Best Huckabee article yet: gay=beastiality, abortion=slavery

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

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.

blackredyellow wrote:

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.

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

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.

MasterFramer wrote:

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?

JSBE wrote:

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?

JSBE wrote:

Does that mean he will personally take care of every person that he "saves"?

JSBE wrote:

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?

JSBE wrote:

Does that mean we go back to the definition of a human as a man that owns forty acres of land? I mean, it was the gold standard.;)

JSBE wrote:

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.

JSBE wrote:

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.

JSBE wrote:

The fact that he equates consenting adults with children and animals is disgusting. Can we honestly say two men getting married is the same as raping a child. (Since marriage usually leads to consummation.) or screwing a horse? Really? Because i find pedophilia disgusting.
I don't think anyone can go up to two gay men and say, "see this child? what you are do is as bad as raping him." And that's essentially what he's equating here. I don't think anyone can honestly the two things are the same.

JSBE wrote:

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.”

JSBE wrote:

The funny thing is, I tithe to the government every time I get paid.

JSBE wrote:

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.

JSBE wrote:

It sounds like he's another pro-big-government republican.

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.

Is the president going to open an orphanage for all of the unwanted children that he's forcing into existence? I'm not saying "yay abortions! let's all get one!" but as long as there aren't other, better options, it's not for me to say whether or not someone should do one thing or another. Laws are meant to protect us, not impose other's wills on us. Maybe i'm wrong?

Androgynous Mind wrote:

Here is a contrary choice from probably most everyone in the thread... Huckabee has my vote in the primary.

Androgynous Mind wrote:

Here is a contrary choice from probably most everyone in the thread... Huckabee has my vote in the primary.