Mike Huckabee said some disturbing things about atheists and homosexuals in a recent interview, and after he got negative publicity for it, he attacked the student journalist:
Governor Mike Huckabee: “The young college student hopefully will find a career other than journalism. I would ask that he release the unedited tape of our conversation. I believe that what people do as individuals in their private lives is their business, but I do not believe we should change the traditional definition of marriage. Not only didn’t he attempt to sensationalize my well known and hardly unusual views of same-sex marriage, he also inaccurately reported my views on Michael Steele as GOP chairman – I offered my support and didn’t “Rip into Steele” as his article asserted. I had a candid and frank conversation with the group about health care, education, the economy and national security while the young journalism student, instead, chose to focus on the issue of same-sex marriage and grossly distort my views.”
So the journalist released the full interview:
I actually agree that Huckabee didn’t “rip into Steele” — he was far more supportive than I think he should have been. However, his comments about atheists & homosexuals, even though he was trying to be careful, were definitely offensive.
(via)
So now, I guess, “grossly distort” means to accurately transcribe a quote in context.
For a man who can’t see the difference between two consenting adults being married and pedophilia, he uses the word “disingenuous” far, far too much.
Somebody needs to remind him that the biblical definition of marriage, as given by the stellar examples of Kings David and Solomon, is between a Man and a Woman and a Woman and a Woman and a Woman and a Woman and a Woman and a Woman and a Woman…
That marriage has not been defined as “one man-one woman” for 5000 years has been adequately covered.
Huckabee’s reasons for opposing gays serving openly in the military could have equally been applied to oppose the racial integration of the U.S. military in the mid 20th century.
Someone should really do a study on that – finding parallelisms in the arguments against homosexual rights and those against racial equality rights. I think that would be really telling.
I think the Sociological Images blog did that, though I can’t recall the specific article.
I don’t even really understand why the definition is so important. It just seems like they are saying, “well the bible says you can’t get married, so bugger off…. also you are immoral.”
That point on how, in the military, you need the best, most competent soldiers and you don’t want to do anything to interfere with them, is also bollox. I kinda saw him as contradicting himself in saying that too. Well we need people will excel at what they do, but gays don’t count because they are a distraction somehow.
What? If I work with a woman on the from lines, I think my last thought is going to be “when do I get to bang her!?” I mean, your attention should be a little more directed towards the people trying to kill you. Unless of course, you are worried that the few gay women and men who enter the military are going to rape everyone. I have actually heard that as a “legitimate argument”.
The distraction thing was one of the reasons why women weren’t allowed in a lot of areas of the military for a while. Because the men would be “distracted” by them.
I’m pretty sure I’m not doing anything by just being female. If a guy is distracted by me working, he has bigger issues like self control they need to sort out first. I’m the least of their worries.
“I’m pretty sure I’m not doing anything by just being female.”
Are you sure? Maybe you are being super FOXY and you don’t even know it! XD
Now that I can’t argue.
=)
And did you insert an X-Files reference due to my icon? Squeeeeee!
At least he left Mister Ed out this time.
I ♥ Fuckabee. (Not.)
YOUR HEAD A SPLODE.
Hi Peter Cross! History proves otherwise – man/man marriage has been outlawed fairly recently. The problem began in the 12th Century into the 14th, and before this time was accepted and traditional church ceremonies were performed. Many of the words used in ceremonies today came from these weddings. Oh, and the concept of homosexual is a recent creation, and the terms gay and lesbian soon followed. The mentioned concepts cannot be applied to historical contexts like you seem to do? Rather people that loved each other were built into the fabric of life and were not something that is antithetical as you present it. The experiences between consenting adults of the same sex was accepted and not frowned upon until the 1920′s when the bigots espoused the same crap as they do today. Biblical Scholars have demonstrated that sodomy was not about a sexual act so much as a word that described inhospitality. Something that in the ancient world was crucial to survival. And this has been misinterpreted and rendered to the perversion it has become causing hundreds of years of needless suffering, bigotry, and inhospitality
It seems the ancient Jews were against any practice that might potentially result in there being fewer Jews. Not entirely unreasonable, when one considers the infant mortality rate, being culled by the Assyrians, etc. It was everyone’s tribal duty to reproduce.
Reproduce as much as possible, which also justifies the polygamy of those who could afford it. Heirs are important.
Might also explain why they cared more about men getting frisky with each other than women. Women were chattel anyway; not like they had a choice.
Huckabee Schmuckabee. This guy doesn’t want to change anything. You could give him a nice thick wet wipe to clean his dirty ass and he would reject it for some uber thin flaky piece of tissue paper saying, “Now isn’t the time to be experimenting with new ass-cleaning devices.”
True to the Party of No, he has no new ideas, no imagination, no decency, no compassion, no tolerance, and no business getting elected to another term in any office whatsoever. He contradicts himself constantly by saying something, and then when asked to clarify whatever he has just said, he replies, “No, I didn’t say that. You did.” It’s like those sleight of hand street magicians, except Huckabee does it with his tongue. He’ll gladly victimize anyone stupid enough to believe whatever falls out of his mealy Southern Baptist mouth.
Does anyone have any stats on convicted felons being allowed to get married while still in prison? Because I looked into it some, and I couldn’t find much, but it’s my understanding that while it depends on the particular prison and state, generally speaking you can be a convicted serial child murderer, but if you can find someone of the opposite sex who’s dumb/crazy enough to want to marry you, you can often get married while still in prison. So- fundies continually fight against ‘the gays’ being allowed to get married because homosexuality is a sin (yet not illegal) but for other types of sin, say gang rape, it’s perfectly ok as long as you can find a willing opposite-sex partner? Ok, got it.
He’s just ignorant, really.
“Equally definable relationship.” Huckabee defines marriage and then goes onto say the burden of proof is on gay marriage supporters to show that gay marriage fits his definition. What a jackass. And I just love the “it’s the way we’ve done it for a long time, so we shouldn’t change” attitude. That anyone can’t see (or doesn’t want to see) the gaping hole in that argument just blows me away.
Huckabigot”s comparing homosexuality to polygamy and incest is reliant upon his insistence that sexual orientation is chosen. But I sincerely doubt that he truly believes that. Like anyone with a brain, he has to know that he and others don’t/didn’t choose their orientation. If you don’t want to admit that you’re a bigot, I guess you have to pretend that you’re discriminating for valid reasons. You have to fool yourself, and hope enough people do the same so as to support your run for public office. Sadly, there are plenty such people.
As for atheists not having moral groundings (clearly Huckabee’s implication), I have a theory on that. Perhaps some who make that claim are, in fact, not commiting atrocious acts simply because they fear God (or law enforcement). No other reason, such as caring about your fellow man/woman. And they want to believe that all people have the same sick desires, or else they’d have to accept that they themselves aren’t truly good and decent people. Like convincing yourself that your greed is admirable, because it’s immoral to not try to become as wealthy as possible. They know damn well that there are many atheists who aren’t murdering or pillaging or promoting disaster capitalism simply because they care about mankind.