California overturns ban on same-sex marriage

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

(WASHINGTON) — Mike Huckabee, a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2012, says the effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry is comparable to legalizing incest, polygamy and drug use.
Huckabee also told college journalists last week that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt. "Children are not puppies," he said.
Huckabee visited The College of New Jersey in Ewing, N.J., last Wednesday to speak to the Student Government Association. He also was interviewed by a campus news magazine, The Perspective, which published an article on Friday. (See a TIME photo essay on Mike Huckabee)
Huckabee told the interviewer that not every group's interests deserve to be accommodated, if their lifestyle is outside of what he called "the ideal."
"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?" he said, according to a transcript of the interview. See "Portraits of the Tea Party Movement."

The 2008 presidential hopeful and former Arkansas governor also said that deciding which lifestyles should be accommodated and which ones should not creates a slippery slope. "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. "I don't have to prove that marriage is a man and a woman in a relationship for life," he said. "They have to prove that two men can have an equally definable relationship called marriage, and somehow that that can mean the same thing."
Since the magazine published the interview, Huckabee's remarks have attracted considerable attention on the Web.
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." He also said he thought the college magazine was sensationalizing his "well-known and hardly unusual views of same-sex marriage."

***

First things first, do share your weight loss secrets with us...

[Sean]

Wow. Huckabee just lost some of my respect. I mean, I already disagree with much of his ideology, but I always found him to be a pretty respectable guy in the way he spoke about virtually any subject. But this stuff is pretty low-brow.

Incidentally, I looked up more on this, and found an article that starts exactly as the one you copied here does, jOHN, but it also then goes on to include:

"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.'

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

He also advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, saying it was necessary to confine 'carriers of this plague.'

As governor, Huckabee supported an Arkansas policy that prevented same-sex couples from serving as foster parents. On gay marriage, he said in an interview, 'Marriage has historically never meant anything other than a man and a woman. It has never meant two men, two women, a man and his pet, or a man and a whole herd of pets.'"

[Deckard]

Huckabee told the interviewer that not every group's interests deserve to be accommodated, if their lifestyle is outside of what he called "the ideal" ... The 2008 presidential hopeful and former Arkansas governor also said that deciding which lifestyles should be accommodated and which ones should not creates a slippery slope. "Why do you get to choose that two men are OK but one man and three women aren't OK?" he asked.

What lifestyle is he talking about?
And what precisely is it that he fears from this lifestyle?
And does it pose a greater danger to society than a lifestyle of total celibacy?

(Excuse the language, but a nice big FUCK YOU goes out to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone on that one.)

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Yeah, I'm just waiting for the environmentalists to blame us for global warming next. Damn flamers. And then Paris Hilton's gonna say, 'yeah, they're hot.' & it will be official.

I'm, like, all depressed. Can someone get me some weed for my medical condition?


Party on guys, WE CAN ALWAYS BLAME THE GAYS!:

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Deckard

And does it pose a greater danger to society than a lifestyle of total celibacy?

(Excuse the language, but a nice big FUCK YOU goes out to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone on that one.)

I was just coming here to post the same quote from Bertone. Unbelievable. For those who haven't read it yet, here's the quote from the Pope's right hand man:

"Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and pedophilia but many others have demonstrated, I was told recently, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia."

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone

"Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and pedophilia but many others have demonstrated, I was told recently, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia."

One problem with this is that saying "there's a relationship" between homosexuality and paedophilia tells us nothing about the nature of the (supposed) relationship. Does one make the other more likely? Which one? Or are both made more likely by a third factor? And a fourth? It seems to me he's falling into that classic trap of seeing an apparent "correlation" but refusing to analyse it further because it's enough as it is to confirm his prejudices.

Of course that's assuming we can trust the source/methodology of this research in the first place. I have no problem with acknowledging genuine data, but right now I have my doubts about it.

In terms of the cases specifically involving the Catholic church, I've already read several odious posts remarking on why so many of the victims are boys rather than girls, how this reveals the truth about the 'connection' between paedophilia and homosexuality, and how the "PC brigade" won't let anyone admit it (ignoring the fact that their pathetic little comments have been published by the national newspapers). But the point is, surely it's relevant here that male priests are usually in charge of boys rather than girls, and that male priests (men) are more likely to sexually abuse than nuns (women)? Surely it's no surprise that child sexual abuse in the Catholic church will involve more boys than girls? Are people deliberately ignoring these factors?

Finally - pulling figures completely out my ass to make another point here - but if, for the sake of argument, 1% of heterosexuals were found to be inclined to paedophilia, compared with 4% of homosexuals, then yes we could bleat on about how homosexuals are "more inclined" to paedophilia than heterosexuals. But does that 3% difference make a strong moral case against homosexuality? Really?

And finally (again) - remind me again, why should anyone take moral guidance on homosexuality from celibate frocked men in an institution possibly swarming with sexual abuse? What a friggin joke.

Publicity stunt or not, Dawkins and Hitchens have my support in their plans to arrest the Pontiff when he steps foot in Britain. Just a shame no-one else was willing to step in and do it.

[chuck]

Originally Posted by Sean

"Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and pedophilia but many others have demonstrated, I was told recently, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia."

Oh come on.

You can't be hating on the Cardinal.

He's only telling you what he was told - he's a busy man - he doesn't have time to actually understand these things.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Deckard

. . . . Finally - pulling figures completely out my ass to make another point here - but if, for the sake of argument, 1% of heterosexuals were found to be inclined to paedophilia, compared with 4% of homosexuals, then yes we could bleat on about how homosexuals are "more inclined" to paedophilia than heterosexuals. But does that 3% difference make a strong moral case against homosexuality? Really?

. . . .

It really is much more simple than this. And it has nothing to do with homosexuality nor heterosexuality, but sexuality in general biological functioning of the male human form. As always, I'm just waiting for the right moment...

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Publicity stunt or not, Dawkins and Hitchens have my support in their plans to arrest the Pontiff when he steps foot in Britain. Just a shame no-one else was willing to step in and do it.

I'm really hoping this actually happens. I doubt it will, but this molestation problem has been going on for a very, very long time, and with far too few consequences for the people who have perpetrated the actual crimes and been complicit in it all. I can't think of a clearer way to convey the message that no one will be excused for this kind of disgusting behavior - even the Pope.

It's just a shame that the effort is being led by high-profile atheists. I can already hear people defending the church and the Pope saying that it's all just motivated by atheist animosity towards religion, and not by wanting legitimate justice for sexual crimes perpetrated against children by the Catholic Church.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Sean

I'm really hoping this actually happens. I doubt it will, but this molestation problem has been going on for a very, very long time, and with far too few consequences for the people who have perpetrated the actual crimes and been complicit in it all. I can't think of a clearer way to convey the message that no one will be excused for this kind of disgusting behavior - even the Pope.

Yes, and I really don't understand the media inertia around this. People should be furious.

I thought Dawkins made a good point when he drew this analogy:

Suppose the British secretary of state for schools received, from a local education authority, a reliable report of a teacher tying up his pupils and raping them. Imagine that, instead of turning the matter over to the police, he had simply moved the offender from school to school, where he repeatedly raped other children. That would be bad enough. But now suppose that he justified his decision in terms such as these:

"Although I regard the arguments in favour of prosecution, presented by the local education authority, as of grave significance, I nevertheless deem it necessary to consider the good of the government and the party, together with that of the offending teacher. And I am also unable to make light of the detriment that prosecuting the offender can provoke among voters, particularly regarding the young age of the offender."

And what did I read this morning? A piece on why the Vatican media strategy is failing.

Imagine a similar puff piece had any other individual or organisation been caught doing such things.