's Mormonism.
CranialRectalLoopback wrote on January 17, 2008 12:54 PM:Huckleberry had better be careful. He will soon learn that is dog-killing son is also gay.
Michael A wrote:
"I am concerned about this bozo for a host of legitimate reasons. I don't think it is wise to make up over the top reasons to tarnish him, which detracts from legitimate concerns."
Agreed (except the "bozo" part). Despite the occasional red meat statements I find his religion rather non-threatening. But, I don't know how a man who likes to be thought of as a populist squares that image with his advocacy of the "Fair Tax" and repeal of the "Death Tax."
gonzone wrote on January 17, 2008 12:56 PM:Careless words from a goat hucker.
Scott Clifton wrote on January 17, 2008 12:57 PM:I don't agree with Huckabee in any way, shape, or form, but I think it's grasping to say that he has "equated" homosexuality with bestiality. His comment about "opening the door to change" is obviously intended to indicate a slippery slope "argument" which is questionable at best. But come on -- the guy says such ridiculous things, let's stick to the ones that we don't have to stretch in order to make new. He's making the same, tired argument that opponents to gay marriage have made before. I think he's being given excessive points for originality.
Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 12:59 PM:Sundog:
You mean if they let gays marry then people would come out of their barns to get marriage certificates for either them and their dog/cat/chicken/horse or their neighbor's 8 year old?
Lewis Black put it brilliantly.
That's what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid thousands and thousands of years from now, if we have that constitutional amendment, someone will come along and unearth our culture and look at the constitution and read it and go 'wow!' and then get to that part which says marriage is between a man and a woman, they'll go 'Look at this! The United States of America... those people were so fucked up that they actually had to write down what marriage was so they can remember it!'twirling fartknocker wrote on January 17, 2008 1:00 PM:
here's an oldie but a goody that I always think of when people start proclaiming that our laws and morality should come straight outa the bible...
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
lampwick
LMAO!!
Thanks for the laugh.
Ron Jeremy wrote on January 17, 2008 1:01 PM:Tom wrote on January 17, 2008 12:05 PM:
Where's Dan Savage? Time to make Huckabee into a dirty word.
Well, I can't say Santorum without thinking of you know what...I guess that was the point.
"man and child". He's also equating it with pedophelia. What a jackass.
Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 1:02 PM:Paul Stamler,
I don't underestimate Huckabee at all. He has real political talent and he is made for TV. But, I just can't see his way to the nomination. He will show most places but won't win that many.
r€nato wrote on January 17, 2008 1:02 PM:I remember quite well when this topic was brought up late last year, some commenters here tried to carefully parse Huckleberry's comments regarding homosexuality and bestiality being part of a continuum of deviant sexual behavior.
I hope this makes things crystal clear for those of you still deluded regarding what Huckleberry really meant.
jeffgee wrote on January 17, 2008 1:05 PM:Here's a slippery slope:
Idiot gets appointed president
Idiot starts war he can't finish
Idiot causes U.S. to lose respect around the world
Huckabee's views on Christianity haven't recieved that muc attention because the sad truth is that they're not "fringe." Over 50% of the American public does not believe in evolution so Huckster's in the majority on that one. Readers of TPM may find it unbelievably ignorant but the people from Arkansas and South Carolina putting out those "experiments on unborn babies" ads don't. So if we understand that over 50% of the public rejects the finding of modern biology because of the Bible, how many of those do you think will have trouble rejecting the shifting zeitgeist regarding homosexuality. No t many, and their beliefs are perfectly defensible by the lights of the Bible. In Huck's mind all he has to do if find a quote in the Bible to defend whatever he says and that settles it for him. After that its just the small matter of refusing to give a straight answer to a liberal television host when asked about it. Given the time constraints of TV this is no mean feat.
The Other Steve wrote on January 17, 2008 1:16 PM:Make him either defend the statement (and lose lots of votes) or refute the statement (and lose lots of votes) and then run it over and over and over and over again (and lose him lots of votes).
d wrote on January 17, 2008 1:18 PM:
It also appears Huck's against divorce, since 'marriage is a man and a woman for life.' So, is divorce also sexually deviant behavior, in his view?
There can only be one vice-presidential running-mate worthy of Mike Huckabee: Rick "Man-On-Dog" Santorum.
Will the Huckabee-Santorum Administration's proposed constitutional amendment include in its definition of "traditional marriage" that the wife submit to the leadership authority of her husband? Because those uppity wives who think that they are the equals of their husbands (like moi)are probably a much greater threat to "traditional" marriage than gay guys who'd like to marry their boyfriends.
r€nato wrote on January 17, 2008 1:21 PM:Bill C., while Huckleberry's views on Christianity may go down well in East Bumblefuck, Arkansas, they don't resound well with the average voter.
The average person, while uncomfortable with open homosexuality and gay marriage, certainly doesn't want to go the other way and start enacting harsh laws against them.
Personally, I look forward to the GOP establishment continuing to lose its minds over Huckleberry. These are the same people, of course, who applauded George W. Bush using gay marriage as a wedge issue to turn out the GOP 'al-qaeda' (the base, literally).
If the same rhetoric comes out of Hucklefuck's mouth... can they really denounce it without making freeper heads explode?
Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 1:25 PM:Can we start quarantining the Huckabee family?
Bill Johnson wrote on January 17, 2008 1:26 PM:I wish more so called Christians would read Matthew 5-7 and pay particular attention to Jesus' words in chapter 6. His Sermon on the Mount clearly forbids the kind of public and self righteous proclamations and judgments in which many in our political class engage. And, for that matter, most so called Christian leaders, too. He clearly warns that there will be no reward in Heaven for those who do this.
They're all going to Hell and they would know this if they ever read the plain truth of His words in the Bible that they use to beat everyone over the head!!
jamois wrote on January 17, 2008 1:32 PM:Huck's a freakin' laff riot. But what's even funnier is the questioner's concern that Biblefying the Constitution could be a problem because of "the variety of biblical interpretations." Ha! Could we be seeing the beginning of a rupture within the already rupturing Christianist GOPer subset? Could we have a second culture war - a civil culture war - happening between the various denominations?
That's a show I'll pay full-price for....
broadsword wrote on January 17, 2008 1:37 PM:Ok, that's it. Time to equate conservatism with devil worship and sacrificing babies.
Andy wrote on January 17, 2008 1:41 PM:God help us.
Laura wrote on January 17, 2008 1:42 PM:So I guess if Huckabee becomes president, not only will he dictate who we can sleep with, but also our food & clothing options will be severely limited...
"...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)
"Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)
America needs more atheists.
Russ wrote on January 17, 2008 1:44 PM:First, if you want to see Christians ripping Huck limb from limb, visit the DailyKos cousin site www.streetprophets.com
Second, doesn't anybody read poll results anymore? Huck does NOT have wide agreement in America, or even among American Christians.
Here's the breakdown by age group of approval of same-sex marriage and civill unions (in 2006):
Under 30: Marriage 57.7% Union: 79.3%
30-44: Marriage: 44.2% Union: 60.1%
45-59: Marriage: 36.4% Union: 56.6%
60 and older: Marriage:19.8% Union: 39.3%
http://www.uwsc.wisc.edu/BP22PressRelease_Death_Samesex.pdf
Gallup's polling has found the increase in the percentage of Americans who favor gay marriage has been from 27% in 1996 to 46% in early 2007. Opposition to gay marriage during that same time fell from 68% to 53%.
The same Gallup report found that 47% of Americans consider homosexual relations morally acceptable, 57% say homosexuality should be accepted as an alternative lifestyle and 59% say it should be legal.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27694/Tolerance-Gay-Rights-HighWater-Mark.aspx
Look, I'm no Huckabee supporter, but he is not saying homosexuality=bestiality. He's saying once to change the definition of marriage to include homosexual partnerships, others may try to change the definition yet again to mean man and and animal. I think its a dumb argument, and its not Huckabee's first dumb comment on the campaign trail, thats for sure. Still, lets be realistic about his comments here.
Jesus H Christ wrote on January 17, 2008 1:47 PM:Verily, worry not about Huckabee becoming president. Both Dad and I think he's a shmuck.
Your Savior Eternally,
Jesus H Christ
PS. To bring the constitution into accord with the bible, we need an amendment outlawing shellfish. In case you're wondering, Dad changed his mind about that law, and occasionally frequents Red Lobster himself when it's too late for the take-out joints to deliver.
Tapper wrote on January 17, 2008 1:47 PM:And Obama sponsors an openly homophobic "minister" in concerts to promote his own candidacy.
Indeed, Obama consorts with some of the most overt homophobes and misogynists in the black community.
This is progressive?
Why don't republicans just come out and say what they REALLY want to do...
The next 10 amendments to the constitution will be the 10 commandments.
jo wrote on January 17, 2008 1:52 PM:I saw Huckebee on Tim Russert's show a couple weeks ago. At that time he equated homosexuality with pedophilia and necrophilia. Now every time my friends and I see him on tv, we say "Hey, it's the necrophilia guy!" There are obviously a few wires crossed in his thinking. As if two consenting adults were anything like forcing oneself on a dead body or a child!
Pete Bogs wrote on January 17, 2008 1:53 PM:"a man and three women"
tacky to slam Romney like that...
EvilPoet wrote on January 17, 2008 1:53 PM:Laura - The more I learn about Huckabee the stronger I feel about this: if he somehow ends up in the White House I’m leaving the country. I hope it never ever happens. I hope people wake up and see things for what they are. The sooner the better. Then again, I hoped for the same thing in 1999 and look what happened. Ugh.
Dee Illuminati wrote on January 17, 2008 1:54 PM:Ok folks, remember Rudy is pro-choice, maybe he thinks it's a decision between a man and a squirrel.
Lampwick had the best quote of the day.
David wrote on January 17, 2008 1:56 PM:Huckleberry wants to imitate his hero, Mahmoud ImANutJob in Iran. He wants the US Constitution to be identical to that in Iran.
David A wrote on January 17, 2008 1:57 PM:Huckabee is forgetting that polygamy has a greater historical basis in the bible than does monogamy.
Read the old testament.
Dan wrote on January 17, 2008 1:57 PM:In fairness to Huckabee, he does NOT directly equate homosexuality with bestiality. He says if you change the definition of marriage to include same sex marriage, then you open the door to include other varieties of marriage. Enumerating two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal in the same sentence is not the same as directly equating them. At worst, he is saying that if you allow for gay marriage, then you allow for even worse arrangements (in his opinion). You (Sargent and TPM) damage your own credibility when you distort statements. You can disagree with Huckabee's position without stooping to that. But hey, you got a link from Huffington Post out of it! Congratulations!
jasper von dropcloth wrote on January 17, 2008 1:57 PM:My poodle and I have become very emotionally involved. But if I can't marry it, I'm just going to take it out back and shoot it. Darn.
katie wrote on January 17, 2008 2:01 PM:There is so much here that I find frightening so I'm just going to pick one point, and admittedly one of the most tame one's made. Huck said "I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic." Just stop, for one minute, and think of all the things that would never have changed if we lived by that motto. The world is evolving and we need to be flexible and responsive to these changes. But then again, I am using the word evolve with a man who doesn't believe in evolution. Hmm, made that's step one here for Huckabee.
ctwon wrote on January 17, 2008 2:02 PM:while I agree in principle with the findings of this article. there is a mistake in it's analysis of Huxbeez argument. he *does* employ slippery slope listing the various arrangements from most acceptable (mm/ff) to least (man/child, man/animal) and saying afterwards, "Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again." Sounds like slippery slope to me. That said slippery slope is a logical fallacy.
jolly ranchero wrote on January 17, 2008 2:04 PM:"Ah, it's 'man on dog' 2.0."
Shouldn't that be "Man IN dog 2.0"?
nellieh wrote on January 17, 2008 2:05 PM:There has to be DNA of a snake oil salesman and Elmer Gantry in this "Goober."
M. Burke wrote on January 17, 2008 2:07 PM:Huckabee's mind-set is exactly what is wrong with him. Apparently a religious upbringing results in many a blind-spot which is why some think that a belief in the supernatural is a form of mental illness. His views about amending the Constitution are very scary considering the Founding Fathers did their outmost best to keep religion and God out of it - they could easily have used God rather than the word Creator, but realized the need to keep religion out of Government. Now we have Huckabee wanting to change all that. His views about homosexuality also point to religious based drivel --- what I call the arrogance of the ignorant.
Matthew wrote on January 17, 2008 2:09 PM:I will admit up front that I hold a mix of very liberal and some conservative views. I am not religious in any overt way. That said, it seems clear that in our tradition and laws, the concept of marriage is between a man and a woman. To start rewriting this changes the very meaning of the concept. I do not see the problem with equating some of the slippery slope to man-man, woman-woman, human-beast, multiple wives or husbands, where does it stop? Now as a separate question, equate poligamy, beastiality, and homosexuality, not really. Each have their own problems and are abhorant, repugnant, or frowned up depending on folks individual morals and sense of what it is to be human and what our civilized standards are.
Too many people are hung up on PC views. It is okay to oppose homosexuality, for example, and thus, not want it sanctioned in the normal discourse of society. What someone does in their own privacy and home is their own business, just don't ask society, government, and religion to sanction it. The same holds true for poligamy and beastiality.
Personally, I oppose any sanction of homosexual marriage, I absolutely oppose all aspects of beastiality, but, especially considering that it is 'normal' in some cultures and religions, don't see any big deal about poligamy. (And no, I'm not Mormon. Actually, Catholic).
Why don't people focus on more important issues than getting worked up over someone's views on homosexuality?
Skybear wrote on January 17, 2008 2:09 PM:I don't think it's been much a topic nationally because I don't think anyone takes Huck seriously. Bush wrapped himself up in holy cloth when it worked for him, and he played the card well. He was too smart to say the things that Huck is saying, he played it to where a reasonable, church-going person could identify with him. Huck just seems like a caricature, a fire and brimstoner from the south, plus despite his winning NH he's really not going anywhere nationally, and if he does, this kind of thing will get more airplay with the 24-hour news cycles we have.
Karen wrote on January 17, 2008 2:11 PM:Jesus is said to have entered Jerusalem riding on an ass. It seems that the religious right is trying to send Jesus to Washington riding on another ass. Huckabee is really, really over the top and the only reason I am smiling is that I'm a Democrat. He's scary. We need sanity in the Republican Party to have a dialogue that makes American liveable. This guy really isn't good for the GOP or for the country.
disgusted in dc wrote on January 17, 2008 2:13 PM:This from the man who married a "woman" who looks like s(he) could be his brother? Doesn't one of the ten commandments address "gluttony"? Seems to me this gas bag from the back woods of Arkansas was once an overweight sow. How emnbarrasing to know that in 2008 people buy into this crap and they hypocrites like #uck that push it.
broadsword wrote on January 17, 2008 2:15 PM:This guy is so emblematic of the GOP; put it in a friendly package, and make sure it spews hate with a smile.
TeleFrank wrote on January 17, 2008 2:16 PM:Can SHARIA laws be far behind?
Long Live the American Taliban!
Hucked Up wrote on January 17, 2008 2:20 PM:For a Christian, is bestiality a sin? Is homosexuality a sin? If your answer is yes in both cases then of cause they are equal. God does not distinguish between sins!!
Dave wrote on January 17, 2008 2:22 PM:Fuck a bee.
jbo wrote on January 17, 2008 2:25 PM:Rick Santorum used this line and we all know what happened to him...
Go ahead and try it on, Mr Hucklebee...we will see where you end up using this kind of commentary. I think you will be disappointed with the results.
Riverguy wrote on January 17, 2008 2:26 PM:Regarding beastiality: One can take some consolation from the words of my Catholic book on sex (in Latin) which states... "Rarum fit cum tigris." or...seldom done with tigers! Perhaps the only animal that has escaped our attention??
Nina wrote on January 17, 2008 2:27 PM:Laugh the big laugh, folks. Laugh while ye may.
Here are a few sobering thoughts:
1. Don't wish for Huckabee to become the nominee; we just might get him, and the national vote will become a showdown of the faithful, the have-nots, and the old-earthers. Then we'll find out just how many there are of them.
2. OK, so Huck won't become the nominee. But his standing in the political arena has gone up several notches, giving undue credence to his dagnab creationism and homophobia and his aw-shucks brand of narrow-minded fanaticism. With help from the media.
This guy's political career must be brought to an ignominious end by all those in this country who value truth, inclusion and common sense.
Dogwalker wrote on January 17, 2008 2:29 PM:Can a close encounter in a bathroom stall at the Kentucky Derby be far off?
Walker
loki wrote on January 17, 2008 2:32 PM:Loon. Ah. Tick.
Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 2:34 PM:Sundog and Michael A are correct. The Huckster is in fact making the slippery slope argument. TPM uses the words "equate" and "equivalent," not Huckamania. Sorry, you're just wrong.
SqueakyRat wrote on January 17, 2008 2:35 PM:Steve at 12:09 --
You guys have to realize that there are millions upon millions of Americans that agree with Huckabee.
I realize it. So what?
r€nato wrote on January 17, 2008 2:39 PM:This guy is so emblematic of the GOP; put it in a friendly package, and make sure it spews hate with a smile.
Sounds like "Republican Fascism" to me.
RuperttheBear wrote on January 17, 2008 2:39 PM:Santorum redux! Dan Savage, let's go!
Here's a suggested definition:
Huckabee: verb; to pass blood in your stool. Ex: "I was huckabeeing everyday when I realized, 'Hey! I've got an ulcer!'"
Julie L wrote on January 17, 2008 2:42 PM:Where have we heard this before? Oh, yeah:
In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.
Rick Santorum
Except that Huckabee left out the part about "not picking on homosexuality."
What IS it with Republicans and their obsession with bestiality?
serious wrote on January 17, 2008 2:44 PM:These are the same types of people that claimed we'd all marry our dogs if they changed the laws to allow blacks and whites to marry back in 67.
Kansas-City-Dem wrote on January 17, 2008 2:45 PM:It's gonna be funny when it comes out that Huckabee is gay.
Dynamo Dave wrote on January 17, 2008 2:49 PM:Well, if anyone would have the intimate knowledge required to be an authority on bestiality, it would have to be a conservative Baptist minister from Arkansas. Let's give Huckabee his due on matters he is clearly qualified to speak out about!
Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 2:50 PM:I am a liberal, I think Christ would have been a liberal. And I do think Christ would find great jou with Huckabe and approve this consitutional change. For all of us that are Christians and understand scripture "this is a no brainer."
BBpd wrote on January 17, 2008 2:52 PM:I've driven through So. Carolina before. Seems nice enough. But when I see the type of stuff that people seem to think will appeal to SCers (i.e. eating squirrels, calling McCain a songbird, open pandering to racists and homophobes) I gotta wonder if this is really a good early primary state. Seems to be pretty lowest common denominator. No offense to the many wonderful and enlightened SCers who also share the state.
Elizabeth wrote on January 17, 2008 2:53 PM:This is in response to questions Dawn asked last night (that I just now saw):
1)Eric Dyson - Thought I'd seen all Harball shows but don't know this reference. Do you know the day so I could check transcript(if they still post those) or summarize? Haven't heard anything about this (or, frankly, know who he is in any depth or how he's connected to Obama campaign)
2) Nev voters have to pledge to caucus??? Just heard this for the first time this a.m. Account I saw was one woman who said that she was later contacted again by the person pressuring her and told she could caucus for whoever she wanted. Yeah, I know. I CERTAINLY do not approve of this, but to be honest it sounds like stuff that goes on in all I-can-intimidate-you situations. I find it very, very - impossibly! - hard to believe this would be tied to or encouraged by Obama or his campaign (and if there were similar accounts in other unions, I'd feel the same about Edwards or even Clinton campaigns). Even if you don't respect the rights of voters, it's so DUMB!
3) Jesse Jackson Jr. - Tacky, tacky. Hadn't read his full comments until now but found them
http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2008/01/10/jesse-jackson-jr-brings-up-race-and-clintons-tears-in-support-of-obama/. Although this IS a question many, many people were asking and the original question to which she was responding had been about her hair, it's certainly not something someone officially connected with a campaign should have said. I have no idea, of course, what went on privately btwn Jackson and Obama, but I don't fault Obama for not making a big deal of it in public -- if he had, he would have been accused or suspected of prolonging the issue, drawing even more attention to an unflattering comment about HRC. Quicksand. (BTW, Bob Johnson's apology coming this morning, just as the race antagonism issue had all but disappeared, is an example of what I'm talking about. Maybe it's sincere, maybe the Clintons thought it would help clear the air ... but it's *possible* to suspect that it's just another way to keep the issue alive and to once again get people talking about drug use, discord within the black community, etc. A truly private apology might have been more appropriate.
4) On Meet The Press, when asked about this issue, HRC replied:
--"Clearly, we know from media reports that the Obama campaign is deliberately distorting this."
--"And I think it is such an unfair and unwarranted attempt to, you know, misinterpret and mischaracterize what I've said." and
-- "this is, you know, an unfortunate story line that the Obama campaign has pushed very successfully. They've been putting out talking points, they've been making this, they've been telling people in a very selective way what the facts are."
Compare those statements to the ones Obama made the following day. He too had been the target of 'mischaracterzation,' 'selctive facts,' and unsavory implication but he IMO, as a real leader by effectively and peacefully *ending* a bad situation, one that was hurting the Democratic party's chances of winning in Nov. a lot more than it was hurting either candidate.
Also, to my knowledge, the *only* things that were reported in the media as having come from Obama or the Obama campaign were
1) a staffer saying there was concern about there being a "pattern" to the troubling statements;
2) an *internal* memo from the SC PR person listing in detail the statements that could arguably have shown such a pattern (that staffer, who apparently put the list together when someone asked for it, has not been fired but she has been talked to and the whole campaign knows that Obama was, as quoted in the press, 'very disappointed. And that memo was leaked, not given to the press as reported in some places.'
3) a statement by Obama himself, in response to a reporters question, he refuted the suggestion that his campaign was interjecting race as an issue because of an "ill-advised" comment HRC made that his campaign had not commented on;
And, after the MTP session and Bob Johnson's idiocy later that day, the campaign also released a statement made by a SC State Senator responding to Johnson.
And HRC's comment was ill-advised because people NOT connected to Obama's campaign (Clyburne, Braziele, etc.). Saying it was 'ill-advised' was, if anything, an effort to deflect some of that reaction from HRC or at least it was a statement that would not heat things up further.
I'm not saying he's pure as the driven snow, or should be, or could be. This is politics. But subordinates speaking out of turn, a list of statements being compiled ..... those really are in a different league from very deliberate and calculated things like printing and distributing misleading flyers -- trying to stop a robocall attempt, made to try to combat the unfair statement in one of those flyers, by charting voting law violations because the person speaking took 33 seconds rather than 30 seconds to identify herself! -- bringing a lawsuit to stop participation of Nev voters over some arguable defects that had been known at the very latest in Nov. -- and so on.
Also, I saw your comment later about the most important thing being to get a Democrat in the White House. I think that's one reason I, and others, are speaking up *now* about our disdain for what HRC is doing, disdain so strong that it means she won't have our votes. If she has deeply alienated this many lifelong Democrats most of whom (like me) supported her husband and her Senate career ....... then how in the world is she going to be able to get a decent Dem turnout and win the votes of independents and crossover Republicans??
Over a year ago, one of my wiser relatives referred to her as "the only Democrat in the country who will probably lose to the Republicans". I argued with him then, quite vehemently. Now I have to eat crow because I believe he's right: whatever her many strengths and abilities, you just can't win elections if you alienate people this profoundly and at this rate.
In any event, she's passed my threshold of tolerance. Since I believe that the way a person does one job (here, runing a campaign) is the way they will handle other jobs (such as running a country), I want no part of it.
micaanab wrote on January 17, 2008 2:55 PM:It's ashame people in public have to be so careful of how they put things in fear the press will twist it to what ever they see fit.
I am not a fan of Huckabe. I am not even republican. But I think the point was, marriage historically has been between a man and a woman. It's whole purpose is designed around that idea. To open the idea that it now can be change to include gays then what's next.
The Romans thought it perfectly ok to have sex with another man. Then they thought it was ok to have sex with young boys. When does it stop? I will bet you can find people today that feel there is nothing wrong with beastiality.
It's hardly the first time Huckabee has voiced this position. In his 1998 book, Kids Who Kill: Confronting Our Culture of Violence, Huckabee declared:
"Despite all our prosperity, pomp, and power, the vaunted American experiment in liberty seems to be disintegrating before our very eyes."
"Abortion, environmentalism, AIDS, pornography, drug abuse, and homosexual activism have fragmented and polarized our communities."
"It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations - from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia."
For more on Mike Huckabee's incendiary blend of zealotry and politics, see:
"10 More Moments in Mike Huckabee's Extremism."
I am a liberal and I think Christ would have been a liberal. I think Christ's heart rejoices will Huckabee's proposal. For us Christians that understand scripture "this is a no brainer."
Mariel wrote on January 17, 2008 2:56 PM:None of these things would in actuality change under a Huckabee administration. There would still be Homosexuals, Divorce, Adultery. However, economics could improve. The war stance could improve. Education could really improve. Road building could improve. The important things would improve and the people who want alternative lifestyles would go on doing them, only with a little more money, security, peace, education, and hope than we have now.
I think Huck is the best candidate on the things that will make a difference in everyone's life. He is not Bush, nor Romney, nor McCain, nor Clinton, nor Obama, nor even that Edwards whom you say voted for the bankruptcy law. He has some ideas about sex that you don't like, but his ideas on money, war, education, and building infrastructure you would like.
Couldn't something be more important that sex? If not, you have been brainwashed.
Pat Kelly wrote on January 17, 2008 2:57 PM:Let's see if anyone will ask Huckabee this:
Since according to Huckabee, marriage is "a man and a woman in a relationship for life", would you support a constitutional ban on divorce?
Peter wrote on January 17, 2008 2:57 PM:And once again the questioners failed to follow up, not only on the ridiculous bestiality bit, but on his pledge to amend the Constitution to make marriage "one man, one woman, for life" -guess he'd cut down on his competition in the GOP if divorce was criminalized
SouthTxMan wrote on January 17, 2008 3:01 PM:I burns me up when these hypocrites use the same argument.
"a man and a child, a man and an animal"
The basic right that we are fighting for is to marry another adult. That's it.
NO ONE can marry a child and NO ONE can marry an animal! This argument is so stupid.
Right know, certain males can marry and other can't. Certain females can marry and other cant'.
These bigots always say stuff like this. They always say stuff like "next thing you know, they are want to marry their pet", etc. etc.
THEY CAN MAKE A LAW AGAINST MARRYING AN ANIMAL THAT APPLIES TO ALL MALES AND FEMALES. That would be constitutional.
THEY CAN NOT MAKE A LAW THAT SAYS THIS MALE/FEMALE CAN MARRY BUT THAT MALE/FEMALE CAN NOT.
How can Huck NOT see the difference? Idiot.
micaanab says: "The Romans thought it perfectly ok to have sex with another man. Then they thought it was ok to have sex with young boys. When does it stop? I will bet you can find people today that feel there is nothing wrong with beastiality."
This is a point that conservatives miss (intentionally or unintentionally) over and over and over again. A child or an animal cannot consent to having sex. Pedophilia and bestiality differ from homosexuality because in the first two *there is a victim* - it's a crime in which a person or animal is being victimized.
Homosexuals can and overwhelmingly do have consensual sex. That is the difference. And that is why gay marraige will not lead to child or animal marraige.
(I can't believe I'm talking to another rational adult about why "animal marraige" isn't in our future. Sheeeesh.)
Paul B wrote on January 17, 2008 3:14 PM:First of all I am sitting here with my cat and she has is mortified. Sleeping at the foot of my bed all these years and now...Well at least she is a girl cat.
The foundation of Fundamentalism is an inherent denial of evidence contrary to doctrine. Do not bother showing them facts, do not bother showing them the contradictions in scripture. Any variance from the dictated WORD of GOD threatens their admission to Heaven. Marx was correct but should have been more specific. Religion is a wonderful uplifting part of the human condition, Fundamentalist Religion however is the Opiate of the Masses, complete with resultant delusional behavior.
It is sometimes regrettable that free speech is a higher value than a prohibition of Huck's theocrats from holding positions of authority over anything more evolved than a squirrel.
Lastly, as a historian wannabe, for a laugh look up the historic marriage laws . I am particularly impressed with the age of consent being as low as 12 (with parental consent of course) If there is one hidden fear from the Fundamentalists it is that gay people will be more sane about marriage than straight people have been. We certainly couldn't do any worse at it.
drubs wrote on January 17, 2008 3:22 PM:The Huckster reminds me of Lonesome Rhodes from the film classic "A Face in the Crowd". Rent it this weekend you won't be disappointed
mike wrote on January 17, 2008 3:28 PM:Oh so Christian !
Since we have seperation of church and state, i dont think its appropriate for any minister of the church to be in politics.
u cannot serve god and caesar at same time.
freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion
i suppose he wants women to keep their heads covered, not to speak in church, and walk 3 steps behind their "lord and master" who is their husband.
i suppose husbands have the "right" to demand their wifes have sex.. and there is no such thing as husbands raping wives.
I wonder if he supports the right of women to VOTE?? after all they shouldnt speak up without their husbands permission should they?
he undoubtedly wants to make abortions illegal and to arrest women who attempt to have them.
Wonder if he will move to make divorce illegal?
So does he spare the rod and spoil his children? or is he a god fearing, righteous man who beats children?
Will he remove Government from the SACRED duty of parents to educate their children and abolish the dept of education?
Will he give up the war on poverty and say..."the poor you will have with you always? " and then eliminate HUD subsidized rents ?
Will he eliminate food stamps, and say... a woman who is hungry should glean the edges of the fields to get food... (forage the grains the harvesters havent gotten.)
Does he believe brothers should marry their sisters? As Seth had to marry his sisters? Once Cain and Able had their tiff.
Does he honor the sabbath day and keep it holy?
The Sabbath of Jesus? Which was of course Saturday ?
By what biblical authority does he worship on Sunday?
Does he eat pigs? pepperoni pizza?
Does he favor forceable circumcision in keeping with God's will and covenant?
Does he support closing retail stores on Sunday?
Will he make cursing and using God's name in vain a felony?
Will he ban... gasp DIRTY DANCING?
Where does he draw the differences between Caesar and God ?
Does he support outlawing tobacco? Cig smoking?
Does he support abolition, and elimination of alcohol and beer?
Does he believe a man can have a concubine if his wife does not have children?
I also notice that Huckabee is SHAVEN, doesnt he know the bible BANS shaving... that a shaven man is considered EFFEMINATE, GAY, GREEK ???
Does GOD TALK TO HIM???? Give him advice?
INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW !!
I think it's a stretch to say that his comments drew direct equivalence. The comment in question came as part of a line of thought that was clearly 'once we cross this line, where do we end up' and huck proceeded to list examples - homosexuality, polygamy, bestiality - which to him represented increasingly negative possible results of allowing the definition of marriage to change.
His comments are odious enough as they truly are - that recognizing same sex marriage could lead to bestiality - without misinterpreting him as saying that they're the same thing. May I suggest we keep the focus on that?
TJ IN LA wrote on January 17, 2008 3:31 PM:As an atheist I find people like Huckabee really scary. It would be funny if this guy wasn't RUNNUNG FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. He needs to be questioned throughly in front of the TV camera by a rational human being. As we march into the next thousand years we need to leave the superstitions, and unfounded make-believe behind. All these religious nuts need to be confronted.
dmoon wrote on January 17, 2008 3:32 PM:Heterosexuals are the ones who have already opened the door for gay marriage. I would suggest that if you want to shut the door on gay marriage then maybe you heteros ought to back out of the marriage room and then lock the door behind you.
Well, he should know.
SurgeThis wrote on January 17, 2008 3:33 PM:.
This just goes to show how split off Huckabee is from his own humanity. People like him should never be more than the president of their own living room.
Even then they should never be allowed to raise children. Religion is mind poison and teaching it to children is child abuse.
.
osage wrote on January 17, 2008 3:46 PM:Survival tent Christian preachers are nothing more than religious radical extremeist pandering to an audience of voters he already appeals to. Getting elected means he has to give other segments of our society a good reason to vote for him rather than a good reason to vote against him. So far he's alienated Catholic Christians and gay and non-subservient 21st century women.
If this nutjob thinks he can get elected without Catholic, gay and 21st century American women voting for him, he's certifiably nuts and hasn't got a chance in hell of getting elected president. His candidacy is the result of Bush Republicanism and it's political exploitation of evangelical Christians who have come to believe that their religious views should be forced on ALL Americans. Fortunately, America still is a Democracy and the vast majority of Americans know the difference between blind religious dogma and the our inalienable individual rights and freedoms. I have no problem with respecting what they believe, but trying to force their beliefs on me means they have no respect whatsoever for mine. In a nutshell, that is why no survival tent evangelical preacher will ever get elected president in America.
The best thing Huckleberry can do is to split off from Neocon Warmonger wing of the Thug Party and form the Bible Thumpers Party thereby splitting the Thugs right down the middle come November.
RadioResearch wrote on January 17, 2008 3:52 PM:Actuallly, most of these comments miss the point entirely. The real question should be "Why is the government involved in marriage in the first place?"
Marriage is a religious and social custom and varies across religions and cultures. The government has no business involving itself in mating behavior. By creating a legal institution that favors one religious or customary mating practice, it violates our constitutional right to a separation of church and state. Regulating marriage is somewhat akin to regulating what you can eat or ingest.
Furthermore, the legal advantages of marriage discriminate against non-married people.
There is a bright side to this, however. The Bible explicitly states that divorce is only acceptable in the case of infidelity and even then you must get a "get." Afterward, you are not allowed to remarry for that constitutes adultery regardless of your "get." The penalty for adultery is a stoning. Now, given the fact that evangelical crhristians have the highest divorce rate in the country (59% as compared to 36% for atheists) that means that we get to stone them all and get rid of them once and for all. Hmm, I can think of a few televagelists who fall into this category - when to we get to begin?
We need an amendment to ban the legal concept of marriage and let people practice what they feel like on their own time and money not ours.
Michael Vann wrote on January 17, 2008 3:56 PM:Give me a break. Haven't you ever heard of hyperbole? I didn't take his quote literally. What is scary to me is that he wants to emblazen his religious beliefs into the constitution, no matter what his interpretations of the Bible might be.
Mark F wrote on January 17, 2008 4:06 PM:Huckabee's Taliban-like attempt to apply the Christian equivalent of sharia law in America should make every American worried. Huckabee is dumpster diving for the lowest common denominator voters. I hope he gets every last one of them. It will win him the Republican nomination and 32% of the vote in the general election.
lodilynn wrote on January 17, 2008 4:20 PM:O.K. everybody, just sit back, and watch as this crazy man self destructs. It's sad in a way...
Now watch as suddenly, the Mormon boy with a flair for saying nothing at all seems reasonable and electable. Even sadder...really.
how about a constitutional amendment to ban mike huckabee?
Instant Dogma wrote on January 17, 2008 4:35 PM:"Huckabee Directly Equates Homosexuality With Bestiality"
Only when he does it... Hehehe, farm boys.
Matthew wrote:
"Too many people are hung up on PC views. It is okay to oppose homosexuality, for example, and thus, not want it sanctioned in the normal discourse of society. What someone does in their own privacy and home is their own business, just don't ask society, government, and religion to sanction it. The same holds true for poligamy and beastiality."
Matthew, I agree with the first part of your statement but I clearly depart from the last part. There is a critical difference between homosexuality and poligamy and beastiality. The latter two are illegal, the former is not per Supreme Court decision. People don't have to be happy (or even sanguine) about homosexuality but homosexuality is legally protected. Society has decided that it can accept this behavior. Society has decided that it cannot accept the others.
gopindrag wrote on January 17, 2008 4:36 PM:Oh for the good old days when Barry Goldwater was so clearly out of step and laughable. I mean, 'extremism in the defense of liberty is no evil.' I was pleased to see America reject his candidacy. But huckabuck makes goldwater look moderate. The huckabuck is one sickbuck! If I could I would ask him, so shall we remake the constitution of the United States conform to the Old Testament or the New Testament. My hunch is huck would declare the Old Testament to be the word of Jesus.
Steamboater wrote on January 17, 2008 4:38 PM:I'm so sick about hearing about the bible and it's place in politics. Huckabee should have never been born. His mother should have aborted him and saved us a lot of grief.
These damn republicans always need a group to bash. I'm Gay and a beast all right--in bed, and if they don't like it, you know what they can do. Who I love is my business and I deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.
For a Christian, is adultery a sin? Is homosexuality a sin? If your answer is yes in both cases then of cause they are equal. God does not distinguish between sins!! But Christians do.
why don't we just amend the constitution to include "human" and "adult" in the definition of marriage.
that would stop the slippery slope argument and i don't think anyone would mind.
Savantster wrote on January 17, 2008 5:00 PM:So, this is more example of the totally broken brained logic the religious right uses to justify their positions.. .. Face it, two humans has nothing to do with animals, and two legal-aged adults has nothing to do with children, yet these psychos keep putting them all into one field.
I guess it makes sense since they feel their wives are property (still), but don't want to admit it.. so children and dogs become property as well, and if you remove the "clear sign" that the "man is the controlling factor and the rest of the family is property", it could end up being "two men is the same as a man and a goat". The problem is, normal healthy human beings don't look at their wives as "property", that's a dark age tenant.
And, again, the FACT is, old-school "marriage" WAS about PROPERTY.. The idea of a dowry was so that you'd take a woman off the hands of the family so they didn't have to support her. Women were a liability if they weren't the baby maker in the house, and most societies don't let daddy make babies with the daughters, so they have to GO. So, then, you'd "marry" that girl and she was "yours"... there was no divorce, there was no leaving, there was a contract that said "you take this thing, it's yours, we give her to you"..
So, since the -real- historical view has been modified to be a thing of "we love each other and want to be together", and is used as a basis for "legal recourse on the other's behalf", we've already expanded the definition.. Now it's time to simply continue that premise and get the gender out of it, and leave it to the MODERN intent.. love and ability to make decisions for each other.. legally.
Savantster wrote on January 17, 2008 5:04 PM:"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."
Michael Vann blathered: "Haven't you ever heard of hyperbole?"
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”
Go back and read his statement.. there's no hyperbole in it.. he said extending the meaning beyond man and woman WILL be to define it .... to include man and animal.
He's fucking nuts, and I'd guess anyone that doesn't think so is pretty damaged as well.
RJP3 wrote on January 17, 2008 5:06 PM:Any surprise that the man who comes from a religion that thinks Catholics worship Satan (and that Catholics aren't even Christians), now says that gay relationships are like men having sex with animals
Troubling ... he gave this answer in the context of his larger stated goal of bringing the US Constitution in line with the Bible. And let's not forget, we're not talking your and my Bible - we're talking the Baptist Bible !!!!
Which doesn't really see a role for any other Christians other than Baptists (let alone non-Christians). And this guy thinks it's fair game to talk about Romney's Mormonism?
Fine, then let's have the media start talking about Huckabee's fringe views on Christianity.
americablog.com
This guy Huckabee would not be so scary if he wan not so likable. People are actually supporting him. Yikes!
Ohg
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/16/the-scary-theocracy-of-huckabee/
But Huckabee... what if you were born a hermaphrodite? What if you had a sex change? What if you are just a guy who likes to wear dresses every now and then? How does God's Law fit in then?
Why Republicans are so obsessed about what 2 consenting adults do behind closed doors is beyond me. If they are both adults then who the hell cares? It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Huckabee and Friends! It's not like if gay marriage was legal that suddenly ALL Republicans have to go run out and marry someone from their own gender. Jeeeezus!
Look, even if homosexuality is a choice, so is religion. And religion is fiercely protected in this country. Huckabee and his ilk just need to back off and stop telling other people how to live their lives. I feel like I need to constantly remind people like that that this is AMERICA. And in America, you are free to live your life how you want to (within the law) and you don't have to justify your decisions to anyone.
The true nature of marriage is that it's a contract of commitment between 2 CONSENTING ADULTS. Children cannot legally enter into a contract and neither can the dead and/or animals. Hence, they would not be able to get married. But two men can. So can 2 women. Therefore, the gender of the 2 adults is incidental, just like their race and religion. Just like their hair color, just like how many fingers or toes they have. It just isn't important (or at least shouldn't be in the eyes of the law). Because after all, where would the hermaphrodites and transgendered fit into that equation eh? Do you have to be at least 3/4 man in order to marry a woman?
But what I really want to know is: why do they care so much?!? Because the Bible tells them to? Well the Jesus also says "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." and "love thy neighbor" so which bit wins out?
Yeah the Bible is the Law - but only when they get what they want out of it right? People are so transparent. Ugh!
skye wrote on January 17, 2008 5:20 PM:Got to love the slipery slope... but really... didn't the slope start with straight people getting married? and when did marriage stop being about a property arrangement. The woman is property, if we change the definition to allow that the woman isn't the property of the man, we end up with people marrying rocks... it's a slippery slope.
ProfessorVP wrote on January 17, 2008 5:35 PM:I've seen photos of Mrs. Huckabee, and their offspring. Listen, Mike has no problem with beastiality.
elPaulo wrote on January 17, 2008 5:40 PM:First off, aren't we fighting a war right now against the oppression of overly-religious nutjobs? So how is changing our constitution into a religious commendment make us any different than them?
Second, why is it that religious people feel it is their duty to shove their views down every one else's throats? Come on! This book was written 2,000 years ago. A lot of people thought that the world was flat, and that we were the center of the universe and that people levitated and all of that. If we don't believe in UFO's, then WTF are we believing in that hogwash for. Don't get on Tom Cruise anymore then because his outlandish religion is based on a book....a work of fiction.
And once again, stop shoving that religious crap (not just christians, but all of em) down out throats before I shove your 2,000 yo work of FICTION up your a*&!
CHGORUNR wrote on January 17, 2008 5:45 PM:A note from a gay man to Reverend Mike Huckabee (and all “values voters” and holier-than-thou “Christians”):
Please revisit your bible and read the following:
Matthew 7:1-5
Of these, Mathew 7:5 seems most apropos to Mr. Huckabee:
“ Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.”
Philippians 2:3-4
“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.”
I John 2:1.
“All Christians are converted sinners and continue to sin even after conversion.” (I John 2:1)
I Corinthians 5:1-2
“Christians should never become arrogant, thinking themselves to be better than other sinners”
Beowolf wrote on January 17, 2008 5:46 PM:Having someone who defines himself so closely to a religion is scary.
Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 5:54 PM:Doesn't one of the ten commandments address "gluttony"?
No, you're thinking of the seven deadly sins, a medieval, rather than Biblical, concept.
Jody Parker wrote on January 17, 2008 6:06 PM:Everybody has homosexual friends or family - even if it's just work or bar friends. I've always considered myself to be pretty tolerant of gays so long as they weren't hitting on me.
Then I traveled with a gay couple. OMG!
Everybody was horrified by the public displays of affection - the sex at the beach - pool - or in the room while everybody was up and ready to go in the morning.
these weren't teenagers, but grown men! they behaved like monkey's - no - like dogs.
I've decided that homosexuality is a form of sexual mental illness. Gay men have severe sexual problems. And I think lesbians are just angry ugly women.
Addendum: My thoughts on homosexuality as a mental illness were not formed from one trip with a randy gay couple.
I've known many many homosexuals over my lifetime and tried to keep an open mind. But even the 'professionals' seem to have this 'in your face' attitude about sex.
Sex pervades their art, home furnishings, clothing and entertainment.
Let's just say - enough already with sex.
It is NOT the centerpiece of people's activities once the honeymoon is over.
Not so for gays. And I find that all sex all the time attitude to be juvenile, pathological and yes, a danger to our children.
In a word - I agree with Huckabee. And I'm an athiest.
Ava Mae Lewis wrote on January 17, 2008 6:39 PM:Pssssttttttt!
don'tmakewaves!
pleaseohpleaselethimwin....
andletthesillinessofthereligiousright'sattempttogovernliketheypreachblowthemawayforever.
Democrats will have him for lunch.
Jody Parker wrote on January 17, 2008 6:06 PM: "I've decided that homosexuality is a form of sexual mental illness. Gay men have severe sexual problems. And I think lesbians are just angry ugly women."
Wow that was a really dumb comment. Do you always judge people like that?
Face it, there's plenty of stupid horny people who are gay, and plenty stupid horny people who are straight. There are also plenty of perfectly sane people who are gay, and perfectly sane people who are straight.
I've known my fair share of all categories. And if you haven't then you dont get out enough. Don't be such a judgemental jackass (who happens to be straight) and prove my point for me so well. It makes it way too easy.
By the way, a good way to protect your children from sexual pathologies, is to raise them to be calm, down to earth people (who are not judgemental) who are capeable of dealing with this stuff without completely freaking out. Getting all neurotic about sex doesn't solve anything and it doesn't protect your children.
dogwalker clairluz@ wrote on January 17, 2008 6:47 PM:So let me get this straight (pardon the pun), under Hucks rule it would be okay for someone to have sex with a zebra as long as it's the SAME sex?
Who needs a constitution when we can all be having zebra sex?
Walker
Maria Torrini wrote on January 17, 2008 6:50 PM:I did not sleep with that sheep. Sorry, it had to be said. Oy, where to begin. I am straight, not into farm animals or other. The guy needs to come out of the cave along with the rest of the republicans and join the human race. NOOOOO, people who are gay are not the same as those who are into sheep. Most are really kind people who just are trying to survive, like the rest of us. The fact they are genetically geared to like men or women shouldn't change that. The republican party, evangelicals and anyone else who can't see how big this world is, that there is room enough for all kinds of people, need to get a life. As for me, I am proud to have a niece who is accepted in our family for who she is. Her being gay doesn't change our love for her, respect, or how proud we are of her accomplishments. Mike, Grow a pair and join the human race.
Steve Mosher wrote on January 17, 2008 6:55 PM:Scare, fear and more scare... The Republican Fear machine is in full force as usual. Blame all the gay, pedophile, animal rapists that are letting in all the immigrants, so they can take your jobs, molest your kids, and allow Osama to get the advantage and kill you in your home.
Typical.
Angry Monkey wrote on January 17, 2008 6:55 PM:So in other words Jody Parker: Butt out.
Not everyone wants to live life and be like you. And in America, we don't have to. But apparently you would rather tell people how to live. How nice of you.
P.S. I've been married to my husband for 10 years and I love him dearly. But when people like you start talking about gays, I get really offended. Some of my best friends are gay, charming, and much more pleasurable to be around than I imagine it would be to be around you. Capiche?
clb72 wrote on January 17, 2008 7:00 PM:Are you really so surprised he would say that, as a candidate for the Republican nomination? After all, is any other candidate going to call him out on it, and say that's not an acceptable view in today's Republican party? Cue laughter.
Marvin Meadors wrote on January 17, 2008 7:13 PM:Huckabee does get a free ride in the press. He seems a nice, cuddly guy and then these radical words spring from his mouth. He has said let us change the constituion to reflect God's word (whatever that means), he does not believe in evolution, and so on. At other times he has said certain parts of the bible are figurative or allegorical. What does he not accept about Darwinism? Does he just reject the whole body of knowledge sight unseen. Such rejection of evidence has lead us to the war policies and environmental policies of George Bush. I do not want four more years of such a rudderless, theology based government.
Gerry wrote on January 17, 2008 7:20 PM:If this man every becomes president of the United States I guess I will have to flee the country - not because I am gay but because I am an atheist.
May "god" save the USA (from "god" and from nuts like Huckabee.
damilgin wrote on January 17, 2008 7:20 PM:Wow! It is scary to think of Huckabee is running for president. It is also scary to think that people would vote for him.
I did not think Republicans could do worse than Bush, but Huckabee would be.
After all, we have seen the best Rebulicans have to offer with Bush.
Grendel72 wrote on January 17, 2008 7:21 PM:
I think the time has come when we have to acknowledge that modern conservatives are at best potential rapists. Nobody with the very basic human understanding of love and consent in a sexual relationship could make the offensive comparisons they routinely do, it's the thought process of a rapist.
em8chel wrote on January 17, 2008 7:23 PM:Dear Father forgive me; for I've just made a naughty YouTube video response...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY8PbTuycis
em8chel wrote on January 17, 2008 7:26 PM:Dear Father please forgive me; for I've just made a naughty YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY8PbTuycis
damilgin wrote on January 17, 2008 7:32 PM:Hey Jody Parker,
I know what you mean. I went on a trip with a straight couple once. OMG! They had their tounghs down each others throat so far they could lick their feet. Hands down their pants playing with each other. It was disgusting. They ran everyone out of the hot tub. Public displays of lust are so tacky.
Then the other day, I stopped at a corner and there was a straight couple on the corner slobbering all over each other. He was humping her and she had her hand down his pants. Get a room!
I can only conclude that heterosexuals are sexual deviants, that will fuck like rabbits in front of God and everybody.
Well, "historically" according to his version, which means biblically, they endorsed polygamy.
damilgin wrote on January 17, 2008 7:55 PM:I read Jody's comments about homosexuals having a sexual mental illness. I think he should look at his own species before he begins to criticize others.
I have traveled with straight couples and they would be all over each other, sex in the pool/hot tub. Throwing it in everyones face. Or, one the street corner sucking face like there was no tomorrow. OMG! Get a room. Or going to luch with straight men and having to listen to the continuous crude comments on what they would do to women.
I can only conclude that heterosexuals are sexual deviants, who think abou sex all the time and will do the deed anywhere in front of anyone. This conclusion is based on many years of association with straight people.
Maybe it is the company you keep.
damilgin
Would not dismiss Huckabee so easily. He is a very personable fellow. Someone you
could hang out with an have a non alcoholic
beer with. If Bloomberg runs as a third party candidate, he could siphon off many
from Dems and Repubs. The hardcore Christian right would still vote as a solid block for Huck.
What about hermaphrodites? Who can they marry? What about God for CREATING hermaphrodites? Maybe HuckaBOOB should excommunicate God.
ProfessorVP wrote on January 17, 2008 8:15 PM:Hey, Jody... gays' sexual behavior is juvenile, pathological? All I can say is Bill Clinton, welcome to the club.
Heil Mary wrote on January 17, 2008 8:16 PM:What about hermaphrodites? Who can they marry? What about God for CREATING hermaphrodites? Maybe HuckaBOOB should excommunicate God.
Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 8:25 PM:For heaven's sake. Huckabee's comment is whacky enough on its own merits - why pretend he drew an "equivalence" between homosexuality and bestiality when in fact he simply nlted a commaonaltiy, to wit, neither meets his conception of marriage?
Follow up questions - who would care to argue that Huckabee drew an equivalence between homosexuality and sex amongst a man with three women? (And was it good for them, too?) That seems to be a logical extension of Sargent's rhetoric.
In closing - I wish Mr. Sargent a long, happy, and healthy life and hope he is neither murdered not afflicted with a terminal disease.
Oops - will Mr. Sargent insist I just drew an equivalence between murder and illness?
pejedebo wrote on January 17, 2008 8:29 PM:Let's see - yuckabee is a horse's ass + homosexuality + bestiality = yuckabee wants some man on beast action!
Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 8:33 PM:Huckabee
Function: noun
Etymology: from 'Michael Huckabee', right-wing religious fanatic and former governor of Arkansas, presidential candidate, squirrel eater
noun 1 : squirrel eater 2 : anal fissure 3 : delusions, hallucinations
— huck•a•bee adjective
See also, huckabee2 verb
So much tolerance... Hypocrites...
Plumb Bob wrote on January 17, 2008 8:50 PM:You folks are simply beyond belief. I read a hundred comments, and only one of you can properly parse an English sentence.
From the top:
Huckabee is talking about what is and is not MARRIAGE. He says "Marriage = A." Then he says "Marriage not = B," "Marriage not = C," "Marriage not = D."
From the FIRST BLOODY WEEK IN LOGIC 101, FOLKS: what can you properly infer about B, C, and D? Are they the same as each other?
NO!!!
The only thing you can properly infer about B, C, and D from those statements is that none of them are the same as A. B, C, and D could be the same as each other, completely different from each other, subsets of each other -- we don't know.
This is so basic that I'm absolutely disgusted that nobody's noticed.
The only thing you can properly say Huckabee thinks homosexual unions and bestial unions have in common is that NEITHER OF THEM IS A MARRIAGE. If you infer anything else from his statement, you infer incorrectly.
And besides that, he's not even reasoning from the Bible. The questioner mentioned the Bible, but Huckabee does not; he reasons from the cultural default. Truth is, I could just as easily argue what Huck is arguing from the Bhagavad Gita, or from Hammurabi's code, both of which assume that marriage is between male and female.
What has become of American education???
Bryan wrote on January 17, 2008 8:53 PM:The central argument of this article is based on a logical fallacy.
A > B and A > C does NOT imply B "directly equals" C, which is what the author (and just about every commenter) is asserting.
Dodom wrote on January 17, 2008 8:57 PM:I hope Huckabee'll stay in the race for a long time. He's hilarious. Of course if he becomes president the universe will instantaneously implode into a gigantic black hole, but we'll all die laughing.
Bryan wrote on January 17, 2008 9:00 PM:Plumb bob beat me too it. also sorry my not equal signs were escaped out.
REL wrote on January 17, 2008 9:05 PM:Mike Huckabee was the governor of Arkansas for 10 1/2 years, presiding over a legislature that was approximately 80% liberal Democrat, yet was able to bring the parties together to make the government work. He fixed the Arkansas economy, rebuild the infrastructure, vastly improved the schools, and left the state with nearly a billion dollar surplus. He was by far a much better governor than Bill Clinton in both making government work and bringing the parties together to do their job of serving the people of Arkansas. What this country needs is a President who can slice through the bulls**t in Washington, get both parties to set aside their ideological differences and make government work for the American public. Neither Obama nor Hillary (even with Bill) have the executive experience to bring together the factions of our government and make it work. Despite what you want to believe about Huckabee and his conservative/religious views, he will not change our government into a theocracy. Your hate for anything religious is unfounded and borders on the brink of fascism. Huckabee will be a great President, he will fix our government, he will bring people together, and you will regret all your hate and fear-mongering when you get that new job 2 or 3 years from now because of the progress created under a Huckabee administration.
Grendel72 wrote on January 17, 2008 9:09 PM:And the slippery slope is a logical fallacy itself, what's your point, other than to defend bigotry?
We can debate different issues on their own merits, and anyone without a sociopathic rapist's point of view can see a clear difference between loving, committed and consensual relationships and raping children and farm animals. The fact that conservatives don't see that difference makes me worry for the safety of anyone they encounter.
plumb bob, I think the problem is not that people are too uneducated to understand basic logic, it is simply that people are quick to form their conclusions based on assumptions and emotions. This is clearly what most presidential candidates run on because of its effectiveness.
I personally think it's a good idea to always question your assumptions no matter how ingrained they are. There are plenty of logical reasons to dislike Huckabee, but this article is simply incorrect.
matt wrote on January 17, 2008 9:31 PM:REL wrote on January 17, 2008 9:05 PM:
"Mike Huckabee was the governor of Arkansas for 10 1/2 years, presiding over a legislature that was approximately 80% liberal Democrat, yet was able to bring the parties together to make the government work. He fixed the Arkansas economy, rebuild the infrastructure, vastly improved the schools, and left the state with nearly a billion dollar surplus."
Yeah, and Hitler got the trains to run on time. This man is an obscenity and I cannot believe how desperate the GOP is to hang onto power by letting this creep run as one of their candidates. I have heard that some of the brighter conservatives have threatened to vote for Hillary if Huckabee gets the nod, but it isn't enough. This guy is "Bob Roberts" & Greg Stillson (from King's "The Dead Zone") come to nauseating life.
gac wrote on January 17, 2008 9:33 PM:Damilgin,
Dudette. I'm straight, but used to have a bazillion gay friends (now most all are deceased due to AIDS). I have to say that your comment about straight guys talkin' about sex...wow....just about every gay man I know was pathological in his qualification process of those of his sex and what kind of package they might be packin'. And I mean, honey, it was wick-ed and consistant. Always sure they could make a straight guy bi and on and on. I loved it, just a bunch of jive. The point is no one has the market cornered on wild sexual behavior, my friend.
I thought this was a blog about that loon Huckleberry, anyway. I can't believe that people are so afraid of the puritan right they can't see what a fear mongering fanatic he is. The fanatacism of fear. Come on folks, we can keep going down the same old road and get the same old thing. How long are we going to tolerate this sort of fear of speaking out.
sandy campbell wrote on January 17, 2008 9:39 PM:hey jody , I was out having dinner last night with a group of friends. One straight couple needed a room. The guy said inthe middle of dinner that he loved his girlfriends pussy. Straight/gay PDA's are offensive.
Chirs Babcock wrote on January 17, 2008 10:03 PM:I updated Huckabee's Wikipedia page to include these new quotes and your criticisms. Check it out: Here
REL wrote on January 17, 2008 10:03 PM:matt wrote on January 17, 2008 9:31 PM:
"Yeah, and Hitler got the trains to run on time."
Come on, are you that pathetic? Is that how simple your mind works? Hitler, really? I suppose you believe Dubya is Hitler too and Cheney is Vader. And what's up with the intolerance and anti-religious bigotry? I thought you libs were supposed to be open and unprejudiced.
And as much as I hate to ruin your wet dreams, no Republican is going to vote for Hillary, no matter how much they may dislike Huckabee. They may stay home, though they will probably swallow their pride and do what they know to be right and vote against Ms. Clinton. This, ultimately, is the best thing that will come from this election, the defeat of Hillary. I can't wait for her glare, her fake composure, when she has to concede the race on live television. It will be sweet!
So, continue to compare Huckabee to whatever scares you the most, so long as you go to work tomorrow and buy your Starbucks and pay your bills and do your part to keep the economy going, that's all that really matters. Your opinions (and mine, I have no illusions) don't matter one bit in the grand scheme of this election. And if you find life here to be unbearable under a Huckabee Admin. (which I doubt, since you are still here under a Bush Admin.), then I'm sure France or Canada will gladly take you in, and you can suckle upon their gov't teet instead of ours.
JUST A THOUGHT wrote on January 17, 2008 10:23 PM:I did not mean to read all the way down but kept hoping I'd find something mature as a basis for all the opinions regarding a new leader for this country.But after reading all this filth I seriously fear for the future of this nation.If this is an indication of what our children have to look forward to then our very sanity is in clear jeopardy.What does it matter of your beliefs without decent morals and values? I have always wondered how or why so many choose to be so outspoken concerning subjects they simply do not care to educate themselves about.I am from the south and was taught attributes such as respect for myself and others,and to avoid senseless trouble makers and bullies.Our children already have enough problems with low self esteem(wonder where they picked it up from?)One last point..not believing in God does not change anything..hes still who he is and you'll face him on Judgement day whether you believe it or not because your soul will be somewhere for all eternity,but unfortunately it will be to late to believe then! Have a nice day!
Kurt Stokke wrote on January 17, 2008 10:43 PM:Oh come on now,who amongst us hasn't had sexual relations with an animal? It's how I taught my dog how to howl, fer pete's sake! That doesn't make me GAY, does it? Talk about slippery slopes! Animals are a LOT more slippery than humans--just ask any republican (outside of a toe-tapping restroom).
George Bush wrote on January 17, 2008 10:51 PM:Have you seen his son? Talk about FAT! Bigger than a Mack Truck, which he probably screws along with daddy.
Matt wrote on January 17, 2008 10:54 PM:He didn't directly compare homosexuality to bestiality. If you think he did, you are an idiot. All he said was, if we change the definition once, it's open to be changed again. And there are people out there who would like multiple spouses, or even children. To my knowledge those who practice bestiality only have sexual relations with animals, but I could be wrong about that. And the truth is, if marriage is no longer an institution for a man and a woman to produce offspring and raise them together then there is no reason whatsoever why consenting people should not be able to marry whatever they want to marry.
The fact that you people fail to see this is a really frightening commentary on the intelligence of people these days.
Advice for Huckabee: Don't believe everything you think.
janey wrote on January 18, 2008 12:47 AM:I'm sick to death of hearing Hickaby talk about his little imaginary friend jesus.
AlaskaMike wrote on January 18, 2008 2:05 AM:The definition of marriage has changed completely. Marriage used to be a man legally owning a woman. Now it is the formation of a partnership between a man and a woman. Civilization didn't collapse when the definition was changed the first time and it hasn't shown any signs of collapsing where it has been changed to allow same-sex partnerships either.
And I think "huckabee" should mean "to badly pretend to be a country bumkin." As in, George Bush likes to hang out on the ranch and huckabee for the press."
Someone wrote on January 18, 2008 2:06 AM:NOTICE TO EVERYONE WHO HAS POSTED:
I am a CHRISTIAN. Now some of you may stop reading right there, proving your own ignorance. I took the time to read many of these posts you have made. And I don't begrudge you your rights. Go ahead, label me before you hear me. Label Christians in general. But if anybody is HONESTLY interested (not just spewing out a Christ-phobia) in knowing the truth about the Bible,then please read this.
Steve Mosher wrote on January 17, 2008 6:55 PM:
Scare, fear and more scare... The Republican Fear machine is in full force as usual. Blame all the gay, pedophile, animal rapists that are letting in all the immigrants, so they can take your jobs, molest your kids, and allow Osama to get the advantage and kill you in your home.
Typical.
- Seems to me that the Jesus Fearing Machine is revving itself up right now. How many comments have been made against God on this page alone? If you insist the GOPs have a fear machine out there, then how are you being any different from them? You seem pretty scared of Christians and/or GOPs right now, to be sure.
CHGORUNR wrote on January 17, 2008 5:45 PM:
A note from a gay man to Reverend Mike Huckabee (and all “values voters” and holier-than-thou “Christians”):
Please revisit your bible and read the following:
Matthew 7:1-5
Of these, Mathew 7:5 seems most apropos to Mr. Huckabee:
“ Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye;
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.”
Philippians 2:3-4
“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.”
I John 2:1.
“All Christians are converted sinners and continue to sin even after conversion.” (I John 2:1)
I Corinthians 5:1-2
“Christians should never become arrogant, thinking themselves to be better than other sinners”
- This is not about us considering ourselves "better" than anyone else. We Christians are to to have one clear-cut goal in life: to glorify God (I Corinthians 10:31). The same way you choose to live for whatever you live for, we choose to live a life similar to Christ's. I'm not walking around saying "Gays and liberals should be put behind bars for what they do or think." You all have a choice. I have a choice. Huckabee has a choice. I don't whine about you having a choice. I may disagree with your choice and think certain things about you, but never that I'm better than you.
SurgeThis wrote on January 17, 2008 3:33 PM:
This just goes to show how split off Huckabee is from his own humanity. People like him should never be more than the president of their own living room.
Even then they should never be allowed to raise children. Religion is mind poison and teaching it to children is child abuse.
- Is that philosophy not a form of religion in and of itself? Sounds extremely intolerant of anything but itself.
elPaulo wrote on January 17, 2008 5:40 PM:
First off, aren't we fighting a war right now against the oppression of overly-religious nutjobs? So how is changing our constitution into a religious commendment make us any different than them?
Second, why is it that religious people feel it is their duty to shove their views down every one else's throats? Come on! This book was written 2,000 years ago. A lot of people thought that the world was flat, and that we were the center of the universe and that people levitated and all of that. If we don't believe in UFO's, then WTF are we believing in that hogwash for. Don't get on Tom Cruise anymore then because his outlandish religion is based on a book....a work of fiction.
And once again, stop shoving that religious crap (not just christians, but all of em) down out throats before I shove your 2,000 yo work of FICTION up your a*&!
-OK, um, no one is making you listen to one word of what we (or any other religion) have to say. Secondly, the fact that this book has survived 2,000 years holds no significance for you? Were all people who believed one word of it idiots? I guess some of our idiot founding fathers somehow managed to help shape us into a world power, despite believing lunacy...
David A wrote on January 17, 2008 1:57 PM:
Huckabee is forgetting that polygamy has a greater historical basis in the bible than does monogamy.
Read the old testament.
- I have. And nowhere does it condone polygamy. There are deeper theological issues regarding the Old Testament, involving the old Jewish Law and such, some of which is obviously no longer in effect. Some of you love to quote from the book of Leviticus. Do you know its original purpose? Many of the passages in the book of Leviticus could be termed the "constitution" of the Jewish faith, per se. Note, the Jewish faith. Not the Christian faith. Jesus Himself met an adultress. According to Judaic Law, she was to be stoned. Instead, He forgave her.
Jaggok wrote on January 17, 2008 4:43 PM:
For a Christian, is adultery a sin? Is homosexuality a sin? If your answer is yes in both cases then of cause they are equal. God does not distinguish between sins!! But Christians do.
- Question One - yes. Question Two - yes.
You seem to know enough about the Bible to know that God doesn't see one sin any differently than another. People make a choice to do what they do, within or outside of Biblical boundaries. That doesn't mean that all Christians always live within those boundaries. The choice one makes to do over what he/she feels at a particular moment between what he/she believes is right or wrong always exists. If one insists on a certain behavior, then that's their choice. That doesn't mean we advocate legally outlawing all forms of sin. It already is outlawed for me anyways.
As far as Huckabee is concerned, I highly doubt he will be outlawing divorce, or any other chosen sins. Gay marriage, however, is a different matter, as is abortion. (Uh-uh, they think it's here we go again). Different definitions of both clearly are out there. So which one is right? To legally enforce these issues one way or the other, we must answer one question: who are we protecting? Because THAT is the true responsibility of government, to protect. That is why murder is punished. That is why theft is punished. That is why prayer was banished from schools (to protect the religious rights of those not believing in God). In my opinion, the outlawing of abortion would be protection of the life of a child. And in most Christian's opinions, gay marriage is set-in-stone wrong. The Bible clearly prohibits its practice. If gay marriage were to be fully outlawed country-wide for good, it would be protecting the original definition of marriage. It would further also protect all Christians (and straights) to exercise their religious rights - to not risk the further anger of God on us, along with the moral decay typically following a gay lifestyle. Some would no doubt argue who's looking out for the gays, but I would contend that they already have the right to live together and do whatever they please, so long as they don't have the same last name.
mike wrote on January 17, 2008 3:28 PM:
Oh so Christian !
Since we have seperation of church and state, i dont think its appropriate for any minister of the church to be in politics.
u cannot serve god and caesar at same time.
freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion
- My friend Mike here also went on to ask a long list of questions regarding Old Testament laws and such. I will address those in a minute.
But first, separation of church and state...when you find that in the Constitution, please show it to me. I assume you know that originated with a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. What he really said, however, enforced the idea that the state has no business meddling in the church, while not saying the vice versa.
I referred to Old Testament laws earlier. The fact that they applied to Jews only does not irrelativize the Old Testament. The Old Testament gives a history of Isreal and points to the inevitable coming of Jesus to earth. It does not apply to a required law code for today's Christian. Otherwise, you'd be in trouble.
I understand that you believe what you believe. I do not feel that sentiment is shared by you, however. How can this nation move forward with such intolerance for conservative beliefs?
Marmann wrote on January 18, 2008 2:34 AM:Actually, it kind of makes sense. A man/woman really should marry his/her best friend. I trust my dog more than any human on earth, and she's my best friend. Either way, I still wouldn't get any sex, but at least I could say "till death do us part" and mean it.
AlaskaMike wrote on January 18, 2008 2:51 AM:To "Someone" who is a "CHRISTIAN".
If you believe that same sex marriage is against your religion, then by all means don't marry some one of the same sex. That is the reasonable, responsible, tolerant position. It becomes unreasonable, irresponsible and intolerant when you decide that your personal religious belief should bear the weight of civil law.
You call for tolerance of "conservative beliefs" but refuse to show tolerance yourself. We are tolerant of your beliefs. No one has called for laws banning your beliefs no matter how antiquated or quaint they may seem. I'm always amazed at the martyr wannabes who claim they are the victims of intolerance while campaigning for laws that keep others second class citizens.
Marmann wrote on January 18, 2008 5:58 AM:Alaska Mike: Excellent post! You nailed it. :-)
Hakori wrote on January 18, 2008 8:16 AM:Does this surprise anyone? This is the type of thing the radical religious right is known for. They hate anyone different, and they want to turn what's left of our democracy into a hellish Christian theocracy. These buffons got us were we are now, and they want to finish the job by putting one of their own in the white house. If that were to happen, and that's a huge IF, they will finish our once great land. The rabid brand of radical christainity these cretins follow is a disease. It's a sickness that has infected their minds, and they want nothing more than to infect the rest of America with their filth. IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN YOU PEONS! CRAWL BACK INTO YOUR HATE FILLED CHURCHES WHERE YOU CAN WORSHIP EACHOTHER'S BILE!
AtTheMoon wrote on January 18, 2008 8:23 AM:Huck better check his bible. Pretty sure a lot of dudes in there have more than three wives and a bunch of concubines to boot...oh and their maids too...you know, as a back up in case somebody is barren. AMEN
HAKORI wrote on January 18, 2008 8:23 AM:Dear Someone, You ended you long post by asking how this country can move forward with such intolerance for conservative beliefs. If you aren't a hate filled radcial christian, then you are better than the likes of huckabee. But if you agree with him, then NO there is no room for the intolerance of the rabid christian right. The one thing truely enlightened people can not abide is intolerance. And that's something the rabid christians have in abundance! If you are one of them, then you can go to hell! If you aren't then join us in the light.
joze46 wrote on January 18, 2008 9:36 AM:Actually all the debate in Homosexuality so far seems to be just opening up some real central core issues of Americas transition in the basic moral authority of life.
All bringing forward an honest partnership with God, for those who believe in God, yet challenge the individual free will, soul, propositioned by God through a wonderful discussion on the Internet that brings some interesting ideals that make me feel like a rookie in cultural development.
That ideal by a lot of posters that Huckabee is a “Fringe Extremist” is perhaps challenging rather then just defining. Could be, Huckabee, has what he thinks is a divine reflection, his own mediation with the truth of God as Huckabee preconceives it. For all we know, Gods effort to shape us in his image is constantly shared with “All of us” not just George Bush or Huckabee, and its up to everyone to either decide to take a leadership roll or follow. In Huckabee’s case, he leads, and I don’t think he cares what people think about his believes in how they will justify whether he wins the Presidency or not.
In any case, Huckabee is putting the Constitution in adding, as a chapter, in our biblical believe. An ancient ideal forbidden, but a long list of ancient ideals considered abominations have already been abandoned. So, here we have the Constitution though calling for the separation of Church and State is a key controversial element in this experiment of American government. Perhaps there is a divine calling here. God is opening the door to free will and soul, granting humanity its wish for separation of Church and State, but God kindly saying “Hey yah all don’t forget about me”.
Barack Hussein Obama presents another side of the argument in the theory of separation of Church and State. To me something very striking and very scary that is not even in the Mainstream Media.
In Obama’s book “Audacity of Hope” from the get go in the Prologue Obama states two serious contradictions in his political grandstanding the public is not aware of and Mainstream Media totally does not hold Obama accountable for. Obama admits in a passage that “The topic of this book how we might begin the process of changing our politics and our civic life. This isn’t to say that I know exactly how to do it, I don’t”.
America did you get that Obama does not know how he is going to change things yet rants “Change you can believe in”. That’s crazy.
Here, the monumental mental gap is a few lines later Obama said “I offer no unifying theory of American government, nor do these pages provide a manifesto for action, complete with charts and graphs, timetables, and ten point plans”.
An absolutely stupid statement for a man that who taught Law and the Constitution at the University of Chicago for something like eight to ten years. Sorry folks but for Obama to says he offers no unifying theory of American government, what kind of government was Obama teaching? Sheesh, I though the Constitution is the most significant unifying theory is be formed by civilized man. This is an idiotic statement, and he thinks he is a Presidential candidate? Obama not only lacks experience, he displays openly absolutely no vision when it comes to “written law”.
Somebody asked: "What about divorce and adultery? ... Why not Constitutional amendments on these issues, Huckabee?"
Why? Well he's not going to talk about THAT so blatantly. Yet. But once in the WH? You bet. This guy has been associated with the Christian fanatical fringe for many years. Just look up "Pastor Joe Fuiten"...a great friend and advisor of Huck's. And an avid gay-hater. I expect an amendment banning "sodomy" would shortly follow his inauguration, probably even before the amendments banning adultery and divorce. With harsh punishments for infractors.
Huckabee is a theocrat who would make Rousas Rushdoony, the father of that frightening train of extremist Christian thought known as Reconstructionism, proud. If he's elected, I'll have lost all hope for this country, and I'll be following the Exodus Train to Canada.
Dodgeman1975 wrote on January 18, 2008 10:01 AM:
Perhaps only a Christian understands Huckabee's comments. Once the standard for marriage is changed from one man and one woman, it can be changed to almost anything which man can think of.
He is not the ignorant twit in this discussion. When one has no moral underpinnings I guess you would cringe in fear of anything "holy" and call it "the radical right"
I would rather be in the "radical right" than wrong before my creator.
Collin Brendemuehl wrote on January 18, 2008 10:41 AM:Whoa!
Was Huckabee saying that, if one is practices homosexuality then one might as well practice bestiality? No, he said no such thing. He did not set up a practical equivalence. Huckabee did NOT say that homosexual practice is the same as practicing bestiality. What he did was to draw a moral equivalency and that is a quite different thing. This is mainstream Christian theology, not at all part of any extreme movement, despite Sargent's assertion.
Clearer still is Sargent's failure to separate from the other things that Huckabee mentioned: Pedophilia and polyandry. Because Sargent took the practical equivalence route, it is fair to ask this: Are these now acceptable practical equivalents for those who support the morality of homosexual practice? Many in the homosexual community regularly denies Their support of pedophilia (despite the recruitment to homosexual behavior via public school curricula and television shows like Desperate Housewives) but at the same time polyandry/multiple partners is mainstream in that community. (Yes, these practices are certainly just as immoral when they occur within the heterosexual community.)
Sargent's wilingness to lie by misrepresentation may prove to be effective. But it is little more than the lowest of smears.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I don't think Huck can win in the current state of affairs. He has a lot of support but this type of theological discussion, as correct as it is, should be kept out of the campaign period. He needs some better handlers if he is going to win anything.
How about if a man can marry a man then a brother can marrry his sister? aint that their rights as consenting adults? Do you see why opening the door for same sex can open the door for two men and a women? five women and one man?
Dont you see what he's saying?
Tweedle-Dee Huckabee is about as about as “Fire and brimstone” and “Hell and damnation” as he is confused, which is to say- EXTREMELY confused. This twit's smarmy, down-home, folksy sort of shtick is nauseating. Actually, it's hard to imagine that someone running for president is THAT stupid in relation to his centuries-old beliefs about homosexuality. But, then again, look what we have for a “President” now- pure idiocy, substandard intellect, and incessant misrepresentations affecting the welfare of our nation. Today's youth are the ones that will pay for this debacle, and pay dearly. A vote for Tweedle-Dee will serve only to hasten our devolution.
Taco Time wrote on January 18, 2008 12:21 PM:Sodom and Gomorrah. That is what the United States it turning into. In the Bible, God destroyed them for their homosexuality (men weren't men for men, same goes with women) and I'm pretty sure he's not to happy with what the United States is heading for now.
I love how this article completely dodged the point of what he was writing and tried to make a storm to gather "zombies" to his cause but that failed.
Regardless of what anybody says, God made man with a penis and women with a vagina for a reason. The anus is just a mechanism for disposal of waste. When man took the decision (yes, being gay is not in anybody genes it's a decision made) to want the same sex, it was deemed an abomination by God.
Juarez Traveller wrote on January 18, 2008 1:01 PM:Leaving aside the fact that Mike Huckabee is corrupt (what other kind of person could lie about his efforts to release a rapist and murderer from prison for political reasons, allowing that murderer kill again), his core beliefs are Christian. In fact, he is a very devout Christian.
You may ask, "how can you say he's a devout Christian right after saying he's corrupt?" Well, if you really don't know, then it's probably useless to try to help you. Nevertheless, I'll try.
Mike Huckabee has lots of crazy beliefs. He doesn't believe in evolution. He believes with all his heart that the Earth is only about 4000 years old.
Our beliefs about the nature of the universe and our relationship to it form the foundation of all of our decisions. So if you believe something that's nuts, your decisions are likely to be nuts, too.
At this point in human history, believing the things that Mike Huckabee does can be described only one way: sheer lunacy. This results in really bad decisions. Just look at his hipocritical performance prior to the Iowa caucuses.
I have an idea! Let's NOT send another kook to the White House this year.
Kevin wrote on January 18, 2008 1:56 PM:Equating?
Can no one here think clearly?
If I say "we need to remain strong on crime. We cannot allow murder, robbery, or jaywalking to become legal," am I EQUATING those things? Of course not. I'm saying they're all bad, but nowhere implying that they are EQUALLY bad.
Yet the writer of this piece doesnt seem to be able to tell the difference. Can you not? Am I wrong?
Come on, guys. Let's at least be honest and logical. I dont like Huckabee. But I dont have to lie about what he says.
And if we cant tell the difference between naming bad things in a list and EAUATING those things, then God help us.
JUST A THOUGHT wrote on January 18, 2008 3:11 PM:Sorry to get into this again but I just could not help wondering how much people on this forum know about the rest of those running for a soft bed,expensive food,gifts galore,pats on the back,favors,and yada,yada,yada(you know the spill)and a gold jeweled seat in the white house? Huckabee may not be the one to concern yourself about.Lets see now,who can truly pull this country out of the mess its in? We did not fall into such a calamity overnight.Our choices this year is lean,overwhelmingly lean!But it doesn't stop them all from swearing that they know the solutions..it will take more then the luck of the draw.What have these people done in the past? mistakes follow us, but thank goodness we can move on if we so desire.I admit that I am afraid because I'm not steeped in riches with a powerful backing and super support..my solution is prayer,but I never force my beliefs on anyone else and hope I am treated in the same manner.Sometimes I lay awake at night and cry out for mercy on this country's future because some answers have been tried to many times with the same failure over and over again.If I did not know for sure of whom I were praying to, I am not sure of where I would be.It takes more courage and strength to stand up for what you believe then it ever did in the past.one more thing..I am not a Huckabee fan..I try to read and study up on these people but I by no means expect them to be perfect because theres not a human alive that has not made mistakes.The blessing is when we are allowed time to fix them.I was almost cursed out by a minister last year who is no longer in the pulpit for not voting in that election.He did it in front of everybody in the building.I almost passed out!!But I forgive him because hes got far more problems then just voting someone into the Whitehouse!Thank you for allowing me this time.
JNagarya wrote on January 18, 2008 6:49 PM:A special focus of my law research and study is legal history, sepecifically "American" colonial law. Huckabee is talking to us directly from 17th century MA-Bay Colony and its "Capitall Lawes" of 1641 (and thereafter), with their marginal citations to Leviticus.
The guy is lunatic fringe -- the traditional term for the twisted and illiterate hypocrites and bigots on the far, far, far, far, far Reich wing -- personified.
Ask him for his views on "Witches".
Or on Quakers and "Papists".
"Someone wrote on January 18, 2008 2:06 AM: . . . ."
Prove there's a "God" -- with actual objective evidence, not simply the self-serving word of humans claiming -- without proof -- to be "divinely inspired".
_Viz._: "God" talks to me. And "He" told me just five minutes ago that "He" doesn't talk to you -- regardless your claim on the point.
"He" also said you have it all wrong.
Prove "He" _doesn't_ talk to me.
The blind lunatic fringe speaks:
"Taco Time wrote on January 18, 2008 12:21 PM:
"Sodom and Gomorrah. That is what the United States it turning into."
You know nothing about the US and its history; or its pre-history when your "Christian" brethren ruled as a religiodictatorship, AND implemented the very "God's word" you jabber about.
The result? The religionuts controlled the putatively "civil" gov't and enacted laws to protect themselves -- and their corruptions and abuses of power.
None of that corruption and abuse was "past tense," and it cannot be defended or excused solely on the grounds that humans are imperfect, or because they "believe in their heart" in "God" or some other excuse for their corruptions and abuses.
That's why we have man-made laws, Nut: to prohibt and punish those who corrupt and abuse public/gov't processes. We don't instead make excuses and thereby allow lawlessness to prevail while in essence sniggering at the rule of law.
"In the Bible, . . . ."
The "Bible" is a book of Jewish history, not a "religious" text; and the Old Testament is irrelevant to Christianity. (Do you not know that Christianity didn't exist before Christ? Or that it wasn't called "Christianty" until long after Christ was dead?
The Old Testament is about VENGEANCE. The New Testament is about FORGIVENESS.
Wake up and get an education in something other than the sleazy religicrap you unquestiongly swallow simply because spewed by self-serving hucksters who tell you what you want to hear.
Have you seen these Links to Huckabee ??
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071102.html
Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071127.html
More Reasons To Beware Of Mike Huckabee
Yes... Its got to be close... I agree with him... 777
Gary wrote on January 19, 2008 9:19 AM:Laying all our political arguments aside, why does homosexuality result in disease and death?
Chris wrote on January 19, 2008 10:14 AM:He said the same thing paranoid self-proclaimed heterosexuals have been saying for years. It's about opening the doors for anything but one man/one woman. It has nothing to do with beasiality, or pedophilia, or polygamy. The headline of this story is pretty much an outright lie. I'd never vote for Huckabee, but anybody can see this outrageous claim is being made because it's an election year. Wake up, America.
Mr. Coe wrote on January 19, 2008 10:19 AM:He's got my vote! What's so fringe about thinking marriage is between one man & one woman? It's the norm. Fringe is thinking it should be anything but.
Mr. Coe wrote on January 19, 2008 10:24 AM:A. he's right
B. Having a Baptist preacher in the white
house would be a breath of fresh air. They'd probably have to preform an exorcism on the oval office first.
Americans are still obsessed with the stupid book: the bible. Europe was like that in the XV century.
Anonymous wrote on January 19, 2008 2:59 PM:Why don't you guys, including the author of this article, learn to READ. He is not equating homosexuality with bestiality, but is saying that if we amend the constitution for marriage now, people will want to change it to fit there own desires. Its the "slippery slope" argument. This is not to say that i agree with his argument, but simply that you are all missing the point he is trying to make.
joe wrote on January 19, 2008 3:22 PM:Hey all you HOMO'S out there......SHUT UP HUCKABE at lease is not afraid to speck his mine GOD don't like 2 men having sex way should we. I'll never accept it.....SO WHAT
David wrote on January 22, 2008 10:14 AM:
...What's next, Changing our right to get a divorce or have an abortion... This nation is doomed? Historically most fallen nations have been due to religion. Its time to stop and keep religion out of politics!!!
Religion is a smoke screen to steer us away from which candidate can do the best job for this country.
Sam Thornton wrote on January 24, 2008 3:30 AM:What an odd society we are. Certainly not in the vanguard of Western Civilization. The nations of Europe still lead there. The eerily strange religiosity that permeates our culture marks us as idiosyncratic primitives, immune to the enlightenment of science and philosophy that gives power and insight to the ideology of the West. We seem to be closer to the tribal passions that dominate so-called third world societies than to the more mature societies that we presume to dominate.
