David Corn's been reading a book Mike Huckabee co-authored in the 1990s, and writes:
In Kids Who Kill, Huckabee argued that school shootings were the product of a society in decline, a decline marked (and caused) by abortion, pornography, media violence, out-of-wedlock sex, divorce, drug use, and, of course, homosexuality. Huckabee and his coauthor bemoaned the "demoralization of America," observing, "Despite all our prosperity, pomp, and power, the vaunted American experiment in liberty seems to be disintegrating before our very eyes." Huckabee, who was governor at the time and a well-known social conservative, blasted away at those whom he held responsible for America's ills, and he took a rather tough stand against government social programs and their advocates. In lamenting the "cultural conflicts" besetting the country, he wrote,Abortion, environmentalism, AIDS, pornography, drug abuse, and homosexual activism have fragmented and polarized our communities.Why was he lumping environmentalism with activities he considered sinful? He did not explain further. A few pages later, Huckabee complained,
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.Huckabee did not say what public endorsement of pedophilia or necrophilia he had in mind. But he did seem to be equating homosexuality with both.
Now look, I agree with more of this than disagree with it. And I'm willing to give Huckabee a pass on the bizarre inclusion of environmentalism in this list (a lot of Evangelicals have had a change of heart on this issue over the past 10 years). But equating homosexuality with having sex with dead people? Jeez, you don't have to sit on the GLAAD board to find that offensive.
Sooner or later, it's going to occur to people that the really nice, likeable Huckabee guy really is a Southern Baptist. A friend of mine who is a Joe Sixpack-type conservative said to me today, "Huckabee is a mirage." He explained that when people started paying close attention to him, they'd get real uncomfortable, real fast. He's no gay-rights supporter, but this is the kind of thing he was talking about. He thinks Huckabee will be destroyed in the general election against a Democrat, over stuff like this.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I still don't understand the argument that legalizing homosexuality = "Big Love" = Warren Jeffs.
No, really, I must be thick as a brick.
Conservatives, even in your disappointment (for those jurisdictions that have decided otherwise) that child-rearing has been eliminated from the marriage equation -- which it really hasn't, many gays raise children -- what about the question of PAIRING? Polygamy, last I checked, ain't pairing.
Marriage, to be blunt, has been a contractual relationship between a couple at least since medieval times and really since Genesis. Even if the definition is broadened from heterosexuality, how is it broadened from (to cite Genesis again) Noah's example of "two by two"?
Max,
I said: ""You seem to have forgotten that dead people cannot give consent. That's pretty conveeenient."
You replied: "Hey, they can sing [sic] a living will ..."
Um, people have to be ALIVE to sign a living will. People who are alive are the only ones who can give consent. Thanx 4 proving my point. (Oh, and let's not forget that wills,living or otherwise, can be and often are contested or ignored. Gay people know this all too well - we learn it the hard way: from experience.)
Rebeccat,
"I have never heard or met a anti-gay activist who was actually trying to create equivelencies between homosexuality and say, beastiality."
I have. Many of them. Want names?
"They aren't saying, "no one would accept necrophilia as normal, so why should we accept homosexuality which is just as bad as normal." What they are saying is, "if we breach this boundary, which people want you to think is reasonable and fairly harmless, then you can be sure that these other boundaries which are not so reasonable and harmless will go next."
This may seem ridiculous"
Yes they ARE saying that. And no, it doesn't seem "ridiculous" to anyone who has had that false premise of "other boundaries" hurled at them. Treating homosexuals equally before the law IS both "reasonable and "harmless". There is harm in pedophila, and lack of consent in both pedophilia and necrophilia. There is NONE in my marriage.
"If we accept gay marriage, then we are giving final, formal approval to the idea that men and women are interchangable, that the desires and rights of adults supercede the rights of children"
Nonsense. Women are NOT interchangeable with men. If you interchanged a woman for the man who is my husband, I'd be really upset. And as for the rights of children, there aren't any in my marriage. Nor are there any in either of my sister's TWO heterosexual marriages. It ain't a requirement, nor is it the topic of this thread.
"Polygamists are already making arguements for the legalization of polygamy based on pretty much the same ideas as the gay marriage movement has been using."
This is simply not true. The ONLY argument ever made by gay couples is that the two people who society permits to marry not be limited by the gender/sex of either. I have NEVER heard an "argument" for polygamous marriages used in the gay marriage movement (and I've been a pretty big part of that movement). This is pure, absurd fantasy.
"the idea that accepting gay marriage could open the flood gates to all sorts of other currently proscribed and even unthinkable things"
...like, um, bestiality? necrophilia? Pedophilia? Sadomasochism? See, perpetuating the myth adds zero to its believability. It is only an attempt to raise the scare (or ick) factor.
rebeccat, you must have absolutely no idea how utterly offensive your question to a gay man is: "If you were absolutely convinced that legalizing gay marriage would inevitably open the door to far more destructive things, like the dissolution of anything resembling normal families for kids to grow up in, polygamy and group marriage and even the acceptence of really gross sexual deviencies like beastiality and such, would you be willing to forgo the right to legal, widely accepted gay marriage?"
First there is an absurd assumption that a gay man would be "absolutely convinced" that his marriage WOULD "inevitably open the door to far more destructive things". He probably wouldn't see his marriage AS a "destructive thing" at all, let alone a gateway to even "far more destructive things"!!!
Then you follow that insult with the equally absurd conclusion that our marriage will result in you "normal" folks' families being 'disolved'! Where do you come up with these nonsensical fantasies?
"My point isn't to argue right now over whether gay marriage actually would open the floodgates to a brave new world of familiy destruction and weirdness"
It isn't? It sure comes across that way.
And then to ask him if he would give up his right to equal treatment before the law? What on earth makes you think we would? It's supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution.
You try to couch it in terms of "forgo[ing] your own personal satisfaction and fulfillment" (What? Aren't WE entitled to the pursuit of happiness anymore? When did THAT become a heterosexual privilege?) and call it "a larger benefit to society". Sorry I see no benefit in treating gay citizens as lesser citizens. Perhaps you could explain how society is better off when that happens.
Rod,
I am disappointed, though not surprised, that you agree with Scalia. Here's why I do not...
"Under the logic of Lawrence (which overturned anti-sodomy laws nationwide), prostitution, for example, involves a willing prostitute freely selling her services to a paying client, the government has no right to make the judgment that their transaction is immoral, and therefore should be illegal. Scalia pointed out that in our efforts to decriminalize one form of sexual behavior and expression (sodomy), we had crossed a dangerous theoretical threshhold in the law."
No more so than if a different analogy had replaced the prostitution one, namely infidelity. Clearly immoral (anti-Scriptural), but would you criminalize it? How would the government have any more "right to make the judgment that cheating is immoral, and therefore should be illegal"? The polygamy argument you tacked on is 'extra pares' in that the participants do not marry all of the other partners, only the man is married to the wives, the wives are not married to each other. Same-sex marriage as heterosexual marriage is about a commitment to another (as in one) person. A polygamist man has not made such a commitment; he's spreading it around.
True dat x 2. But liberals weren't the only ones attacking Huck for that ad.
'Weren't the only ones'? Were they attacking Huckabee at all for the ad? As many people may be aware, I am somewhat on the left, and I only read this and few other conservative blogs...most of what I read is on the left. None of the major players that I read have attacked the ad. Of course, I'm not some sort of blog deity, for all I know I'm just missing all it.
But the three people talking about this, the only places I've read anything about this, are here, John Cole, and Sullivan, all of which are on the right (to some, rather disgruntled, extent) and all of which are simply commenting at the fact the right is attacking Huckabee, as it's confirming exactly what they think about the relationship of the GOP toward Christianity...the GOP is just using it to get elected.
No one on the left seems to be talking about it at all, except to link to those guys. kos, one of the few who has, was rather sarcastic about the attacks ago: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/19/25747/037
If you don't mean bloggers, OTOH, the only attacks I've heard about were from Peggy Noonan, Ron Paul, and Bill Donahue, none of which are exactly card-carrying members of the left.
ScurvyOaks
"I'm not sure why we are somehow obliged to vote for a liberal just because he really, really, really believes in Jesus."
Sorta odd that the only person who's apparently letting his Christian faith guide his political beliefs has decided that, inexplicably, social services aren't all bad, and that the Bible doesn't say anything about lowering taxes or invading countries.
Wait, not 'odd'...'expected', that's the word I meant.
Either I'm crazy and posting in the wrong place, or bnet is. Probably me. Ignore that last post.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.