CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Huckabee likens gay marriage to incesty, polygamy, drug use
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Huckabee likens gay marriage to incesty, polygamy, drug use

post #1 of 66
4/14/10 at 4:00am
Thread Starter 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100414/...e_gay_marriage

Apologies if this has been posted before, I did a search and didn't find anything. But this guy is a reaaaaaaaal winner... the fact that he has supporters is terrifying.

Quote:
WASHINGTON – Mike Huckabee, a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012, says the effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry is comparable to legalizing incest, polygamy and drug use.

Huckabee also told college journalists last week that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt. "Children are not puppies," he said.
Quote:
"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle," he wrote, in response to a question about gays in the military.

He also advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, saying it was necessary to confine "carriers of this plague."
Reply
post #2 of 66
4/14/10 at 4:22am
Maybe this is his way of tricking the Republican base into supporting gay marriage.

"Hey, Jethro!"
"What Darla?"
"That there guy on FAX tol' that if'a them fags can git married the law cin't bust up yer meth lab. An we cin get married even tho we're brother an' sister."
"Dammit Darla I toldya I gots to stay married to Joleene. I still haven't told anybody about her dying because of me still getting her social security check!"
"No you can git married to as many women as you want, too, once them fags can!"
"Even ma?"
"Yeah!"
"Dammit woman, get mah truck ready, we hafta find a place to vote!"
Reply
post #3 of 66
4/14/10 at 4:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl View Post
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100414/...e_gay_marriage

Apologies if this has been posted before, I did a search and didn't find anything. But this guy is a reaaaaaaaal winner... the fact that he has supporters is terrifying.


He also has a show on Fox News.
Reply
post #4 of 66
4/14/10 at 4:33am
Mike Huckabee: yet another person who doesn't get punched in the face nearly enough.
Reply
post #5 of 66
4/14/10 at 7:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl View Post
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100414/...e_gay_marriage

Apologies if this has been posted before, I did a search and didn't find anything. But this guy is a reaaaaaaaal winner... the fact that he has supporters is terrifying.
You know Huckbee is a southern baptist pastor, right? Those guys are only ok with sodomy if livestock is involved.

He's likeable, that's why he has supporters. That being said, he has almost no shot at the GOP nomination. Really, none of the 2008 losers do.

Huckabee is a religious loon and won't get the moderate \ independant vote.
Romney is a Mormon and has Romneycare around his neck.
Palin is... Palin. (still hot though)
Ron Paul is... well... I guess the word "fringe" best suits him.

They need fresh blood. Someone not associated with congress and who isn't a fucking nut job... I got no names at the moment. Who knows, maybe an independent has a real shot at the White House (Here's looking at you Bloomberg!)
Reply
post #6 of 66
4/14/10 at 7:38am
Is Jindal done as an Obama-like "young superstar" contender?
Reply
post #7 of 66
4/14/10 at 7:43am
It's like the argument that if we legalize gay marriage, we somehow have to legalize marrying underage children and goats. Not only is this a ridiculous assertion (it's legal to own a gun, but we haven't legalized randomly shooting things around your neighborhood), there's a not-to-subtle attempt to correlate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality.
Reply
post #8 of 66
4/14/10 at 9:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather View Post
Is Jindal done as an Obama-like "young superstar" contender?
Not unless the Republicans want a fully grown child of the corn as their guy.
Reply
post #9 of 66
4/14/10 at 9:59am
I, for one, would very much like to see the first White House exorcism.

My money's on Scott Brown then, I guess.
Reply
post #10 of 66
4/14/10 at 10:29am
Christians think homosexuality is immoral. How is this news?
Reply
post #11 of 66
4/14/10 at 10:36am
I'd wager that most Christians aren't leading the charge for AIDS concentration camps, so he's hardly the norm.
Reply
post #12 of 66
4/14/10 at 10:44am
I agree. That is pretty insane. Why wasn't that in the thread title?
Reply
post #13 of 66
4/14/10 at 10:58am
I believe because that was from 1992, and he distanced himself from those comments during his failed bid for the presidency.
Reply
post #14 of 66
4/14/10 at 1:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
It's like the argument that if we legalize gay marriage, we somehow have to legalize marrying underage children and goats. Not only is this a ridiculous assertion (it's legal to own a gun, but we haven't legalized randomly shooting things around your neighborhood), there's a not-to-subtle attempt to correlate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality.
Well, it doesn't benefit a government to legalize gay marriage, in all fairness. The whole purpose of a marriage in the eyes of a government is procreation and same sex couples can't procreate. Sure they can adopt but in the eyes of a government those kids are already citizens, they want new citizens thus increasing the population or at least guaranteeing a next generation. That's why they offer benefits in the first place and that is why they give benefits for having kids.

That being said, this is the United States, land of the free home of the brave, it's not like we discriminate against infertile couples from marrying. It makes absolutely no sense not to allow same sex marriage in this day and age. There is in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination etc... shit's gotten down right futuristic on us. Besides, over 50% of all marriages end in divorce anyways.
Reply
post #15 of 66
4/14/10 at 1:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by James May View Post
Christians think homosexuality is immoral. How is this news?
Not all Christians think "immoral" = illegal, though. He isn't just saying homosexuality is immoral, he's equating it to criminal conduct. Not very Christian of him, really.

ETA: How many of the Young Eagles who the RNC was paying for at that "lesbian-themed-bondage club" a few weeks back support Huckabee's stance on rights for homosexuals, do you suppose?
Reply
post #16 of 66
4/14/10 at 1:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Well, it doesn't benefit a government to legalize gay marriage, in all fairness.
But I thought the government existed to benefit the people, not the other way around. Isn't that what all this Tea Party nonsense is about?
Reply
post #17 of 66
4/14/10 at 1:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianM View Post
ETA: How many of the Young Eagles who the RNC was paying for at that "lesbian-themed-bondage club" a few weeks back support Huckabee's stance on rights for homosexuals, do you suppose?
Hot lesbians are different, Brian. Haven't you been paying attention?
Reply
post #18 of 66
4/14/10 at 2:01pm
Horrible stuff; although its nice to see that there's a growing (although very slow and barely publicly known here, dunno about the states) number of christians who support gay rights (to be fair, most of us are on the fence on the adoption issue); many young people seem to difer from the "old school" crhistianity and embrace the whole "Jesus main lesson was Tolerance", due to cultural change.
Now , in a non christian move, Huckabee is begging for a Roy Cohn karma suckerpunch here.
Reply
post #19 of 66
4/14/10 at 2:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
But I thought the government existed to benefit the people, not the other way around. Isn't that what all this Tea Party nonsense is about?
Nope, the government exists to control you. You're like little puppets on strings, dancing for their amusement.
Reply
post #20 of 66
4/14/10 at 2:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
They need fresh blood.
I fucking KNEW it. Nosferatu! Das Vampyr!
Reply
post #21 of 66
4/14/10 at 2:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Well, it doesn't benefit a government to legalize gay marriage, in all fairness. The whole purpose of a marriage in the eyes of a government is procreation and same sex couples can't procreate. Sure they can adopt but in the eyes of a government those kids are already citizens, they want new citizens thus increasing the population or at least guaranteeing a next generation. That's why they offer benefits in the first place and that is why they give benefits for having kids.
Actually, while you're partially right, marriage is also a wealth-creation device. Since gays tend to be wealthier than heterosexual people, there would be a benefit to the government, however small.
Reply
post #22 of 66
4/14/10 at 2:40pm
Quote:
Huckabee also told college journalists last week that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt. "Children are not puppies," he said.
Then you better be against adoption for heterosexual people too, asshole
Reply
post #23 of 66
4/14/10 at 2:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Well, it doesn't benefit a government to legalize gay marriage, in all fairness. The whole purpose of a marriage in the eyes of a government is procreation and same sex couples can't procreate. Sure they can adopt but in the eyes of a government those kids are already citizens, they want new citizens thus increasing the population or at least guaranteeing a next generation. That's why they offer benefits in the first place and that is why they give benefits for having kids.

That being said, this is the United States, land of the free home of the brave, it's not like we discriminate against infertile couples from marrying. It makes absolutely no sense not to allow same sex marriage in this day and age. There is in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination etc... shit's gotten down right futuristic on us. Besides, over 50% of all marriages end in divorce anyways.
False. It surely does benefit the government to legalize gay marriage. You might want to spend a little time researching this a little further.
Reply
post #24 of 66
4/14/10 at 3:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Benenson View Post
Then you better be against adoption for heterosexual people too, asshole

He obviously meant "children are not cute little puppies like labradoodles that gay people favor".
Reply
post #25 of 66
4/14/10 at 3:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The LD View Post
Actually, while you're partially right, marriage is also a wealth-creation device. Since gays tend to be wealthier than heterosexual people, there would be a benefit to the government, however small.
Procreation is the ultimate wealth-creation device, marriage is the primary facilitator of that. Think about it, we're talking over the course of generations here. Just as one example.. How many people do you know, or your own family, that had parents who were the first ones to send their kids to college? More often than not, people over generations have improved their wealth over their parents. Sometimes there are exceptions, like when someone has too many kids and the wealth is diluted and the family tree breaks off into separate branches and none of the kids has a better life but you can't argue that five kids will generate more wealth for the government than one, so either way the government benefits.

Like I said, with 21st century technology, there is no deterrent for same-sex couples to procreate. Heck, once the sex bots come along there will be no reason to even marry! I got dibs on the Cherry 2000.
Reply
post #26 of 66
4/14/10 at 3:50pm
Um, there's no need to marry in order to procreate NOW.
Reply
post #27 of 66
4/14/10 at 4:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Um, there's no need to marry in order to procreate NOW.
I thought it was established I was talking about pre-21st century. There were no sex bots in the 20th century, trust me... I would have known!

ETA.

Oh and by the way, how it will work is.. if people are shown to have an abundance of children out of wedlock and it appears to tip the balance of wealth generation, they'll regulate it so that you have to have a license to have children and only people who are 'married' can qualify for the license. You think it may sound crazy but within a hundred years it just might happen. Of course the opposite could happen and more people don't have kids thus decreasing the population size, then there would be an increase in incentives to procreate. Like I said, puppets on a string.
Reply
post #28 of 66
4/14/10 at 4:03pm
While one can argue that gay marriage isn't so open and shut, I find it impossible to understand the adamant "NO GAY ADOPTION" platform. Why are you guys "still on the fence" with that but pretty much okay with same-sex marriage Ryoken (not to single you out personally; you just seem to have some insight into this)? I mean seriously, what the fuck is wrong with gays adopting? Lots of kids need homes, these ppl want to provide them homes and a family, what is wrong with this?
Reply
post #29 of 66
4/14/10 at 4:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryoken View Post
"Jesus main lesson was Tolerance"
I missed that part.

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. Mark 6:11
Reply
post #30 of 66
4/14/10 at 4:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
Oh and by the way, how it will work is.. if people are shown to have an abundance of children out of wedlock and it appears to tip the balance of wealth generation, they'll regulate it so that you have to have a license to have children and only people who are 'married' can qualify for the license. You think it may sound crazy but within a hundred years it just might happen. Of course the opposite could happen and more people don't have kids thus decreasing the population size, then there would be an increase in incentives to procreate. Like I said, puppets on a string.
Yes. The primary reason I had kids was long-term wealth creation and tax credits...nothing to do with my girlfriend's luscious vagina and the fact that I like to stick my penis in it.
Reply
post #31 of 66
4/14/10 at 4:50pm
Sexbots? Jesus Christ, people can have kids out of wedlock, you know.
Reply
post #32 of 66
4/14/10 at 4:53pm
-If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her. [John 8:7]
-Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. [Matthew 7:1 &]

The whole "Jesus was tolerant" movement is born of a moder interpretation a "WWJD" applied to a modern culture...Jesus wasnt pro gay, since in his time and culture, Sodomy was indeed considered a sin and a crime.
The adoption issue I believe is more of a bigger thing to adapt to because Christians are pretty much based on the man-woman notion of family and upbringing; sure, gay adoption will be more open minde dupon in the future, but its all baby steps here, sadly.
I do not like openly stating my beliefs, but my christian beliefs and upbringing, plus my own personal choices make pro gay rights when it comes to civil unions/marriage, and a "Still on the fence" when it comes to gay adoption....however, where gay civil marriages widely accepted and integrated into society into the coming decades, i'd probably become more and more open minded to it)
Reply
post #33 of 66
4/14/10 at 4:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryoken View Post
The whole "Jesus was tolerant" movement is born of a moder interpretation a "WWJD" applied to a modern culture...Jesus wasnt pro gay, since in his time and culture, Sodomy was indeed considered a sin and a crime.
See, and here I thought Jesus Christ was supposed to be the timeless Son of God. I had no idea he was a slave to the whims and morals of the day.
Reply
post #34 of 66
4/14/10 at 5:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
See, and here I thought Jesus Christ was supposed to be the timeless Son of God. I had no idea he was a slave to the whims and morals of the day.
Well, Jewish law no longer calls for the stoning to death of adulterous women, and people who believed in Jesus thought his teachings didnt apply to other races.
Most of the insane, intolerant Phelps tyoe "Old testament" nutcases are people who cannot grasp that the holy texts of every religion were written hundreds of years ago; many of their practicies and standars are downright weird/insane today.

EDIT: Thats why Conclaves are hold, to see the church get on with the times, even if its slow as hell sometimes.
Reply
post #35 of 66
4/14/10 at 5:12pm
This is the same guy who wants to ban birth control and quarantine AIDS patients. I don't get anyone who doesn't think he's a nut by now.
Reply
post #36 of 66
4/14/10 at 5:17pm
I'm on the fence about gay adoption too. I mean, why should gay couples have the privilege of adopting the unwanted result of two heteros banging each other the way God intended? And why should an unwanted child get to grow up with parents when, instead, he or she can remain parentless because people who would never adopt have a belief? It's just so clear.
Reply
post #37 of 66
4/14/10 at 5:21pm
I know a few gay couples in long-term relationships who don't want to adopt because it doesn't fit their lifestyle and they wouldn't want to put a kid through having gay parents. Call it cowardly and close-minded, it's what they believe. And they probably have a pretty different perspective of how cruel kids in school can be than any of us. Of course, none of them have called for an all-out banning of gays adopting. That's kind of fucked.
Reply
post #38 of 66
4/14/10 at 5:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Matchstick View Post
I'm on the fence about gay adoption too. I mean, why should gay couples have the privilege of adopting the unwanted result of two heteros banging each other the way God intended? And why should an unwanted child get to grow up with parents when, instead, he or she can remain parentless because people who would never adopt have a belief? It's just so clear.
Whelp, can't argue with that logic! Consider my curiosity sated.
Reply
post #39 of 66
4/14/10 at 5:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryoken View Post
The whole "Jesus was tolerant" movement is born of a moder interpretation a "WWJD" applied to a modern culture.
I think Jesus was pro-forgiveness, not pro-tolerance.

And that's all very interesting and a great subject for discussion on the Religion board. But since this is Political Discourse, I'll steer my comments back onto more political ground.

I think that one of the hallmarks of conservatism is a belief that government should, to the greatest extent possible, leave you alone. Consequently, I don't think it's the government's business which consenting adult (from outside of your immediate family) you marry or with which consenting adult you adopt children.
Reply
post #40 of 66
4/15/10 at 10:05pm
Cobretti for Congress
Reply
post #41 of 66
4/15/10 at 10:52pm
Scumfucks like Huckabee make me wish that the Aztecs were right.
Reply
post #42 of 66
4/15/10 at 11:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uth Vaspetad View Post
Scumfucks like Huckabee make me wish that the Aztecs were right.
That the best way to end a basketball game is to kill the losers?
Reply
post #43 of 66
4/15/10 at 11:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianM View Post
Not all Christians think "immoral" = illegal, though. He isn't just saying homosexuality is immoral, he's equating it to criminal conduct. Not very Christian of him, really.
Saying he doesn't think the state should recognize gay marriages isn't an outlawing of homosexuality, although he may also believe gays should outlawed altogether.
Reply
post #44 of 66
4/15/10 at 11:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
That the best way to end a basketball game is to kill the losers?
A permanent solution to a perpetual problem. However, there are NO innocents on this B-Ball court, just varying degrees of suck.
Reply
post #45 of 66
4/17/10 at 4:02am
Yes, since we all know that a union between two competent adults of the same sex is comparable to that of a human and a horse.

They're straw-man arguments of the most baseless, appalling kind.

I wish there was a hell in which he could burn in.
Reply
post #46 of 66
4/19/10 at 3:03am
I literally cannot understand what their problem with gays is. I always get reminded of a Louis CK line (I paraphrase a bit): "How are gays going to mess up my life? Are they going to come in my house when I'm eating breakfast and start touching their dicks together in front of my bowl of cereal?" Are they that fucked up about their sexuality that the mere thought that somewhere, behind closed doors, a couple of guys are having sex, is making them uncomfortable? I'm starting to think that they're all just miserable people trying to enforce their misery on others.
Reply
post #47 of 66
4/19/10 at 7:41am
Holy shit if this fucking happened the way the article describes it.

And we're supposed to be tolerant towards people like Huckabee who enable and support this stuff happening? Fuck them. I hope their fucking heads rot and fall off.
Reply
post #48 of 66
4/19/10 at 11:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
Holy shit if this fucking happened the way the article describes it.

And we're supposed to be tolerant towards people like Huckabee who enable and support this stuff happening? Fuck them. I hope their fucking heads rot and fall off.
That is the first time in a very long time that a story has made me that angry.
Reply
post #49 of 66
4/19/10 at 12:18pm
God forbid two old men be happy in their waning years.
Reply
post #50 of 66
4/19/10 at 12:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
I literally cannot understand what their problem with gays is. I always get reminded of a Louis CK line (I paraphrase a bit): "How are gays going to mess up my life? Are they going to come in my house when I'm eating breakfast and start touching their dicks together in front of my bowl of cereal?" Are they that fucked up about their sexuality that the mere thought that somewhere, behind closed doors, a couple of guys are having sex, is making them uncomfortable? I'm starting to think that they're all just miserable people trying to enforce their misery on others.
This is typical of the mindset of a lot of these people. Long story short, a woman complained about a "Jesus Saves" sign in a Hobby Lobby store, saying it was insensitive. The company rep wrote back saying it would "be insensitive for us not to share Christ with the world." The woman said this was not a reasonable response, and the company wrote back with this:

Quote:
Let me use an analogy. Let’s say I am standing on a street corner and the person next to me (who I don’t know) steps out in to the street because they have the ‘walk’ signal. I see the walk signal BUT I also see a speeding car that is running the red light and headed right for the person next to me. Why would I not warn them? How much would I have to hate that person not to tell them of the danger they are stepping into?

We share Christ because we see the “speeding car” and want to warn people. Christ truly is the answer and he is Kind, Loving and has an open Heart.
It's not enough that they believe. They have to make sure everyone else does too. They're apparently so distraught over the idea of someone else going to Hell that they have to do something about it. Be it post a sign in a store or tell you you can't be with the person you love.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Huckabee likens gay marriage to incesty, polygamy, drug use