Huckabee compares being gay to using alcohol, profanity

[cajuncocoa]

LOL

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Sunday said being gay is akin to choosing to drink alcohol or use profanity - lifestyle choices he says are appealing to others but not to him.


The former Baptist pastor, who is weighing a second run for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, also claimed that forcing people of faith to accept gay marriage as policy is on par with telling Jews that they must serve "bacon-wrapped shrimp in their deli." That dish would run afoul of kosher rules in the same way Huckabee sees asking Christians to accept same-sex marriages.


"We're so sensitive to make sure we don't offend certain religions, but then we act like Christians can't have the convictions that they have had for over 2,000 years," Huckabee said.

Huckabee has made cultural issues the cornerstone of his likely White House bid. The former Baptist pastor is counting on social conservatives and evangelicals who have great clout in early nominating Iowa to help him.


His comments about gays and lesbians seem targeted at the conservative corners of his party.

More: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-02-01-12-58-46

 

[Brett85]

I agree with him but don't really understand why he chooses to talk about issues like that so much when he's actually running for President. It would be fine if he were just a talk show host, but most Americans don't want a Presidential candidate to focus so much on those kinds of issues.

 

[specsaregood]

But the good preacher approves of and uses his position as host of a nationally televised show to promote this:

I make the pussy purr with
The stroke of my hand
They know they gettin' it from me
They know just where to go
When they need their lovin man
They know I do it for free

 

[VIDEODROME]

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.

Actually seems a fair way to put it if you look at it that way. I see a Church as a private entity that should be able to set it's own rules. It should be able to decide if a person can sneak a little Flask of booze in with them during mass. It should also be able to decide whether to ask homosexual people to leave.

Maybe it's different matter with Government though which shouldn't create universal bans on either Alcohol or Same Sex Unions.

 

[specsaregood]

I see a Church as a private entity that should be able to set it's own rules. It should be able to decide if a person can sneak a little Flask of booze in with them during mass.

Sidenote: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/20...ecline-churches-attract-new-members-with-beer

With mainline religious congregations dwindling across America, a scattering of churches is trying to attract new members by creating a different sort of Christian community. They are gathering around craft beer.

 

[jmdrake]

LOL
More: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-02-01-12-58-46

You actually think he's wrong? That's surprising considering so many people believe (without absolute scientific proof) that alcoholism is a genetic disease. So how is that any different from the mainstream view of being gay? Of course Huck is saying drinking alcohol is a choice. Maybe. No proof that it's not. There's no proof that being gay isn't a choice either. Maybe both are choices, maybe neither are. So what? Since there is no scientific proof about this either way, why hate on Huck about that?

"We're so sensitive to make sure we don't offend certain religions, but then we act like Christians can't have the convictions that they have had for over 2,000 years," Huckabee said.

Do you disagree with ^that? If so why?

 

[William Tell]

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.

 

[jmdrake]

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.

Actually seems a fair way to put it if you look at it that way. I see a Church as a private entity that should be able to set it's own rules. It should be able to decide if a person can sneak a little Flask of booze in with them during mass. It should also be able to decide whether to ask homosexual people to leave.

Maybe it's different matter with Government though which shouldn't create universal bans on either Alcohol or Same Sex Unions.

True. But the problem that we are facing is more akin to the federal government saying "States you can't ban alcohol even if you want to" and worse "private church, you can't ban alcohol either." When you have people being sued for not wanting to bake cakes or same sex weddings, that's where we are headed. But the real test will be when gay couples try to get into married student housing at Christian colleges and universities. If a Christian college tried to keep interracial married couples out of married student housing it could lose it's tax exempt status. That's already been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

True. But the problem that we are facing is more akin to the federal government saying "States you can't ban alcohol even if you want to" and worse "private church, you can't ban alcohol either." When you have people being sued for not wanting to bake cakes or same sex weddings, that's where we are headed. But the real test will be when gay couples try to get into married student housing at Christian colleges and universities. If a Christian college tried to keep interracial married couples out of married student housing it could lose it's tax exempt status. That's already been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is actually a cogent argument (for a change in the ongoing gay debate) and I'll get back to it, but first ...

Huckabee's deli analogy misses. The government accepting gay marriage as policy is actually on a par with telling Jews that if they go into a deli and that deli is serving bacon wrapped shrimp, those Jews have the option to buy, not buy, or even leave without buying anything, but they don't have the option to have the government shut the deli down.

Also, nothing about legalizing gay marriage is going to force churches to perform gay marriages. Since when does the govt. have anything to do with any church ceremonies? And the wedding cakes, wedding flowers etc. involve commerce which is quite explicitly the province of govt. at all levels and always has been. But your argument about student housing actually posits a situation that could legitimately come up. But the example you give is the answer to your own question - banning interracial marriages was always religiously based so why would or should banning gay couples not face the same consequences?

 

[jllundqu]

Social Conservatives are funny.... all about small government and this alleged "freedom" until they want to use the force of government to suit their religious bent.

 

[Crashland]

You actually think he's wrong? That's surprising considering so many people believe (without absolute scientific proof) that alcoholism is a genetic disease. So how is that any different from the mainstream view of being gay? Of course Huck is saying drinking alcohol is a choice. Maybe. No proof that it's not. There's no proof that being gay isn't a choice either. Maybe both are choices, maybe neither are. So what? Since there is no scientific proof about this either way, why hate on Huck about that?

When you consider your own sexual orientation, it should be more than obvious that sexual orientation is not a choice.

 

[dannno]

Using Huck's logic, I guess since he thinks gay marriage should be illegal then that means he must think swearing and alcohol should be illegal as well.

Christians can't have anything that goes against their faith being legal, they might be tempted

 

[dannno]

When you consider your own sexual orientation, it should be more than obvious that sexual orientation is not a choice.

Ya exactly. I'm tempted to behave immorally according to Christian values with regards to sex, yet I have no desire to engage in homosexual behavior. If I had any inclination to be gay or bi, I would do it. But I don't. Because I'm straight. It's pretty simple.

jmdrake used to argue that there were people who were gay who chose to be straight. What he failed to comprehend was that they are bi - people who are bi do have a choice in a sense. People who are gay or straight do not have a choice.

 

[jmdrake]

This is actually a cogent argument (for a change in the ongoing gay debate) and I'll get back to it, but first ...

Huckabee's deli analogy misses. The government accepting gay marriage as policy is actually on a par with telling Jews that if they go into a deli and that deli is serving bacon wrapped shrimp, those Jews have the option to buy, not buy, or even leave without buying anything, but they don't have the option to have the government shut the deli down.

Except in the case of gay marriage there is no state where the government is "shutting down" gay marriage ceremonies. That ended after Lawrence v. Texas. If you want your analogy to be accurate it would be someone being allowed to have a deli but not being allowed the "benefit" of it being inspected by a health inspector.

Also, nothing about legalizing gay marriage is going to force churches to perform gay marriages. Since when does the govt. have anything to do with any church ceremonies? And the wedding cakes, wedding flowers etc. involve commerce which is quite explicitly the province of govt. at all levels and always has been. But your argument about student housing actually posits a situation that could legitimately come up. But the example you give is the answer to your own question - banning interracial marriages was always religiously based so why would or should banning gay couples not face the same consequences?

Ummm....nobody said anything about churches being forced to perform gay weddings, though some churches are being forced to allow certain facilities to be used for gay cermonies. As for commerce always being "explicitly the province of government at all levels and always has been" nothing could be further from the truth! Prior to FDR bullying the U.S. Supreme Court the federal government was only allowed to interfere with interstate commerce. Note that when alcohol was prohibited a constitutional amendment had to be passed first. The federal government couldn't just pass a law banning alcohol the way it now passes laws banning other drugs. Now as to your last point, because that is a violation of the 1st amendment free exercise clause. I realize you and I are probably on cross purposes on this and that's fine. But religious people who have been duped into believing this is just about gay people getting tax breaks (actually for most gay people their taxes will go up after marriage) when there is a larger agenda afoot. And that comes back to Huck's very cogent point.

"We're so sensitive to make sure we don't offend certain religions, but then we act like Christians can't have the convictions that they have had for over 2,000 years," Huckabee said.

The first amendment says that congress shall pass no law either establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Frankly the decision to punish a religious institution over religious discrimination is also wrong. Either people are allowed to practice their religion, as repugnant as their religion may be, or they aren't.

 

[jmdrake]

When you consider your own sexual orientation, it should be more than obvious that sexual orientation is not a choice.

Yeah....that's a bullshit argument. I don't like really fat women. That doesn't mean I was born that way. Not too long ago someone posted a story about identical twins where one was getting a sex change. So..what did genetics have to do with that?

 

[Dr.3D]

Christians can't have anything that goes against their faith being legal, they might be tempted

Since when does making something illegal take away the temptation to do it?

 

[jmdrake]

double post

 

[jmdrake]

Using Huck's logic, I guess since he thinks gay marriage should be illegal then that means he must think swearing and alcohol should be illegal as well.

Christians can't have anything that goes against their faith being legal, they might be tempted

Except gay marriage isn't illegal. It hasn't been since Lawrence v. Texas. Marrying your sister is illegal in most states. Polygamy is illegal in all states.

 

[jmdrake]

Ya exactly. I'm tempted to behave immorally according to Christian values with regards to sex, yet I have no desire to engage in homosexual behavior. If I had any inclination to be gay or bi, I would do it. But I don't. Because I'm straight. It's pretty simple.

jmdrake used to argue that there were people who were gay who chose to be straight. What he failed to comprehend was that they are bi - people who are bi do have a choice in a sense. People who are gay or straight do not have a choice.

LOL. Dannno, you are a piece of work you know that? Do you think bald faced lies make you more credible? Quote where I ever said there was no such thing as a bi person? That said, unless you've gone to prison and been raped, you can't say for certain that you (Dannno) are not bi yourself. What you fail to comprehend is the scientific theory that claims that everybody falls on a scale where their sexuality can move in one direction or the other. Sexuality is continuum, not a category like you pretend it to be.

 

[Crashland]

Yeah....that's a bullshit argument. I don't like really fat women. That doesn't mean I was born that way. Not too long ago someone posted a story about identical twins where one was getting a sex change. So..what did genetics have to do with that?

Can you choose to be attracted to people of your same sex? If you can't, then you have NO basis by which to judge others for claiming that their orientation is not a choice. You obviously don't know any gay people, at least not well enough to the point where you don't accuse them of lying about the nature of their sexual orientation.