Huckabee compares being gay to using alcohol, profanity

[jmdrake]

This is the biggest farce ever.

Ever heard a baptist try to explain how all of the 'wine' in Jesus' day was non-alcoholic?

I fail to see the relevance. In order to argue that the wine in Jesus' day was non alcoholic you have to interpret the verse differently than what is obvious. But, how exactly do you interpret Romans 1 such that Paul is talking against something other than homosexuality? I've even asked gay Christian friends the answer to that one and their answer was basically "I don't take the Bible 100% literally." Okay. That's fine. But that's quite the opposite of what you are trying to claim.

Christians weren't always this puritanical... it mostly started with.. lets see... oh! The Puritans.

So....Roman Catholics were fine with homosexuality until the Puritians forced them to...well...purify? Reference?

Previously Christians were only anti-gay when they were also being anti-jew, anti-women and other things, which generally happened in short bursts of social frenzy.

Reference?

The Roman Christians were very comfortable with homosexuality, it was all sex that was generally looked down upon as a waste of time given the imminent return of Christ, and then mostly by those that had come from the Pharisaical line, like Paul.

So when exactly is it that you believe Christians started listening to Paul? You think that didn't happen until the Puritans? Reference?

So yeah, tell me again how the *massive* quantities of fine wine Jesus provided to a party, that had already been drinking for 3 days straight, was non-alcoholic.

Strawman non sequitur. If you are going to make the claim that most of Christendom saw homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle you'll have to do better than "Well some Christians don't like alcohol."

Huckabee, like most prominent Americans, has a completely ahistorical outlook on life.

If by "historical outlook" you mean "Made up by me at the spur of the moment" then....okay. But for the sake of argument let's assume that all of the popes from Constantine on down and all of the bishops in the Eastern Orthodox Church and Martin Luther and John Calvin and the Hugonots and the Waldensees and every Christian sect other than the Puritans all sanctioned gay marriage. First off it's laughable to believe that the Puritans had that much influence on the entire Christian world. But second, so what? There are Christians that believe women should cover their heads. That's a tiny minority at this point. Why not leave them to their beliefs? So what if you don't believe that? Should you tell a college or university of head covering Christians that they must hire female professors who didn't cover their heads? Really, there are two issues at stake. One is how to divide up federal benefits. The libertarian position on that is easy. No federal benefits or penalties for anyone. (For income tax purposes marriage can be a benefit or a penalty. If both spouses make the same amount it's a penalty.) The stickier question is should the government be able to force people to violate beliefs that you find unreasonable just because of political correctness? I say no. I would think most libertarians would say no, but I'm beginning to wonder on the gay marriage issue. (Or rather there are some pretend libertarians.)

Anyway, we shall see what happens.

 

[VIDEODROME]

And Jesus said unto the servants: "Fill six waterpots with water." And they did so. And when the steward of the feast did taste from the water of the pots, it had become wine. And they knew not whence it had come.

But the servants did know, so they applauded loudly in the kitchen. And they said unto the Lord: "How the hell did you do that?"



----Rowan Atkinson

 

[fr33]

The fact that some individuals felt the need to take an innocent word like "gay" to describe their lifestyle kind of says it all. I think many of us know what other sorts of stuff will be coming down the pike in this society. This is 1984.

Sodomy and other forms of non-marital sex were forbidden by The Party in 1984. The Party views sex as only an act to create new party members. Marriages in 1984 are only hetero and are licensed by the government. I think you may have missed that point. The revolutionaries were having unchristian affairs.

 

[fr33]

What statements?

Next time read the OP.

 

[fr33]

Well, Alcohol is not banned anymore with the repeal of Prohibition.

I'm not sure I follow if he is saying Gay Marriage should be treated the same.

People like Huckabee would ban alcohol if they could get enough power and support. People just like Huckabee did exactly that in the past.

 

[jmdrake]

Next time read the OP.

The OP is misleading. When you listen to the video Huck is comparing being gay to classical music and ballet. Why is that offensive?

 

[KingNothing]

Well, they are the same in the sense that if people enjoy them it is absolutely none of that fat slobs business. Is that what he meant? Apologies, I didn't read the article.

 

[jmdrake]

Well, they are the same in the sense that if people enjoy them it is absolutely none of that fat slobs business. Is that what he meant? Apologies, I didn't read the article.

Don't apologize for not reading the article. It's crap. What he said was, in response to the question of how can he have gay friends if he doesn't approve of gay marriage , is that there are a lot of people that do things he either doesn't agree with or just doesn't particularly care for from alcohol to profanity to classical music and ballet, but that doesn't mean he can't be friends with them.

 

[LibertyExtremist]

Why is it so hard for these guys to understand that your personal morality shouldn't be made the law of the land? I don't think that same-sex sexual relationships are moral nor do I agree with gay marriage and no church should have to perform one. That said, my sense of morality shouldn't be the basis for defining what consenting adults do. If two consenting adults want to get married, more power to them!

 

[Sola_Fide]

The longer I am a Christian, the more I understand and read about in God's Word how serious sexual sin really is...and all the more do I lean on Jesus' righteousness ALONE because I have none.

 

[jmdrake]

Why is it so hard for these guys to understand that your personal morality shouldn't be made the law of the land? I don't think that same-sex sexual relationships are moral nor do I agree with gay marriage and no church should have to perform one. That said, my sense of morality shouldn't be the basis for defining what consenting adults do. If two consenting adults want to get married, more power to them!

You know your post has absolutely nothing to do with the thread right? The question asked Huckabee is "How can you have gay friends and not support gay marriage?" Now, if Huckabee was someone who thought gay marriage should be illegal, but personally didn't condone it, that would still put him in the position of not "supporting" gay marriage. So....the real question is....at the end of the day are people still allowed to have beliefs that disagree with what is now politically correct? Anyway, I wish there was some consistency in this. Why have laws against adult incest? Why have laws against bigamy? Why have laws against prostitution? Why have laws against bestiality? As soon as you say that some leftist-fascist will say "How dare you compare homosexuality to (fill-in-the-blank)!" But if the criteria is that there can't be laws either banning (as sodomy once was) or restricting recognition of (as gay marriage currently is) certain behaviors that some people find distasteful, then why restrict that? I know I'm preaching to the choir, but it bothers me that libertarians don't call out liberal - feminist hypocrisy on this issue.

 

[LibertyExtremist]

You know your post has absolutely nothing to do with the thread right? The question asked Huckabee is "How can you have gay friends and not support gay marriage?" Now, if Huckabee was someone who thought gay marriage should be illegal, but personally didn't condone it, that would still put him in the position of not "supporting" gay marriage. So....the real question is....at the end of the day are people still allowed to have beliefs that disagree with what is now politically correct? Anyway, I wish there was some consistency in this. Why have laws against adult incest? Why have laws against bigamy? Why have laws against prostitution? Why have laws against bestiality? As soon as you say that some leftist-fascist will say "How dare you compare homosexuality to (fill-in-the-blank)!" But if the criteria is that there can't be laws either banning (as sodomy once was) or restricting recognition of (as gay marriage currently is) certain behaviors that some people find distasteful, then why restrict that? I know I'm preaching to the choir, but it bothers me that libertarians don't call out liberal - feminist hypocrisy on this issue.

You're right, I strayed a bit. That said, Huckabee certainly believes that his moral/religious views should be the basis for law and he thinks libertarian views are dangerous, more so than progressive views. He also is a strong believer in government welfare because his religion supposedly demands it. Huckabee and all others certainly have a right to their beliefs and a right to state those beliefs, as I mentioned that I don't agree with same-sex marriage either. I think you make great points with the second part of your post. I don't agree with or condone prostitution, adult incest, or bigamy, but I don't think there should be laws banning these things (the laws are not effective anyway). In regards to bestiality, I'm not sure an animal is really capable of consenting.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Is it coincidence that Huckabee is in holy land this week and this news comes out of there today?

Haaretz.com @haaretzcom · 3h 3 hours ago

"Conversion therapy: Jerusalem, unite to fight prejudice against LGBTQ" http://htz.li/1GS