Best Huckabee article yet: gay=beastiality, abortion=slavery
Derrick
Posts: 475
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080118/ts_afp/usvote2008huckabeegay;_ylt=AqTCWgSsnuKItKdP3.6wOUIDW7oF
Huckabee links gay sex to bestiality, abortion to slavery
Fri Jan 18, 2:56 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Republican presidential hopeful and former Baptist pastor Mike Huckabee linked gay sex to bestiality and abortion to slavery in an interview Thursday, explaining why, if elected, he would try to amend the constitution.
"Marriage has ... as long as there's been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life. Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there?" he asked in an interview with online "Beliefnet" magazine.
"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," he added.
"The Bible was not written to be amended. The Constitution was," he said, announcing his intention to amend the document if he were to be elected president in November to ban abortion and establish that life begins at the moment of conception.
Leaving it up to individual states to outlaw abortion within their own borders is not enough, he said.
"That's again the logic of the Civil War -- that slavery could be okay in Georgia but not okay in Massachusetts. Obviously we'd today say, 'Well, that's nonsense. Slavery is wrong, period. It can't be right somewhere and wrong somewhere else.' Same with abortion," Huckabee said.
Huckabee won the Iowa Republican caucuses earlier this month, the first contest in the race for each party's nomination to run for the White House. He is in second place behind Arizona Senator John McCain in opinion polls for Saturday's primaries in South Carolina.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
If he wins, will probably kill myself.
For years we've wished and wished for 2009 to come so that we can get rid of Bush in the whitehouse... Your quote above is a great example of "be careful what you wish for"
In all seriousness though, if this guy gets the nomination, there is NO WAY that any major democrat could lose.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
in my opinion he definitely stuck his foot in his mouth on the marriage answer, but in full context the abortion answer makes some sort of sense - at least more than the soundbyte answer.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/228/story_22873_1.html
Just to follow up on that question, according to that standard, if the Constitution and its amendments are subject to biblical interpretations, doesn’t that mean it would be subject to biblical argument over what the proper interpretation is? And where does that leave, say, nonbelievers or members of other faiths in a proudly pluralistic like our own when amendments to the Constitution are subject to a biblical interpretation?
I think that whether someone is a Christian or not, the idea that a human life has dignity and intrinsic worth should be clear enough. I don’t think a person has to be a person of faith to say that once you redefine a human life and say there is a life not worth living, and that we have a right to terminate a human life because of its inconvenience to others in the society. That’s the real issue. That’s the heart of it. It’s not just about being against abortion. It’s really about, Is there is a point at which a human life, because it’s become a burden or inconvenience to others, is an expendable life. And once we’ve made a decision that there is such a time – whether it’s the termination of an unborn child in the womb or whether it’s the termination of an 80-year-old comatose patient -- we’ve already crossed that line. And then the question is, How far and how quickly do we move past that line?
And the same thing would be true of marriage. Marriage has historically, as long as there’s been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life. Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there?
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.
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.
Do you think that on issues other than marriage and the life of the unborn that the Constitution should be brought into conformity with the Bible, which is what that quote seemed to suggest?
No, I was specifically talking about those two issues. Those were the only two issues I spoke about in the speech, and that was the point. I’m not suggesting that we say, “Okay, the Bible says you should tithe, so now in the Constitution we’re going to amend it to say everyone tithes.”
Those were the two issues that I felt like are talked about in the political realm. I support both the human rights amendment and a marriage amendment, and the reason that I do is because I think we need to codify in our Constitution that which has been acceptable and accepted view of what life and what marriage means. Frankly, if it weren’t being challenged, it wouldn’t be necessary. But it is being challenged. Now you have states that are passing same-sex marriage laws or civil union laws.
And you also have states that not only practice abortion, but if Roe v. Wade is overturned, we haven’t won the battle. All we’ve done is now we’ve created the logic of the Civil War, which says that the right to the human life is geographical, not moral. I think that’s very problematic. That’s why I think that people like Fred Thompson are dead wrong when he says just leave that up to the states. Well, that’s again the logic of the Civil War – that slavery could be okay in Georgia but not okay in Massachusetts. Obviously we’d today say, “Well, that’s nonsense. Slavery is wrong, period.” It can’t be right somewhere and wrong somewhere else. Same with abortion.
naděje umírá poslední
He wants to bring the Constitution into conformity with the Bible. That's quite frightening.
naděje umírá poslední
i never said anything to that effect, nor did i state my own personal views on either subject. i was simply posting a link to the whole interview and cutting and pasting the whole questions and answers to the marriage and abortion quotes stated in the yahoo story.
it's ok.
I'll take a dirty politician over a religious nut fuck any day... Id like to ask these idiots that believe the Bible word for word about some of the stories in the old testament... some scary incest stories in there amongst others... what do they say about that shit?
she would be the lesser of the 2 evils I guess
You can't really blame Yahoo for cherrypicking their quotes to fit their agenda when Huckabee did the exact same thing to his precious Bible.
And yet...
I really hope people see through this guy's facade of morality and Christianity. He's just begging at doorstep of every right wing religious nut in America, taking a fundamentalist stand on the topics he knows he can garner votes with.
obviously news outlets will cut the exact wording out to make a nice, neat soundbite rather than present the whole quote in the original context.
All I'm saying is Huckabee is just as guilty of cutting the bible's message to give him a couple of nice policies for the Christians - same-sex marriage, abortion - without alienating everyone else with tithes.
yeah, i understand. he's clearly pandering to the people he's trying to get votes from this week - south carolina. next week it will be someone else and a new bag of platforms.
The smarter people I know have nothing but distain for Huckabee...he is an absolutel joke, and totally driven by his zealous religious ideas. Same with McCain, he is a nut job who is content with "another 100 years" of war, with total disregard for the fact that we cant afford $9B a month to support it, nor can we afford to keep sending our service men and women over seas to fight these wars only to come home mentally unstable and on a path to homelessness....its f'ing pathetic that these two get ANY votes.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com
somehow i don't think you'd like to ask a serious question (or at least have a serious conversation) re: those stories.