world

Huckabee likens gay marriage to incest, polygamy

42 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

42 Comments
Login to comment

He didn't even get out of the gate when the GOP selected a candidate. His opinion is as valuable as moss on a rock. Not worth much. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Huckabee is right! Gays should have zero rights.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hellhound: because?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What Huckabee is saying is that the relationship between a gay couple should not be defined as marriage. History and tradition both support this view. He does raise valid points in the comparison of "gay marriages" to incest and polygamy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What Huckabee is saying is that the relationship between a gay couple should not be defined as marriage. History and tradition both support this view.

Right. Marriage is more of a religious thing. That said, the U.S. government which is a secular entity, should not be endorsing religious unions. Everyone should be offered civil unions and if the religious folk want to get "married" afterward, then that's fine.

He does raise valid points in the comparison of "gay marriages" to incest and polygamy.

How so? Please cite logical and rational arguments. Nothing from the Bible, okay?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Read the article. Look for the quotes. I think that this represents the way Huckabee sees the world very well. The headline is pretty harsh. He does not actually equate them or compare them. He tries to cast gay marriage in those terms, and pretty well fails.

The interesting thing is that INCEST and POLYGAMY are charged terms because we all might agree that they are morally outrageous. Huckabee DOES see gay marriage similarly. He also raises a fair point. If society is willing to let people marry and adopt based on a sexual relationship, irrespective of that partner's most basic physical characteristics, then why not allow incest, polygamy, etc.? If I love my dog or my car, could I marry them too? Why not my grandmother? What if I wanted to extend my health insurance to her? Could I just marry her to expedite that? Would I have to have sex with her first? Why or why not?

It is said that Mormons had to give up polygamy for Utah to gain its statehood. So now Utah is a state, and we come to find that anything goes in California and Massachusetts. If I were a Mormon, I would want some answers.

Gay marriage presents a confusing can of worms to people, like Mike Huckabee, who thought they understood what marriage is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“I don’t have to prove that marriage is a man and a woman in a relationship for life

Actually, with over 50% of marriages in the US ending in divorce, he does have to prove that marriage is a relationship for life. Just among Huckabee's party:

McCain (two marriages) Rudy Giuliani (three) Gingrich (two) But the man whose religion once allowed polygamy, Romney, one.

Which raises the question to

Marriage has historically never meant anything other than a man and a woman.

Except in China, Islam, the LDS and others. All allow or allowed polygamy and, in some cases, polyandry. Even in Huckabee's favorite book (the Bible) we have:

1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. (Talk about polygamy being its own punishment.) So historically we can't say marriage has never meant anything except....(what I want it to mean.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Huckabee likens gay marriage to incest, polygamy

Taka likens Huckabee to snake oil salesman, huckster.

These types and their intolerance for homosexuality must have never seen a football game in the 80s. John 3:16 huckster. You may want to check it out.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And we all know which party Mick Huckabee belongs to. Mick and Sarah Palin would make a cute equally intolerant couple over there with the tea partiers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Could someone please inform Mr. Huckabee he just laid waste to the gay/lesbian vote for the GOP in November? Just remember to stop laughing first, haha. :-)

As I said on another thread yesterday, conservatives are their own worst enemies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yesterday, the GOP had absolutely nothing going for them as a party. Now, thanks to Mick Huckabee, they have even less than nothing going for them. Hey, is that even possible?? Only conservatives can answer this question. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hardly seems like an important international story....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mike Huckabee's stance on gay marriage is the same as Barack Obama's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hardly seems like an important international story....

It is when the Main Stream Media wants to push the new meme that Conservatives are all Homophobes. See the Liberal's above reaction to this 'shocking' position of Huckabee's on Gay marriage, as if he hadn't had that view for years now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is Mike Huckabee a conservative?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

new meme that Conservatives are all Homophobes

"new"? That's right, it's liberals who have been condemning homosexuals and comparing them to people who commit rape and bestiality all this time, right? Mike Huckabee is the first conservative to ever do this, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What's new about this? A GOP tripping on his tongue?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's right, it's liberals who have been condemning homosexuals and comparing them to people who commit rape and bestiality all this time, right? Mike Huckabee is the first conservative to ever do this, right?

In a statement Tuesday, Huckabee said that while he believes what people do in their private lives is their business,

I hardly see him condemning homosexuals at all, just defending the "radical" position that the definition of a legal marriage is between a man and a woman.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

motogaijin - How so? Please cite logical and rational arguments. Nothing from the Bible, okay?

Quotes from the article...

“Why do you get to choose that two men are OK but one man and three women aren’t OK?” he asked. Huckabee added that his goal isn’t to tell others how to live, but that the burden of proving that a gay marriage can be successful rests with the activists in favor of changing the law.

Rational statements.

Speedracer - He also raises a fair point. If society is willing to let people marry and adopt based on a sexual relationship, irrespective of that partner's most basic physical characteristics, then why not allow incest, polygamy, etc.?

I am normally on the opposite side of every single arguement you make. You seem like such an extremist normally, and then you come out with a fair, and reasoned statement like this. It completely throws me off! Anyway, as you, and Huckabee both said, its a fair point. If gay marriage is ok, why not polygamy? Why not any other lifestyle choice between consenting adults? Be it brother and sister, or 3 women and a man, or 3 men and a woman. Why not?

"new"? That's right, it's liberals who have been condemning homosexuals and comparing them to people who commit rape and bestiality all this time, right? Mike Huckabee is the first conservative to ever do this, right?

Ah, so no "liberals" every opposed, or oppose homosexuality, right? I mean, just cause its passed in every single state, even in ultra liberal California... You need to wake up and realize that most Americans feel this way about the issue.

I really hate articles like this. I despise Mike Huckabee, and yet here he is saying stuff I mostly agree with. Damn the man!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is when the Main Stream Media wants to push the new meme that Conservatives are all Homophobes.

Oh, please. The Republican agenda is hardly a "new meme" and this particular homophobic presidential hopeful certainly isn't a minority in the party.

Sorry, but that RNC party in the lesbian bondage club last month (http://tinyurl.com/yz8dbos) didn't change anything; the GOP still the party of discrimination and is not ashamed of it--just as Huckabee is unashamed of his ignorant comments about AIDS patients (made YEARS after we learned how the virus is transmitted).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hardly see him condemning homosexuals at all, just defending the "radical" position that the definition of a legal marriage is between a man and a woman.

Yes, because it's just about the definition of a word, after all.

“I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle,”

Concern for Merriam-Webster noted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Concern for Merriam-Webster noted.

Your contempt and ridicule for those who disagree with your point of view likewise duly noted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: It is when the Main Stream Media wants to push the new meme that Conservatives are all Homophobes. See the Liberal's above reaction to this 'shocking' position of Huckabee's on Gay marriage, as if he hadn't had that view for years now.

It just seems obvious that JT is pandering to those who like to create the radical wars that so often dominate these message boards nowadays. The guy is old news. I wouldn't put his comments next to discussions about the devastation of the Polish government and dozens of people dying in an earthquake in China. Not unless I was just looking to make a quick buck.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib, for once I agree.

Good call. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your contempt and ridicule for those who disagree with your point of view likewise duly noted.

Sorry, but if that was "contempt and ridicule" to you, you might want come up with a logically sound argument (try to avoid fallacious slippery slopes and polygamy/incest straw men).

However, it might be easier to just be honest about your views like Huckabee:

“I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle,”

Don't hide behind this "traditional definition" stuff. It's not about a word. Come correct!

Of course, the reason for the subterfuge in the first place is that this brand of intolerance is (thankfully) on its way out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SiouxChef,

He made those comments in 1992 that was darn near twenty years ago. It is apparent by his statement now in 2010.........

In response to a 1992 questionnaire from The Associated Press, Huckabee, then a Senate candidate in Arkansas, spelled out his opposition to homosexuality, saying it was crucial that the country not “legitimize immorality.”

Note......His "opposition"

It's pretty apparent that his views on the subject have moderated also as with the rest of the country on those Americans who happen to be gay.

It's now 2010 and he says:

In a statement Tuesday, Huckabee said that while he believes what people do in their private lives is their business, “I do not believe we should change the traditional definition of marriage.”

Note...."private lives is their business" or acceptance of Gay Americans.

Looks like he "evolved" after all as with the rest of the country on our attitudes towards Gay folks. Doesn't mean many of us now embrace the left leaning side of the gay community who want a state sanctioned marriage. I for one could care less if they want a piece of paper to sanction their union let have one, big deal, it isn't like America is going all the sudden fall because two guys have set up house together just like they always did before there was a paper to 'sanctify it' now. I do part company with Huckabee on that one I'm fine with civil unions for gay couples but would like to set a distinct difference between the two, marriage and civil unions. I agree with him on adoption by a Gay couple. I'm agaisnt it not for stereotype reason you might think. I'm agaisnt it because nature has already decreed it. Same sex couples are to put it bluntly incapable of having children to allow them to adopt children is now going into a realm that I think no one should really want to mess without serious, serious thought. The realm of what nature has already ordained as the order of things. Male and females can procreate. Males and Males cant. That in my opinion is also the distinct difference between perception of what a traditional marriage is all about and what a civil union is about between a same sex couple. I can respect that difference and why many folks would want to perserve that concept and boundary between the two....It's "how should I say it to make my point".....It is truly only 'natural'.

Also I have a a friend that is very conservative and just happens to be gay (big deal) and we've talked a lot about this very subject and he agrees with my view.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Very well written sailwind. Agree.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Looks like he "evolved" after all as with the rest of the country on our attitudes towards Gay folks.

No, he hasn't (he doesn't believe in evolution, after all) and these most recent comments demonstrate this. He believes that homosexuals decide to be homosexual (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22409176/page/3/) and that it is an aberrant, sinful lifestyle.

Perhaps you should read his comments again (not his damage control press release):

“That would be like saying, well there’s there are a lot of people who like to use drugs so let’s go ahead and accommodate those who want to use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, should we accommodate them?”

Doesn't mean many of us now embrace the left leaning side of the gay community who want a state sanctioned marriage. I for one could care less if they want a piece of paper to sanction their union let have one, big deal, it isn't like America is going all the sudden fall because two guys have set up house together just like they always did before there was a paper to 'sanctify it' now.

It's not about wanting a "piece of paper to 'sanctify it'"; it's about the rights that come with marriage.

I do part company with Huckabee on that one I'm fine with civil unions for gay couples but would like to set a distinct difference between the two, marriage and civil unions.

Reasons?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Should we accomodate them? No, we should ignore the fact that they are mentally stable adults and take their freedom because...its fun! No wait! Because its natural! See, even monkeys obey the rule! Would you believe...a burning bush told me?

Gay marriage, incest, polygamy, drugs...should we accomodate grown adults who want to do those? No! We should most certainly accomodate them! What we should do is just step aside, and act like people with half an idea of what freedom is!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your contempt and ridicule for those who disagree with your point of view likewise duly noted.

Translation: I have nothing. You win.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Idiotic comment, pure and simple. Gay marriage is an act between two people who want to get married. You can argue about whether gays should be able to do that or not, but that is not what Huckabee said. He said it was the same as incest and polygamy. Incest is an act that usually involves coercion, and even if it doesn't, will likely lead to genetic and health problems. Gay marriage is not about either of those things.

And polygamy is a sign that a man is insane. One wife is more than enough, I know that from experience. Anybody who wants more than one obviously needs protection from himself. Call that the nanny state if you want but it is true.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Should we accomodate them? No, we should ignore the fact that they are mentally stable adults and take their freedom because...its fun! No wait! Because its natural! See, even monkeys obey the rule! Would you believe...a burning bush told me?

Wait, take their freedom? What are you talking about? No one is talking about throwing gays in jail. Every single person has the freedom to marry another of the opposite sex, so long as they both agree. What people want, is to gain an additional right. The right for anyone to marry anyone so long as they consent. Thats the slippery slope Huckabee is referring to. Because if its ok for men to marry men, why not for multiple men or women to marry each other? If society is going to accept all these lifestyles, then it has to accept all the lifestyles that involve consent.

Taka - Translation: I have nothing. You win.

Funny, allow me to correct your translation. - Since your argument is based off nothing more then hatred to those who disagree, it can simply be discarded.

He said it was the same as incest and polygamy. Incest is an act that usually involves coercion, and even if it doesn't, will likely lead to genetic and health problems. Gay marriage is not about either of those things.

Er, based on this comment, it appears obvious you didn't read the article. Go ahead, come back and comment afterwards.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I thought America was founded on "freedom". Funny how that word gets thrown around a lot.

But this story isnt about freedom, this story is about religion.

And if Mr. Huckabee really believes, "people have a right to do what they want in their personal lives", maybe he should do just that with his religion. Keep it personal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

medievaltimes But this story isnt about freedom, this story is about religion.

Now that even scarier then the article itself. What I've seen from religion in the past few years is covering up for pediphiles, abuse of children and the protection of abusers.

I'd rather be amongst a group of gays then be amongst a group of priest. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And if Mr. Huckabee really believes, "people have a right to do what they want in their personal lives", maybe he should do just that with his religion. Keep it personal.

Sure, and if a guy wants to have sex with another guy, maybe they should keep it in their private life. Its certainly no one elses business. But this is not about private lives, but rather societal acceptance. If you want to be accepted by society, you have to realize that society is made up of people, people who have certain beliefs, beliefs that are influenced to a greater or lesser extent by their religion. To put it simply, you want acceptance, then you have to deal with the religion issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir, technically it is impossible to gain a human a right. What happens is you get one back. Everything else you said to me you contradicted yourself on. You said every person has the freedom but they want the right. How does that work? You also talked about society's acceptance. We are not talking about that. We are talking about government and legal acceptance. Society is not one big coherent group. Besides, societies feelings don't dictate human rights...ever. If they do then slavery is ok.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am not on the side of gay marriage but am not homophobic either but Huckabee should not go shooting his mouth off like that. Its highly offensive and totally a screwed up perspective but it does show what things go on in his head.

As for why I dont support gay marriage? I just find the desire for it bizarre.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bobbafett, if your feelings don't support it fine. But if you ever seek to block it based on your emotions, then we have a problem. This is the problem with most of the people trying to block it. They act like they will be forced into a gay marriage or something. They act like it will affect them in the world when it only affects their fragile little psyche.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But if you ever seek to block it based on your emotions, then we have a problem

oh gee MistWizard, I would hate to have an internet blogging problem with you. It would damage my fragile little psyche.

And in regards to blocking gay marriage, I actually dont give a damn what people do. Like I said, I find the desire for it to be bizarre so I dont support it. As for blocking it, I dont even care.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If gay marriage is allowed they won't stop there. Some will go after churches saying the contents of what they preach is hate, some will demand the rights to adopt kids and will go after adoption agencies with religious affiliation. They won't be happy. The Utopia they seek doesn't now nor will it ever exist.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle,” he wrote, in response to a question about gays in the military.

Mike Huckabee is absolutely entitled to feel however he likes, but two out of three of his justifications for opposing not only gays in the military, but gays overall are unsupported by any sort of facts that govern the real world. While homosexuality may indeed be aberrant in that the rate of occurrence in nature sits far below the so-called "norm” for heterosexually inclined individuals, homosexual behavior throughout the mammal world has been observed and extensively documented by numerous researchers for many years now. And while it may indeed only occur at a frequency of only 5 to 10 per 100, it still does indeed occur naturally.

And the continuing silliness of insisting that it’s a “lifestyle choice,” (as if anyone would actively choose to be ostrasized by the peers) as opposed to being something determined by genetics is the adult equivalent of sticking one’s fingers in one’s ear, scrunching one’s eyes shut really tight, and repeating the mantra, “It’s not genetic! It’s not genetic! It’s not genetic” while shaking one's head repeatedly when confronted with an uncomfortable truth. Homosexuality is a genetically expressed trait among many mammals, human beings included.

Huckabee’s other assertion that homosexuality is a “sin” is predicated exclusively on the assumption that the entirety of society shares the same religious convictions he does. Which it doesn’t, a fact he and those who would legislate American morality desperately need to come to grips with.

If America's long history of watershed social revolutions are any indication, it’s ultimately a losing battle for opponents to gay marriage when juxtaposed against the profound injustice of denying some 15 to 30 million American citizens something so fundamentally human as being able to choose one’s life partner, regardless of race, religion, skin color, political affiliation, economic standing, or gender.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I dont think the governor is far off in his comments. Think about it: gay marriage seeks to redefine one of the fundamental cornerstones of marriage. Currently, marriage is defined by;

a/ number of people involved (2) b/ age of people involved (varies by jurisdiction) c/ gender of people involved (male and female) d/ relationship of people involved

It is only simple logic that if "c/" can be redefined, then so can any of the other three. How greedy of gay advocates, to try to get what they want and then slam the door on all the polygamists and polyamorists out there.

Polygamy at least has some traditional value and cultural standing in many countries. Can the same be said for same sex marriage?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites