Mike Huckabee embarrasses himself over gay marriage, as does the Christian Post

June 27, 2013 • 1:51 pm

You just knew that conservatives would start spouting inanities when the supposedly safe Supreme Court started paving the way for gay marriage.

From the Twitter feed of Mike Huckabee (Republican ex-governor of Arkansas and am embarrassment to all Americans):

Screen shot 2013-06-26 at 4.24.28 PM

A politician should know that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of whether any law is Constitutional: of course they’re bigger than voters and Congress when it comes to the validity of law. He should also know that our country is ruled by law and not God.

What amuses me is the notion that Huckabee is so sure about what God wants, but also implies that the other four people in robes—those who voted against gay marriage—do see that God is bigger than they are.

When I posted yesterday on the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) favorable rulings on gay marriage, I wanted to add something about the inevitable conservative claim that this would start us on the slippery slope toward humans marrying animals. Only a moron could think that this is a real possibility. But it turns out that the Christian Post anticipated this in an April 10 Op-Ed by Jerry Ralph Curry (a discredit to the honorable name of “Jerry”). Bolding is mine:

Homosexuals want to fundamentally change American society and the heterosexual way of life

If every American adopted this kind of lifestyle, a hundred years from now America would cease to exist, because during that period no children would be born. Should SCOTUS actually declare homosexuality a civil right, it logically follows that polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality would one day also be declared a civil right by the Court. In spite of society’s thirst for more modernism, inclusiveness and diversity, who would want to live in the midst of such moral depravity? . . .

. . . Our society and culture should not bless the homosexual life style just so a child can have two or more supposedly loving mothers or fathers. Because someone thinks they have fallen in love with a horse or a pet snake does not mean that they should be allowed to legally marry those animals with society’s blessing.

At the settling of an estate, just because an animal is mentioned in the will does not mean that that animal should be awarded a collection of Picasso paintings, a bank account, or a Bentley. For, over time, that is where all this leads.

Can anybody really call that argument rational? And OMG—humans marrying snakes! (But perhaps that’s what Mrs. Huckabee did.)

133 thoughts on “Mike Huckabee embarrasses himself over gay marriage, as does the Christian Post

  1. Yes, he IS and embarrassment.
    But I can’t stop wondering how they twist their minds away from their god’s power, his “omnipotency”, and his mysterious ways. Shouldn’t they lean back and say “yes lord, I don’t understand it, but you made your will go through.”?
    They should say “Oh well, it’s all in god’s hands, I don’t understand it, but god willing, it happened. It’s all good.”

      1. They should literally take a “leaf” out of the Muslim “book” and cover their collective asses by adding “god willing” with every pronouncement involving their “omnipotent” creator!

    1. > But I can’t stop wondering how they twist their minds away from their god’s power

      This process is only unclear when you assume that they have a fixed set of beliefs and rationally derive conclusions from those beliefs.

      But religion doesnt work that way. It works backwards. You first come up with the conclusions and then make up the beliefs in a way to make the conclusions seem to be derived from them.

      That way, you suddenly have a pseudo-rational support for something that would otherwise be completely unsupportable. Supporting unsupportable things is what religion is for, an what it always was.

      However dumb Huckabees statements may seem to you, in the eyes of other religious people they seem completely valid and rational because he appears to have derived them from his religion.

  2. I say, let God enforce the laws he wants, and we humans will deal with our laws. If every time a gay couple got married, they got struck by lightning, I’d believe God had an opinion. Until then, though…

    1. Brilliant answer! I would also be against gay marriage if every time a gay couple married they got struck by lightning.

  3. This damn gas bag should understand that his religious rights end where everyone else s begins. How damn dare him compare human beings to snakes. If it were up to these damn conservatives we would all would be living in caves and writing on stone tablets. I am repulsed by these damn people.

    1. I like snakes a lot more than I like many people. That’s a comparison in which you are not doing well right now.

  4. Huckabee and his crew are incapable of feeling embarrassment. Not sure if that’s an inborn trait, learned, or due to some secret surgical procedure involving lasers.

    1. “Huckabee and his crew are incapable of feeling embarrassment.”

      That would, sad as it may be, explain a lot.

      1. They are incapable of feeling embarrassment because they feel superior to everyone who isn’t living up to their ideal. Since they have their God on their side, obviously they are better than those who don’t. /sarcasm

  5. “He should also know that our country is ruled by law and not God.”

    That’s where he fails embarrassingly.

    There was a time when I suspected that most of these right wing nuts were faking it for votes.

    Now I know better. Some of these IDiots are actually convinced that god exists and that they are living in his country.

    It baffles the mind.

    1. There’s a phrase that’s current outside the US, and maybe in it: “American exceptionalism”. It’s a common mental aberration among flag-wrapped, cross-carrying pseudo-patriots like Huckabee.

      1. We could also coin Christian Exceptionalism. That’s where a lot of the American variety comes from.

      2. Yes, the term is used here in the US as well. It’s so obviously wrong and stupid. The entire concept drives me nuts.

        1. Indeed. And yet politicians have been attacked for not asserting strongly enough that “America! is Special!/Awesome!”. If you assert that Americans are simply a bunch of people making a usually serious effort to ‘get things right’ you get called an ‘America-hater!’…..a statement with the self-evident rationality of someone who asserts that the sky is a day-glo plaid and lemonade flows from the tap.

          1. Apparently thinking of your country as just another country like the others with its own good and bad points is unpatriotic.

      3. Not only is that phrase current in the US, there are politicians and others who use it in a completely non-ironic way as if it were a positive attribute.

  6. I’ve met some very lovely snakes, I would only marry one with their consent, which is a bit tricky. It was a bit rude to imply Mr Huckabee one of those honourable creatures.

    The Right Wing Watch site is usually quite entertaining, today has been really fun. So much to chose: http://www.rightwingwatch.org

    1. You would think that if Jesus was all that worried about it and god was omnipotent he (they???) would start throwing some lightning bolts around or do gods not do that kind of thing anymore?

      1. Of course Jesus “does that sort of thing.” What do you the tornadoes in Oklahoma, the hurricanes in the gulf and along the east coast, or earthquakes and fires out west are? Natural disasters? No, they’re Jesus punishing us for our government’s sins. You’re silly.

    2. Since progressive Christian scholars believe Jesus was the consummate inclusive, he probably would have wept for joy.

  7. “…it logically follows that polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality…”

    It goes to show the moral bankruptcy of religious thinking. It’s obvious that they can’t figure out for themselves why certain things are wrong (exploitation, unethical use of power, coercion, torturing weaker creatures) unless it’s mentioned in a mendacious book. Their “morality” is empty of compassion.

    I’m surprised they’re not blaming today’s “ills” on the abolition of slavery.

    1. “exploitation, unethical use of power, coercion, torturing weaker creatures…” That sounds like a traditional biblical marriage to me.

    2. What he is saying there is that, in his mind, allowing a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman, means *logically* that it is okay for adults to have sex with children. I’d love to hear him “show his work” in this situation. It’d be fascinating.

    3. Am I the only one who gets suspicious about how often bestiality and pedophilia are brought up by opponents of same sex marriage?

  8. Some of the religious right already believe that many of us are gleefully sledding down that slippery slope. Witness this comment:

    “It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right… Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife.” A line from the original draft of a prepared speech to the Heritage Foundation by Senator John Comyn (R-TX).

    As for the idea that leaving the family Picasso to the family dog will be the result of human/animal sanctioned relationships, remember that the notorious Leona Helmsley left her dog, Trouble, a 12 million dollar bequest in her will. It was later reduced, because of other problems in her estate, to 2 million. It is not uncommon for people to establish testamentary trusts to pay for the family pet(s) especially their beloved canine ones. (Maybe that last phrase won’t be deleted by the web site administration.) It always amuses me that those who advocate for a smaller, less intrusive government don’t seem to mind government interfering with the lives of those whose lifestyles they disagree with.

  9. Should SCOTUS actually declare homosexuality a civil right, it logically follows that polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality would one day also be declared a civil right by the Court.

    Boy, I’d like to see the syllogism. I’m guessing it goes:

    God hates ickey things and so do I.

    God and I find homosexuality (and, by extension, homosexual marriage) ickey.

    If the law allows ickey homosexuality it has to allow all other things God and I find ickey, like polygamy (though God didn’t seem to find it all so ickey when Abraham, Issac, David and Solomon were practicing it), pedophilia and bestiality.

    Ow! Trying to think like a Fundagelical wingnut hurt my brain!

    1. But as we all know, the abrahamistic gods are actually down with pedophilia:

      “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites … And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males … And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones … And Moses was wroth with the officers … And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18”

      And so on, repeated 3-4 times on various places.

      And then we get to the child rapist prophet of the islamist variant.

      1. What I find interesting is that people think the bible, or whatever other book, is the word of God, the all knowing creator of the universe, but don’t bother reading it!

        I think if more religious people actually read their holy books their would be fewer religious types.

    2. Maybe ‘icky’ is the key word, and God is merely the justification for wanting to stop being bothered by all these icky things that preoccupy their mind. No rational person thinks about marrying their dog, but for those who can’t stop thinking about all things icky, imagination runs riot.

      1. I’m probably repeating myself in saying that the ick factor is very strong among the haters. Surprisingly so, in fact.

        Is the cause of homophobia to be found in improper toilet training of infants?

  10. Rand Paul, talking with Glenn Beck: “People take it to one extension further — does it have to be humans?…I’m kinda with you…we should not just say, ‘Oh, we’re punting on it, marriage can be anything.'”

  11. Great news about the Supreme Court moving to the correct side of this trend!

    I will not rest until my marriage to a my beloved Fruit Bat is recognized by rule of law. And, further, until disallowing my Fruit Bat to join me in restaurants or on plane seats is deemed unconstitutional and recognized as a hate crime.

    You’ve all been warned.

  12. I suppose there is really just two alternative ways of looking at all of this:
    1. Despair – in that there exists such total ignoramuses in this country, who can actually hold such idiotic views
    or, on a more positive note:
    2. Joy – in that these very same idiots are suffering a terrible apoplexy of exasperation at seeing the world go against them

  13. I would like to know what the justification for the illegality of a polygamous or polyamorous marriage is. If several adults want to marry each other (like the marital relationships in Heinlein’s Moon is a Harsh Mistress, for example) why shouldn’t they be able to do so?

    Certainly pedophilia should be outlawed since children are not mature enough to engage in a sexual relationship and are usually incapable of challenging an adult. The idea of someone marrying a horse is simply loony. I can’t see any reason why multiple adults should be prohibited from entering into a marriage of multiple people, however.

    1. “I can’t see any reason why multiple adults should be prohibited from entering into a marriage of multiple people, however.”

      I agree. Now imagine a woman with multiple husbands, and I think we’re closer to the reason why it’s not allowed.

    2. Let us be crystal clear that outlawing pedophilia never has anything to do with sexual maturity (which now happens in 12 year olds in US) or with adolescent maturity (capability of “challenging” others, whatever that means).

      It has to do with the simple fact that it _always_ leads to children getting hurt, psychologically, socially and sometimes physically.

      That in turn is caused by power imbalances rather than maturity situation. It is much more related to the problems women, and children, have to get empowered. You can’t blame the victim here! (But I’m fairly certain you didn’t intend to.)

      1. Another problem with appealing to maturity is that it plays into the hands of the pedophiliacs, who loves to present ‘doubts and problems’ with judging that.

      2. Of course. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my argument about why pedophilia should be illegal. I would hope that all sane people would agree it is detestable. My main argument was that there should not be any reason why consenting adults should be prevented in engaging in whatever marital/sexual relationships they wish to engage in. That certainly excludes children and animals.

        1. While I would agree if two or more adults wish to get married it should be up to them, but there is a history with polygamy and it is not a good one. On paper it sounds reasonable to allow people to marry as many other consenting adults as they want, in practice however it has always been problematic and usually fosters oppression of women, especially when it is tied to religion. I would imagine eventually there will come a time when this is not the case, perhaps its today, but I doubt it.

          1. FWIW, Heinlein’s ‘line marriage’, as described in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, was a way of conserving a family’s wealth & providing a stable environment for childrearing over the long term by adopting new, younger partners. The author revisited the idea in a later novel, Friday, & painted a much less rosy picture of such a corporate family structure as it was perceived by the newest young wife. It is possible that he changed his mind.

    3. Marriage (for liberals) generally focuses around the issue of informed consent without coercion.

      While its certainly possible for a polygamous marriage to function that way, historically they have not. Instead, the group dynamic is used to pressure young girls into entering into a relationship that most would never choose for themselves.

      Now, of course coercion and peer pressure are used to force one on one marriages too. But (at least in the west) not in anywhere near the same amount. Maybe 1 in every 100 or 1,000 ‘standard’ marriages is coercive. When you look at the illegal polygamous marriages in this country or the legal ones in other countries, its probably more like over half have a significant coercive component (IMO). In the illegal marriages in this country, it almost seems like its closer to 99% – every time a young women gets out to tell about it, they say its coercive.

      For anyone who thinks consent is the key issue, they need to think about not just whether it can be consensual for middle-class, well-adjusted, western educated, liberal adults, but whether that ideal case is reasonably representative of what will happen when its legalized. Or whether, instead, the overwhelming impact of legalization will likely be coercive, sexist abuse of young women.

      1. With coercion, peer pressure, unequal power relationships, violence, and general disrespect of women being a large part of why polygamy (and perhaps polyandry) tends to not work out very well, the obvious question is what sorts of intimate relationships might be practical for people after we have developed cultures in which mutual respect and a lack of coercion have been ubiquitous for generations.

        Since answering this question involves developing human societies based on mutual respect and a complete lack of ‘coercion worth caring about’ (i.e. “rules about which side of the road to drive on don’t count”) I am all for embarking upon the experiment.

        Fifty generations of true gender equality and a non-coercive society would probably be long enough for us to be sure that old lingering cultural characteristics are not what is messing up polygamous relationships, if they get messy under true egalitarian circumstances.

    4. Polygamous marriage should not be allowed because there is a strong correlation between a culture accepting polygamous marriage and a culture oppressing gay people. Just look at the list of countries in which polygamy is recognised under civil law. It includes such delightful places as Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

      Oh, wait, correlation is not causation. Perhaps it is the lack of same sex marriage in these countries that started them on the slippery slope to polygamy.

      There, I’ve just used logic to come to the opposite conclusion of Mick Huckerbee but my argument is based on actual (admittedly tenuous) evidence.

    1. LOL I posted that in yesterday’s thread and then had the song in my head all day. Stuff by Garfunkle and Oates is bad to sing at work. 😀

  14. “…If every American adopted this kind of lifestyle, a hundred years from now America would cease to exist, because during that period no children would be born…”

    What a bizarre argument. By this logic, clearly it should be illegal for an adult to be unmarried. I mean, if every American adult didn’t get married, a hundred years from now America would cease to exist.

    1. Yeah I never had kids so I guess my “lifestyle” of being a smart ass most of the time should be frowned upon. Okay maybe it should anyway… 🙂

    2. Right, because for example, no married lesbians have ever had a kid. And also, more importantly, because if it’s legal, obviously every American would do it. The only thing stopping us all from getting gay married right now is the law. Right, Huckabee? You maybe got a secret you wanna tell us?

      1. Yeah and I can’t believe he said this crap (okay I can) – look at the countries where gay marriage is legal. We’ve had it in Canada since 2005 and AFAIK no snake pairing. 😀 But he is probably terrified of Soviet Canukistan anyway.

        1. “In Canada we don’t care who you marry, as long as both of you watch hockey.”

          I love this country.

  15. A politician should know that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of whether any law is Constitutional: of course they’re bigger than voters and Congress when it comes to the validity of law. He should also know that our country is ruled by law and not God.

    Isn’t wing-nut Huckabee arguing the opposite end of wing-nut Scalia? For some reason or other, I stumbled over HuffPo’s article:

    “When it came to protections for minority voters, Scalia had no patience for democracy, specifically noting that the court should overturn the law because it is too popular to overturn in Congress. But as far as protections for gay and lesbian couples are concerned, Scalia would prefer the court stay away.

    The court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday in a 5-4 decision. In a dissent choked with rage, Scalia dismissed the majority’s reasoning as “legalistic argle-bargle.”

    Scalia’s dissent is less a legal argument and more a plea for recognition that there are “good people on all sides.” In it, he repeatedly played the role of victim, complaining that it is unfair that his opposition to gay marriage is no longer considered legitimate.

    “It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race,” Scalia wrote, accusing the majority of “declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency … In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us.””

    [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/doma-scalia_n_3503706.html ]

    In other words, if you don’t listen to people you are damned but if you listen to people you are damned.

    1. . . . it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race,” Scalia wrote, accusing the majority of “declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency . . .

      Though of course, the opposite–declaring those in favor of same-sex marriage enemies of the human race–is perfectly fine.

  16. But hey, isn’t polygamy (well, polygyny) the officially sanctioned biblical definition of marriage? And let’s not forget concubinage. Why aren’t all these Christians fighting for real traditional marriage?

  17. “Jesus wept.” Someone tweeted, in response, “tears of joy, you moron.”

    As for conservative reaction, Albert Hirschman wrote in The Rhetoric of Reaction that people have 3 responses:

    1. Any action to improve things will make them worse.
    2. Any attempt to change things will fail.
    3. The cost of such action is too high.

    I’ve noticed all 3 theses present in nearly all conservative rhetoric.

    1. Exactly. And wasn’t he a priest? Whatever he was, he is an embarrassing buffoon. That so many people give him respect is a very sad commentary on the state of our society.

  18. You are obviously not as familiar w/ this jackass’s work as you could be.

    There is NOTHING that this idiot does that thoroughly rational, except maybe his geetar playin’, and even then he confines his talents to singin’ for Jebus. And you need very little talent for that.

    The man’s a total failure of a human being. Whoever the hell issued this jackass his membership card to our species should be run out of Dodge ridin’ said jackass.

    1. I sympathize with your comments. I too find him quite irksome.

      However, I gather that he:

      apparently can carry a tune; managed to graduate from at least high school; treats his wife with some reasonable civility; does not do hard drugs; does not have children by several women; has a vocubulary sufficient to competently speak and write and read at at least the fifth grade level; while truth be known perhaps genuflects before Mammon (as do too many here in The Land of the Fee) more than he’d like to admit, does not seem obsessed with “bling” and cars; should he visit Greece, when asked if he went to the Parthenon, does not reply that he didn’t make it to that nightclub;

      as compared with several certain other athletes and entertainers and their ilk in pop culture-obsessed Amuricuh.

  19. I live in Cape Town and am aware of the homophobic attitude of many in parts of the country. The reports are just too horrific. I am working with a local theatre company and am thinking of working on a few projects to educate locals on the subject of understanding the underlying causes of homosexuality. Although no one has the final answer yet, if we can at least present an interesting and feasible answer to the phenomenon (or whatever one should call it) via either a YouTube short film or flashmob events, this would be a start. Before getting down to the presentation I have written the following (yes with the help of Wikipedia) and wondered if anyone can tell be if I have got anything totally wrong.

    Ninety three nations in the world still legally punish homosexuality. In seven of these – Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Nigeria, Mauritania – gays and lesbians are punished with the death penalty. However, sexual orientation is a very fundamental part of our nature that is established by the time we are born. There is precious little we can do about it, even if we wanted to. Perhaps what is needed Is a little understanding, so why not do this in an artful and even amusing way?

    But first, let’s deal with the main misconception:

    “Simple reasoning shows that evolution cannot explain homosexuality – how would a gene for homosexuality get selected ?” “Why have the genetic traits predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?”

    This argument is surprisingly common – and completely wrong.

    Homosexual behaviour has been observed in hundreds of species, from bison to penguins. There are many mechanisms that could explain why gene variants linked to homosexuality are maintained in a population and we explore a few now.

    A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex. In some traditional societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common.

    In our distant past, men would typically go out hunting, or perhaps on raiding parties against rival tribes, leaving vulnerable children and females behind. There would be a natural aversion to trust fit young men to act as guardians for no better reason than that they were fit young men!

    If, however, there were gay men in the tribe, they could then, with some degree of safety, be left in charge of the vulnerable members of the tribe. The net result would be that if certain of these tribes did not possess the tendency to provide a certain number of gay men then they would be the genetic loser. This outcome would derive simply from vulnerable family members being less well protected. Remember also that the greatest degree of protection would probably be shown towards gay men’s most immediate family so that those people who have little propensity towards giving birth to such gay men would be the statistical losers.

    Just to spice things up a bit, one theory of gay genetic success was posited by the late John Maynard Smith. He was largely responsible for introducing the mathematical basis of game theory to genetics. Being from an engineering background it was fairly typical of him to use somewhat salty language in describing one famous theory as “the sneaky fucker” strategy. This assumed that not all men who were assumed to be gay were completely gay and hence when the jocks, with no doubt some derision, left them behind to look after house, these “sneaky fuckers” had their wicked way with the females. This strategy is also known as the Woody Allen effect whereby the macho hunters and warriors left the more effeminate males behind, assuming they were not man enough to be attractive to the women. Big mistake! One has to admit, however, that this theory is not exactly going to sit well with a group attempting to gain any moral high ground.


    The situation with respect to lesbians may require a somewhat different explanation although the mechanism which produces gay men may also work for gay women. More likely is an explanation that there is also a positive role for lesbians. In a stable population, only two, on average, survive from one generation to the next. Any more and the human population explodes beyond what the natural resources of the world can provide. We see this in modern times but I am referring to pre agricultural eras. Conventional human mating pairs could well produce fifteen or more children in a lifetime but remember, only two on average, survive within a stable population. It is clear from this that the ability to produce more children than can be cared for is not necessarily the best survival strategy. Better still would be to ensure, as best one can, that those that do get born are cared for efficiently and protected from harm. Hence the obvious advantage of having non breeding gay men and women within a tribe.

    It is assumed that lesbianism cannot be a successful evolutionary strategy because these women cannot get their genes into the next generation. Well that ain’t necessarily so. In fact, in ancient times when there were no friendly policemen and societies were ruled by men, as always, lesbians may not have had too much say in the matter. Rape and other social pressures would have seen to that. Moreover, lesbians share the same instinct for having children as do heterosexual women and this may also allow them to suffer copulation with men, simply as a means to an end. Let’s face it, life was hard enough anyway so a bit of lying back and thinking of England would not be too intolerable for the age. However, all this may be well and good but it would still result in lesbians having significantly fewer children than heterosexual women who “enjoy” conventional paired bonds with males. So what then could the advantage be? Well, if men actually sought an association with a lesbian, not only could he force as many children on her as he wished but he could be fairly sure that she would not be seduced away by any other men. The fact that she would also seek the company and sexual bonding with other females would ensure a further support structure for any progeny. The father would not, of course, be prevented from forming any other heterosexual association and his wife would not be concerned that he would leave her for the lesbian mother. One further aside, the delectation that men seem to find in the idea of lesbian sex could also have some explanation here. From a woman’s point of view, as far as I know, they seem far less fascinated by the act of male homosexuality even though many actually seek the company of gay men. The reason could simply be that no children would likely result from any gay man and lesbian coupling – an obvious genetic dead end.

    A feature worth considering would be the likely rise of lesbian status within female groups. Their obvious advantage is that they would pose no threat to the heterosexual females i.e. they wouldn’t be stealing their men and their sexual proclivities could also provide a little girl on girl “relaxation” for some females who may be so inclined. This may mirror the mutual bonding by grooming feature seen within many ape species. Remember, small groups or tribes have their own individual cultures which develop without the constraints of the national laws and sexual mores which we have today. If lesbians manage to acquire high status, any progeny which they produce will also benefit from this exalted position. This is yet another genetic feature favoring lesbianism.

    1. It seems like you mean well, but I think most (if not all) of these ideas are way off. Some sound like group selection. Many rely on it being obvious who is gay and who is straight. None take into account bisexuality. None consider that being gay may be a “spandrel” or exaptation. Etc, etc, etc. There are far too many possible explanations of homosexuality to try to list them. It is better to just explain why the idea that “it can’t be genetic because gay people don’t have children so the genes would die out” is stupid and wrong.

    2. I applaud your goal and your efforts. I do understand why it is useful to counter typical anti LGBT claims and misconceptions in the way that you are attempting to. Like the very typical Is A Choice / Is Not A Choice argument.

      Using that (Choice/Not Choice) as an example, even if it is always true, and I am not sure it is*, it may not always be the best argument to use. I think it is also important to point out that this entire argument (Choice/Not Choice) should be irrelevant. It just shouldn’t matter whether or not a person chooses to be gay or is genetically predetermined to be gay. Just as it shouldn’t matter whether or not a person chooses to partner with blondes or is genetically predetermined to desire blondes. The issue is the freedom to do what you want as long as it does not unduly infringe on other members of society. And it clearly does not, anymore than hundreds of other things that people are legally free to do. The issue is just basic human rights.

      The anti LGBT crowd always uses misdirection tactics, similar to the religious crowd. For example they always frame the issue as “legalizing gay marriage” when in fact it is the reverse. Allowing gay people to marry does not require new legislation. Existing laws that provide for the right of marriage are supposed to apply to all people. What the anti crowd has always done is to try and enact new laws to take existing rights away from certain groups of people.

      *It is almost certainly a spectrum.

      1. Thanks for the response. It is a sad fact that in Africa few countries have the same attitude to personal freedom and choice, as a human right, as is enjoyed in the West. (Though with certain exceptions which form the dialogue of this Huckabee debate). What is needed is a simple, non deniable fact to knock out the “it can’t be genetic, it must be a perversion” attitude. It may be a moral imperative for us to allow a choice of lifestyle to be our goal, not so in Africa. Towards this end, the following study should actually provide the closest thing I can think of.

        “Identical twins separated at birth show an approx. 50% chance that if one is gay,the other will be. It is not 100% for the following reason. Genes have a property called penetrance, which is a measure of their effectiveness, or power. The penetrance of the gene which causes Type 1 (early onset) diabetes is only 30% for example.” Any other ideas?

  20. “Jesus wept”. And I saw somewhere on the interwebs that Dan Savage, in reply, tweeted, “So did I, Mike”; which fits well with the reported response in 22 above.

    1. Yet they won’t admit that their god-ideas are monstrous. Even worse they think the most despicable people are those that have no god-idea. Christians make me want to spit.

  21. Just for the heck of it, I think I’ll take out a subscription to Martha Stewart Weddings in the name of my dog. My dog is a male, so…

    Anyway, if anyone wants to let Mike Huckabee know, feel free.

  22. Should SCOTUS actually declare homosexuality heterosexual marriage a civil right, it logically follows that same-sex marriage, polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality would one day also be declared a civil right by the Court. In spite of society’s thirst for more modernism, inclusiveness and diversity, who would want to live in the midst of such moral depravity?

    Fixed that for him…

  23. “Homosexuals want to fundamentally change American society and the heterosexual way of life”

    Ah, projection: ain’t it wunnerful?

    Let a minor rephrasing unveil the projection:

    “Religious maniacs want to fundamentally change American society and its secular way of life.”

  24. I’m surprised by the dig at ‘people in robes’… That’s usually a joke I make about religious people (Catholics in particular). Is Huckabee trying to reclaim it, as rappers say they’re doing with the n word?

  25. I have a pet ball python named Snickers. I find he cheers me when i occasionally need it. Snickers has a brain the size of a peanut, no arms, no legs, and he can do anything he needs to to have a successful life. Catch a rat on the fly, escape from anything not locked, lap up water with forked tong-he can do it all. I have considerable advantages in comparison, and that should be enought for a successful life.

  26. You know if everyone was gay, people can still have kids… You know, that whole surrogate mother thing and all.

    Not like these people are interested in real thought.

  27. “At the settling of an estate, just because an animal is mentioned in the will does not mean that that animal should be awarded a collection of Picasso paintings, a bank account, or a Bentley. For, over time, that is where all this leads”

    Is he saying a gay partner should not be allowed to inherit from his spouse?

    1. Ergo, losers elect losers, eh?

      A lot of unreflective, intellectually non-curious people across The Fruited Plain would consider the Venerable Honorable Mr. Huckabee at least not a loser by virtue of having won a state-wide popularity contest, and having acheived some substantial financial security as a media outlet bloviator, but would consider a public school teacher, for example, a “loser.”

  28. I would take no moral guidance from an ass like Mike Huckabee because of this:


    > “The Huckster’s son seems to be a real winner and his father tried to cover up his sick, twisted behavior — the same kind of behavior that landed former NFL star Michael Vick in prison.”

    (Sorry about the mention of the d-g. Apparently the Hucksters care much less for them than even you!)

    1. Not an unusual result for a good christian upbringing.

      Huckabee should have paid more attention to his son instead of his self righteousness campaign. Typical. That right there should cause any sensible person to question anything he has to say about how people should behave or live their lives. People are so fucking stupid. I despair.

    1. Ha ha I forgot about that episode. What would Huckabee do if he knew he shook Rick Mercer’s hand and he’s (gasp!) gay!

  29. At the settling of an estate, just because an animal is mentioned in the will does not mean that that animal should be awarded a collection of Picasso paintings, a bank account, or a Bentley. For, over time, that is where all this leads.

    Well THAT’s been going on for years, but AIUI documented wills are not the issue; I think they could already be used to leave your stuff to someone not related to you by blood or marriage.

    The issue is to whom (or what) the stuff goes when you don’t have a will. And in that case, I can’t imagine any judge ruling that the cat gets it before the family.

  30. That last quote from Jerry Curry reminds me of the screed I read by David Klinghoffer (yes, that David Klinghoffer) which says basically that gay marriage will be the downfall of civilization because all the men will want to marry men, not women.

    How Women Will Be Hurt By Gay Marriage

    Come on out of the closet, David! We certainly won’t/can’t think less of you!

  31. Homosexuals want to fundamentally change American society and the heterosexual way of life

    This isn’t true at all.

    Gays want pretty much what anyone else wants.

    And they want bigots and haters like Jerry Curry to go away and leave them alone. The law is now on their side, not the side of the Jerry Currys.

  32. Jerry Curry:

    If every American adopted this kind of lifestyle, a hundred years from now America would cease to exist, because during that period no children would be born.

    If everyone adopted Jerry Curry’s lifestyle or that of any minister or priest, in a hundred years, our civilization would have collapsed.

    These guys don’t contribute anything whatsoever to our society. All they do is consume resources produced by the thinkers, creators, or workers of the USA and turn it into hate and gibberish.

  33. Jerry Ralph Curry, one of the lunatics that sees running the asylum that was Iraq in similarly crazy terms: http://curryforamerica.com/War%20is%20Hell.htm

    “If a terrorist fires at our soldiers with a rifle, they should return fire with a machinegun. If they fire at us with a rocket launcher, we return fire with a tank gun.”

    I guess he’d approve of the attack reported here then: http://www.collateralmurder.com/

    As with many of the religious right he cherry picks and misrepresents. On Guantanamo and torture he refers to Websters for a definition and sees that it means physical abuse, with examples. “None of that happened to prisoners at either Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo.” He omits part of the definition: anguish of body or mind.

  34. I am at the point where I approach homophobes like creationists. Some of the rank and file may be naive, indoctrinated drones, but the loud, vocal, public ones have been corrected on their errors of fact(ignorance) and logic(stupidity) so often that when they persist in their error-filled statements, they can be assumed to be either evil or insane. And I assume malevolence over mental health disorder.

    It doesn’t surprise me one bit that the homophobes, the misogynists, the monotheists, and the war-mongers are all one in the same overlapping group. They can’t quite process the ideas of individual autonomy and consent.

  35. I seem to remember that Huckabee is a Creationist so one has to doubt his sanity, though he is in the company of almost 50% of Americans. Concerning the snake, don’t forget that before Adam’s sin snakes had legs and could talk, so were more marriagable.

    1. If they could talk they would have to have a human like larynx & vocal cords – that would look strange unless they were actuall humans & not snakes at all.

      Come to think of it, if the ‘serpent’ persuades Adam & Eve to eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good & evil, that implys that they had NO knowledge of good or evil before eating it, & therefore were guiltless…?

  36. I always thought that the class of comments which mention a slippery slope leading to marriage with ducks or snakes were clumsy attempts to answer the question I have asked: if my own marriage is worthwhile in & of itself, how can it be devalued if two men in CA or two women in MA also use the same term when they solemnify their bond together?
    It is not a syllogism with some steps omitted, it is just a bad attempt at reductio ad absurdam.

  37. What’s the problem even if it does lead to a “slippery slope” of humans marrying other animals?

    For example, Madame Vastra is really rather nice, although I guess I don’t stand a chance with her for reasons other than her being a reptile.

    Who would have thought even 10 years ago that prime-time British Christmas Day TV would feature an inter-species lesbian couple?

  38. “If every American adopted this kind of lifestyle, a hundred years from now America would cease to exist, because during that period no children would be born.”

    Is he suddenly going to become gay? Does he really think or believe that if gay marriage or polygamy is allowed that everyone in the entire country will “adopt” one of those lifestyles? Obviously he has not studies even the most elementary biology. People don’t adopt a homosexual lifestyle. Either you are or you aren’t.

    1. Furthermore, as long as there are both males and females children will and can be born. Maybe a lot more children where polygamy is concerned. And as far as gay marriage is concerned, what are they going to suddenly ban artificial insemination and surrogacy?

  39. “Should SCOTUS actually declare homosexuality a civil right, it logically follows that polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality would one day also be declared a civil right by the Court.”

    I don’t see that the second and third logically follow, but the first certainly does. Of course, sexual relations with more than one partner are legal in many countries, but no country which has homosexual marriage confers any benefits on polyandrous people.

    Sadly, in a move to make themselves more respectable, some gay and lesbian advocates of homosexual marriage have distanced themselves from people whose sexuality is “even more bizarre”. Rather, they should recognized that polyandrous people are in the same situation monogamous homosexual people have been for a while (at least in more enlightened countries): the sexual relationship itself is not illegal, but neither does it reap any benefits similar to those of marriage nor is it generally accepted in society.

    Was allowing women to wear trousers a slippery slope to miniskirts, hot pants and (in some cases) even nudity? Yes. Was this a bad thing? No.

  40. “With coercion, peer pressure, unequal power relationships, violence, and general disrespect of women being a large part of why polygamy (and perhaps polyandry) tends to not work out very well,”

    To be fair, in most places at most times, this is how monogamous heterosexual marriage has been as well. The litmus test for determining whether acceptance of polygamy is good or not is whether polygyny and polyandry are both accepted.

    Also, in practice polygyny still exists in many societies. What about Marilyn Monroe and JFK? The rock star with 1000 groupies? Men with more than one wife and family (Jacques Cousteau, Francois Mitterand)? Men who divorce then marry younger women while their divorced wives don’t remarry?

    As Steven Pinker points out, the reason polygyny has been opposed in more enlightened societies is not because it is bad for women (in his words, most women would rather be the mistress of JFK than the sole wife of Bozo the Clown), but because it is bad for the men who don’t have any wife (obviously an unstable social situation—for another reason, namely selective abortion, this is happening in Asia now).

  41. I actually fully expect polygamy to be legalized in the next 30 years, but this follows more with the idea that what happens between consenting adults is their own business, on the other hand abusing children or animals is what liberals are moving further FROM not closer to.

  42. Mike Huckabee embarrasses himself over gay marriage, as does the Christian Post « Why Evolution Is True, ¿Puedes explicarnos màs?, me resulta insterense esta articulo. Saludos.

  43. “Homosexuals want to fundamentally change American society and the heterosexual way of life.”

    Sure, I can’t wait to use my new powers of marriage to alter the very fabric of existence.

  44. I love the 5 people in robes’ bit, but understand.

    I spent every Sunday morning of my childhood listening to people in robes and they didn’t half come out with some crap.

    1. The robes (and incense) are a relic from the pre-christian era when people worshipped nature, not gods who want to control you. A much better way IMHO.

  45. “May God forgive us all.”

    “Jesus wept.”

    The Honorable Venerable Reverend Mr. Huckabee, possessed as he putatively is with a unique and direct line of supernatural communication, is from and of the Southern Baptist tradition in which I grew up, the collective XY genotype of which possessing a monumental sense of self-regard and -assurance.

    I wonder what else would or should prompt him to utter such presumptuous pearls? For starters:

    The burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno?

    Galileo’s near brush with torture and death?

    Slavery (and later Jim Crow-era “strange fruit”) and women treated as chattel, in The Land of Amuricun “Exceptionalism”?

  46. I had a letter to the editor published in a New Jersey newspaper back in 2007 that is relevant to this column. Unfortunately, my 2007 opinion about Huckabee remains relevant in 2013!



    Disqualified for office

    I don’t know if it is more hilarious or terrifying that a sizable minority of Republicans are growing to love former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. He seems like a nice guy and has an interesting sense of humor. But any candidate who proclaims that he doesn’t believe in evolution is displaying profound scientific ignorance and is therefore unsuitable for the presidency. Does he really believe that the universe was created 6,000 years ago, as he was presumably taught in his training to be a Baptist minister?

    The world has enormous problems that will require deep, sustained critical thinking. If America is to be part of the solution, we need a president who understands, appreciates and supports the tremendous advances being made in science; what we don’t need is someone who feels free to ignore scientific facts if they conflict with his religious beliefs.

    The past several administrations have warned against establishment of theology-based governments in countries like Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. I see no reason our country, established on the basis of separation of church and state, should be any different.

    1. Well said! Glad you’re writing Letters to the Editor. I have to think that someone out there in the reading audience is feeling more comfortable about changing their thinking after reading that.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *