Huckabee defends Homophobia

Thanks Jubal! I'm glad that you get my point. Too many people see the disconnection of church and state as being an attack on the predominant religion, Christianity, when in reality, it is our way of protecting this and every other religion represented in our great nation. I see it as being a very simple, clear, issue. Not much to debate if we simply stick to the constitution, and honor the principles that this nation was founded on. Furthermore, do we really want a candidate who needs to use religion to gain enough support to be elected?

AngelinaH,

You stated: I simply feel that anyone who has a high probability of projecting his religious beliefs on the nation, is simply not qualified for the job.

I couldn't agree with you more. I read in your post the best articulation of what I have seen developing in my understanding right before my eyes. Thank you for a wonderful read.

Perhaps, L_C needs to familiarize himself with the Christ myth so he can become demystified.

Jubal, I understand your confusion, but these guys love going at it. The only problem is that there's not much really going on, which is why it's hard to follow. The problem stems from L_C's extreme sensitivity when it comes to his religious views. Somehow, he has gotten the idea that we are out to get his religion, which I for one, am not. I simply feel that anyone who has a high probability of projecting his religious beliefs on the nation, is simply not qualified for the job. Religious debate is one of those things that just doesn't ever end well, which is why it's so profitable to connect one's image to a popular religion such as Christianity. Guys like L_C will defend it beyond reason, beyond logic, beyond sanity, so aligning one's self with this kind of zealotry really pays. The frightening thing is that this is not just a stupid online debate, but a serious issue in our society's current events. Separation of church and state is an integral part of our national identity. Sacrificing that principle changes us into something entirely different. The person who holds office will be very powerful, but will still be a public servant. Let us not forget. This is not your uncle, or your friend, this is someone who is applying for a job. They work for you and me. They represent every American. Every single American. Do you understand L_C? We need a president that is respectful of the cultural diversity that makes America what it is, instead of trying to homogenize our culture and shape us to fit their own personal ideals. THIS_SHOULD_BE_OBVIOUS.

*****"(AS IF INTOLERANCE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH OFFERING A TRADITIONAL, SPIRITUAL CHOICE THAT IS PERSECUTED BY PROGRESSIVES.)"*****

It IS intolerance. The teaching of "Intelligent Design" is simply re-introducing "Creationism" as an equally sound concept when compared to evolution.

To offer that in a scholastic setting is to disseminate information specific to a certain religion in our schools. Its introduction is a tacit recommendation to consider that religion over others or over no religion at all.

For an entire curriculum full enough to occupy a week or several to be taught on the subject would require that teachers call into question carbon-dating, widely-held geological concepts and thousands of years of archaeological study when presenting the facts about both concepts.

Why should we UNteach scientific principles in order to placate people whose poorly-disguised purpose is to spread their religious ideology?

The only reason is to satisfy those absolutists who MUST believe that a literal interpretation of the Bible is the only interpretation feasible. Even among Christians, the literal translation of the Bible is not totally accepted just as baptism is a symbolic wetting of the head with a few drops of water in many denominations while in others, total submersion is the only true baptism.

Let the schools teach science. We are already being outdone scholastically by the China, India and other countries.

Right here in the Western hemisphere, there have been Christian denominations that have killed other people because of supposed sins and they weren't all psychopaths. Dunking stools were their weapon of choice. I wish we were not traveling backward to a time of less tolerance but it appears fundies are bent on world dominance.

Nuff said.

*****"Huckabee in many ways is worse than Bush, because Huckabee really believes what he stands for, Bush is just the faker."*****

Agree 100%. I have said this myself many times.

BTW Did anyone see how many people actually voted for Huckabee in Iowa?

Obama got 4 votes for every 1 vote that Huckabee got.

Huckabee in many ways is worse than Bush, because Huckabee really believes what he stands for, Bush is just the faker.

I am really confused here as to who is arguing or debating with whom. Could someone please clue me in?

Christ is a Myth. Jesus was just a man whose life and words were coopted to create an empire of fear.

All of Christianity is based on pagan beliefs, rituals and traditions. But I don't have a problem with people who want to be sheep and follow this way of limited thinking. I say let them have their Christmas.

I really relate to and appreciate the comment made by Infolluwell that said "By the way, I do NOT have a problem with Christianity. My problem is with those who hide behind it while they practice a brand of intolerance that Jesus certainly would have condemned."

I have the same problem.

Dealings of any adminstration are always matters of national security. I would really like answers for that stuff as well.

Ok, so you start out quoting me and then add..."The Judeo-Christian community is hardly the only faith-based discipline that has a positive effect on the people of the globe."

Did I say they were? So, how then are you correcting me? How could you write that? Oh, I know! You were working on a build-up.

I'm arguing tolerance for spiritual and religious understanding, which includes Christianity, of course, and you jump right on that horse and begin a filibuster act!

LOL! Oh no, you do NOT have a problem with Christianity as you have pointed out..."By the way, I do NOT have a problem with Christianity. My problem is with those who hide behind it while they practice a brand of intolerance that Jesus certainly would have condemned."

So then Jesus would have condemned teaching others, NOT by state mandate but by option, about "Intelligent Design?" Really?

You go on..."Attempts to introduce the intolerance of "Intelligent Design" are no more than crudely-disguised efforts to again set back school curriculum almost a century." Man, I just knew you weren't lying when you said you had no problem with Christianity. I just knew it.

(AS IF INTOLERANCE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH OFFERING A TRADITIONAL, SPIRITUAL CHOICE THAT IS PERSECUTED BY PROGRESSIVES.)

You do have a problem with Christianity, so proofread your work better, sonny.

All hat and no cattle = all sarcasm and no answers. What do you think is honorable about a President and Vice-President who refused to ever testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission even when asked to do so, have been responsible for 5,000,000 lost emails, the destruction of the CIA tapes they were under court order to protect.

Just answering those questions would be a nice start, L_C.

From Progressives!

Impeach, prosecute and save America!

*****"I just can't understand why 'progressives' can't own up to being progressive about pluralism, so that they can co-exist with religious proponents and ENCOURAGE this as well. Lakof will never tell you this, and neither will Soros; they have a NON-tolerant agenda that breeds with political intensity, but you can think for yourself, can't you?"*****

Pluralism is hardly what resonates on the FAUX "News" Channel and all over AM Radio's Radio Rightyland. With people like Ann Coulter and the talk radio hosts hardly resembling "Pluralists", your argument certainly loses much of its impact. Their intolerant tirades drip with divisiveness and their use of "us vs. them" jargon is ceaseless.

*****"The basic tenets of the Judeo-Christian philosophy are what guide a majority of Americans and people world wide into living good, responsible and fulfilling lives."*****

The Judeo-Christian community is hardly the only faith-based discipline that has a positive effect on the people of the globe. Buddhists, Hindus and even Muslims have been responsible for many worthwhile endeavors over the ages yet so-called Christians are just as likely to try to paint people of other religions as unworthy, valueless or threatening.

Attempts to introduce the intolerance of "Intelligent Design" are no more than crudely-disguised efforts to again set back school curriculum almost a century.

Christians have declared all out war on science because many of them are simply too intolerant to believe in a figurative translation of the Bible. Many of those Christians are also global warming "naysayers" simply because of their never-ending feud with the scientific community.

As far as tolerance goes, it appears you have forgotten the demented ravings of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and their "anti-pluralistic" attempts to admonish the people of New Orleans by comparing them to some modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah and warning the people of Dover, Pennsylvania, to expect no help from God in avoiding or recovering from disasters. Falwell even criticized New Orleans for its "debauchery" and hinted that it was the reason God sent Katrina.

It seems that when one of the most visible religious leaders in the U.S. AND a Bush adviser, calls for the assassination of a foreign leader, it is overlooked.

As far as Christians being the ones who are tolerant, how well do you think Mike Huckabee's candidacy would have fared just a few years ago as a Baptist in Northern Ireland? When Christians don't have anyone other than other Christians to condemn, they start feeding on their own young.

The tolerance of modern-day Christians is quite UNDERwhelming. "God Hates Fags" is a commonly seen sign at rallies and Christian couples who think nothing of the dumping of 10's of thousands of unneeded frozen embryos at fertility clinics each year get up in arms at the thought of stem cell research.

Urging me not to publicize their hypocrisy and telling me to keep it to myself is perhaps something you should first try to encourage in those who seem to be leading the Fundamentalist movement.

By the way, I do NOT have a problem with Christianity. My problem is with those who hide behind it while they practice a brand of intolerance that Jesus certainly would have condemned.

It is good to see that you study some Yiddish and Hebrew. ---- I'm a "Schmuck" and you are Rightful? LOL ---- Your own words ---- (****"You can rant all you want with your extreme progressive agenda, but you can't do it with out looking like an intense, intolerant schmuck with no respect for people with a spiritual, rightful life."****)

Do you also condemn Romney's religion because his "Christianity" is treated more like a cult by evangelicals? What about Seventh Day Adventists, Lutherans, Gay Presbyterians, the Church of Christ, Pentecostals and Christian Scientists?

I see precious little of pluralism you say Christians espouse.

If you have a problem with Christianity, FINE! Keep it to yourself and try to have more tolerance! Consider the definition of 'pluralism.'

I just can't understand why 'progressives' can't own up to being progressive about pluralism, so that they can co-exist with religious proponents and ENCOURAGE this as well. Lakof will never tell you this, and neither will Soros; they have a NON-tolerant agenda that breeds with political intensity, but you can think for yourself, can't you?

You can see that that the average Christian isn't the headline making statesmen who blunder, or the extreme, podium shaking hypocrite. The basic tenets of the Judeo-Christian philosophy are what guide a majority of Americans and people world wide into living good, responsible and fulfilling lives.

I am an average Christian person, and I also believe the constitution is right to include the the separation of church and state(in that it should not be interpreted with political bias on a policy setting level). I also believe that indoctrinating young people with any right-wing or left-wing agendas is twice the shame.

You can rant all you want with your extreme progressive agenda, but you can't do it with out looking like an intense, intolerant schmuck with no respect for people with a spiritual, rightful life.

Inofuilwell, Perfect except there are too many big words for Huckabee and fans to understand.

Huckabee is not a good choice for America, especially with the times we're in now.

Did "morebyless" really say this?

"Homosexual love is more akin to friendship when compared to the mixing of genetic material entailed in heterosexual relationships aka marriage, and possibly resulting in children.

Fundamentally, a gay marriage can never be consumated. It is ridiculous to describe two same sex people who love each other, with the same term as two opposite sex people who also love each other."

Yikes! Not only does the sentence construction make me dizzy but so does the concept that there is only one way to swap genetic material. I won't go any farther with that idea since "morebyless" also feels some need for a "hetero tax exemption" for that which is "entailed" in marriage and "possibly" results in children.

Good grief! The tax laws are convoluted enough without having to turn in records to the IRS about how many times a heterosexual couple contemplates the possibility that might "entail" a mix of genetic material.

Does kissing count? LOL

Huckabee and "morebyless" need to wake up and realize there is no "secret society" like the Bilderbergs furtively promoting homosexuality. It simply could not have existed this long without it being "in the wiring" of an individual.

Mama was a Rock Hudson fan. She was a wise and well-read lady, rest her soul. She once remarked that if it had simply been a matter of choice, Rock Hudson would have had an impossible task in rejecting all the female advances he most certainly received on a daily basis.

Nobody wakes up one day and "decides" on that day, his sexual orientation.

As a male, I can't remember the first time I felt an attraction for the opposite sex but I can darn sure say it wasn't some conscious selection after seeing an epiphany that played out at some fork in the road on my way to sexual maturity.

In order to believe that homosexuality is a sin, you must join that forward-thinking group that also believes in "creation science", refutes carbon-dating, has no explanation of why Noah put no dinosaurs on the Ark and, like John McCain, believes that the Grand Canyon was a result of the great flood.

Pardon me but it seems that at least one pterodactyl would have used its size and strength to at least rest atop the Ark.

Now the saber-toothed tigers and wooly mammoths are just plain baffling since Noah forgot them, too, even though there are cave paintings of the beasts in the South of France.

Also, in the Old Testament, homosexuality is not the ONLY abomination before God. So is the human consumption of shrimp, lobsters and oysters.

Well, since I'm already so far off-track, I'll add one more wonderment - why aren't those Huckabee supporters and other religious zealots marching against Red Lobster like they are against gays, lesbians, abortion and the so-called "War on Christmas"? Where are those cute little, brainwashed, hate-filled pseudo-Christian brats we often see holding up those "God hates F@gs" signs near anti-abortion rallies? Why are they not also holding up signs that read "God hates Prawns" in front of Long John Silver's after the Sunday service?

Keep in mind he is polling very well in Iowa.

dransomjr, That is exactly why the idiot should not even be considered for President.

Ok - off topic, but I found it strange to click "I Like It" when I don't really like what Huckabee is saying but I like the fact we have a forum to discuss.

Mr. Huckabee is like a great number of people in this country and around the world. They believe that gays should be socially invisible, and not have rights to their own version of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". They believe that homosexuality is a sin, a passing phase for some or a even a momentary bad choice, should they happen to ever once or twice engage in it themselves (lots of "straight" guys do, after all!). "Don't ask, don't tell" has always worked throughout history- why rock the boat? (they ask). And, they fear, that if homosexual couples have the ability to get married, that more people will choose to be gay, and that there will therefore be more gay marriages and fewer heterosexual ones. Maybe some heterosexual couples will break up and some gay marriages will spring from them. Who believes that?

Whether homosexual or heterosexual having children is voluntary. No one forces you to have children and you do not need to do so in order to consumate a union. And I never would see it as a disadvantage monetarily or otherwise to have children.

Love is love whether heterosexual or homosexual. Your missing a huge point here, queer couples can conceive and raise children. Two men can use a surrogate mother, lesbians can use donated sperm, or they can adopt. Are you going to suggest that heterosexual couples who adopt never consummate their marriage? I doubt it.

Having children (a basic human right) is a disadvantage, if , you have to give up certain monentary rights.

Homosexual love is more akin to friendship when compared to the mixing of genetic material entailed in heterosexual relationships aka marriage, and possibly resulting in children.

Fundamentally, a gay marriage can never be consumated. It is ridiculous to describe two same sex people who love each other, with the same term as two opposite sex people who also love each other.

You honestly think having children is a disadvantage? I don't understand (loss of earnings, pension scheme deposits, and personal creativity) either? I never experienced any of those losses by having and raising children. So I still can't see any reason Homosexuals should be denied the basic human right to marry.

Yes, they do need help to off-set the disadvantage of having to bring up children (loss of earnings, pension scheme deposits, and personal creativity)

Do you really think giving Mr. & Mrs. Average need an advantage? Why? I'm straight and I don't understand that kind of thinking.

If you are attracted to members of your own sex, you are defined as homosexual, and consequently it is unlikely you may have any children, and your genetic attributes may not be passed to the future.

I think what Mr Huckabee asks; is for 'Straight Rights': recognition for motherhood, fatherhood etc.

Just give Mr & Mrs Average some Advantage for their trouble (they didn't choose their sexuality either!)

Why do people worry about other peoples private life? There is entirely too much time spent thinking about gay people and whether or not they should be allowed to marry. Of course they should. Marriage is a basic human right. God made them and he didn't expect them to go through life without loving someone or being loved. My guess is Huckabee is a bitter closeted gay.