Two words – Mike Huckabee. In honour of the Iowa caucuses and my deep, abiding hope that the right wing, neocon Rethuglicans get exactly what they deserve, you guessed it - Mike Huckabee as their candidate for Preznit, let’s ponder a few of his most recent gems.
His thoughts on the gay menace:
On NBC’s Meet The Press this morning, host Tim Russert asked former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee if he believed “people are born gay or choose to be gay?” “I don’t know whether people are born that way,” responded Huckabee, “but one thing I know, that the behavior one practices is a choice.”
Huckabee conceded that “people who are gay say that they’re born that way,” but added that he believed that “how we behave and how we carry out that behavior” is more important.
Everybody’s favourite trumped-up wedge issue – abortion:
… Mike Huckabee said that as President he would seek to “find some way to sanction” doctors “who took money to provide abortions to women if he succeeded in outlawing the procedure.” “I don’t know that you’d put him in prison,” added Huckabee. He said that he would “not support penalizing women who sought abortions even if they were outlawed” because he considers a woman who seeks an abortion to be “a victim, not a criminal.”
Britney Spears and how she relates to the Iran NIE (I wish I was kidding):
The point I’m trying to make is that, on the campaign trail, nobody’s going to be able, if they’ve been campaigning as hard as we have been, to keep up with every single thing, from what happened to Britney last night to who won “Dancing with the Stars.”
And now blogging for Jeebus:
Yesterday in Des Moines, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee hosted an event thanking “roughly 700 bloggers who, he said, were responsible for keeping his campaign alive.”
Calling them his “secret weapon,” Huckabee urged the bloggers to “clog” up the wireless system in Des Moines so that reporters couldn’t file any more “bad” stories about him. He added that by blocking the free press from doing their jobs, bloggers were “doing the Lord’s work”.
The man is on fire, people.
12 comments:
I’m actually surprised Huckabee is acknowledging that sexual orientation might actually be an innate characteristice rather than something socially created. I don’t see the fuss about his point about behaviour: its not like most hardcore Christians condone premarital sex, holding hands, or dancing like Kevin Bacon anyway. So while that might mean “gay behaviour” - which I presume him to mean guys having sex with guys and gals having sex with gals - is frowned upon by uber-Christians, it’s not frowned upon any more than a guy having sex with a girl out of wedlock. They’re both out of bounds to folks like Huckabee, I would think. So that would make him not specifically discriminatory against gays, but rather, against anyone, gay or straight, who doesn’t live up to his code of values. And at least that’s consistent, which is not something I can say for many social conservatives.
So while that might mean “gay behaviour” - which I presume him to mean guys having sex with guys and gals having sex with gals - is frowned upon by uber-Christians, it’s not frowned upon any more than a guy having sex with a girl out of wedlock.
You're kidding, right? How many uber-Christians, to use your term, talk about people indulging in straight pre-marital sex being damned? And how many think that they should be imprisoned for their "sinful" behaviour? I'm thinking not a whole hell of a lot.
However, the number of uber-Christians who think gays should be locked away or are beyond redemption (in their eyes) is considerably higher, and has been very well-documented. So to compare the two is completely ridiculous. Nice try.
Considering that I know many christian couples (my own parents included) that had their first baby 2-3 months 'premature'.
crazy coincidence, that.
Must be a missing chapter in Leviticus--'you shall bear fruit, waiting only 7 months after man and wife become one'
Lulu - I'm not defending these people, especially in practice. I'm just saying, for example, Catholic doctrine is pretty consistent: any sex not for the purposes of procreation is wrong. The fact that Catholics choose to hype up "the gays" over 16-year old girls knocked up by their baggy pants boyfriends is more of a commentary on their priorities than the doctrine they supposedly follow.
I never can figure out what's dumber...the irrational beliefs of really dumb "conservatives" or smarter "conservatives" who feel they have to explain them to everyone else.
ohhh catholicism! well those catholic girls--i've heard stories.
Actually, I've experienced stories, but I digress...
The second the church--any denomination--stops with the blatant hypocricy regarding sex (or almost everything else) is when I may actually listen to what they have to say.
Why did I leave the church? What alw said, just for starters.
Ah, Lulu, I have known more than a few uberChristians in my day that found sex out of wedlock as offensive as gay sex because both were in violation of what the Good Lord told us was acceptable, so as much as it pains me to do it ALW has a point in his first comment. Assuming of course that ALW's presumption regarding Huckabee is correct that would be a consistent application of his principles (as much as you or I may disagree with those principles of course, the fact I find someone consistent in their application is not meant as an endorsement of those principles) and not something all that common in the political socons in my experience either. Those are the ones I find spend far more time discussing the evils of gayness and gay sex than out of wedlock heterosex, those on the ground believers I have known tend to be more like ALW portrayed (as in the non-politically activist section of the uberChristians that is) in terms of seeing the primary issue as being against what God told us as opposed to it being homosexuality in particular being their bugaboo.
Please understand Lulu, I don't like having to say ALW has a point here, but it is what I see in this narrow specific point so I have to. That said though ALW needs to remember that just because he presumes something about someone does not make it so, and that my agreement with him on this point was contingent on his presumption actually being true/accurate. The difference between an assumption and a presumption here being while only one permits making an "ass" out of "u" and "me" in terms of the way the word can be broken down in terms of application both are equally capable of making asses out of the person doing so and any that concur/accept it as fact/truth/reality without verification of reality.
So when is Huckabee going to take a real Biblical stand and tell everyone who has divorced and remarried that they are committing adultery, which unlike homosexuality, abortion or premarital sex, is one of the 10 Commandments?
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. ---1 Corinthians 7.10-11
...but that would alienate the uber-righteous.
(And Catholic doctrine may be consistent - except that it turns a blind eye on marriage and sex between the post-menopausal and infertile - but you got to wonder about church that reduces marriage to mere babymaking.)
Gee, Scotian, don't put yourself out too much. We wouldn't want to admit anyone who votes Conservative has a minor legitimate point about anything, ever. It might make this place implode.
except that it turns a blind eye on marriage and sex between the post-menopausal and infertile
Oh, it rationalises that very well...there is always the possibility of conception with the post-menopausal and the infertile (remember...miracles do happen!) so, in that regard, it's not sinful like non-procreative sex or fornication.
The Church's bottom line is that you have to pay to play. If you get pleasure out of something, it has to come with consequences. In the case of sex...sin or babies.
ALW:
Interesting. Instead of simply acknowledging that I agreed with your point being valid you immediately went to the snark and insults. That says quite a lot about your character and none of it good. Yet you complain about the snark and attitude of others as if you have any moral credibility to do so. Thanks for yet again reminding me why it is usually a waste of time acknowledging when someone like you has a valid point, instead of simply dealing with it you and those like you instead can't resist going for the cheap shots.
Way to go Aaron, yet again you illustrate exactly why you are not worth taking seriously. I doubt I will make that mistake again.
Scotian - oh just fuck off. If you'd just managed to muster up the graciousness to say "actually, ALW has a point here" instead of smothering it with expressions of just how painful it is for you to acknowledge that I might, once, actually have a minor point, I wouldn't have said anything. But no, you have to go out of your way ("as much as it pains me to do it"..."as don't like having to say it"...) to distance yourself from even being associated with agreeing with me on something, even once. Talk about classless.
At least Canadian Cynic, with his infinitely potty mouth, can give a nod to something without turning it into a backhanded compliment like you do.
I don't understand why you feel I'm supposed to just shut the fuck up and take abuse, whereas you can feel free to take shots even when you're pretending to say something nice
Post a Comment