1. Religion & Spirituality

Discuss in my forum

Austin Cline

Mike Huckabee: Gay Marriage will End Civilization

By December 18, 2007

Follow me on:

Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee
Photo: Alex Wong / Getty Images
Among all the Republicans vying for their party's nomination to be president, Mike Huckabee is the one most in line with the desires, fears, and agenda of "the base." He's not quite the "perfect" candidate for the Christian Right and Christian Nationalism (he's actually has a strong inclination towards economic populism, for example), but he's far more in tune with that movement than any of the others — and he actually believes it all, in contrast to those who seem to be more interested in the rhetoric. In fact, many "establishment" conservatives seem quite upset that the evangelical base which they used for so long may now get a candidate of their own choosing.

In the primaries, being a "true believer" like that (or just being perceived as one) can be a great asset because it means that those most committed to the party and most likely to vote in primaries are also likely to be his biggest supporters. In the general election, though, they may be his only supporters. You can't appeal to moderate conservatives, economic conservatives, and independents with a strong Christian Nationalist background and agenda. That candidate just ends up looking nutty; a perfect case in point is Mike Huckabee's record and comments on gays and gay marriage.

Consider these comments made by Huckabee in a recent interview:

Ten years ago, it would have been unimaginable to have gay marriage even in liberal Massachusetts. Now it’s there.
I don’t think the issue’s about being against gay marriage. It’s about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that’s important. You have to have a basic family structure. There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived. So there is a sense in which, you know, it’s one thing to say if people want to live a different way, that’s their business. But when you want to redefine what family means or what marriage means, then that’s an issue that should require some serious and significant debate in the public square. And if you look at states that have had it on the ballot—I know in our state it was a 70-percent-against issue. Most states are similar to that.

Source: GQ [emphasis added]

So, rewriting what marriage and family mean leads to the end of civilization, and legalizing gay marriage will therefore lead to the end of Western Civilization? That's a pretty dramatic statement. I wonder if Mike Huckabee can name just one civilization which has ended entirely or even largely due to their rewriting the nature of marriage and family? That's a question which many critics would like to ask Huckabee and it's a question the interviewer should have asked — with such a dramatic claim, Huckabee should have been able to provide several examples to support his case, never mind one.

I've got a second and perhaps more illuminating question: can Mike Huckabee provide any examples of any societies which have redefined the nature of marriage or family? There are many, of course, but I am very curious if Huckabee can identify any of those shifts in time. If he can, then that means he knows of marriage and family being redefined without civilization ending; if he can't, then he is completely ignorant of how marriage and family have changed in nature over the course of human history — and this means he shouldn't be commenting on the matter at all.

I'll offer a couple of examples of changes that have occurred in the nature of marriage and family over time: polygamy has given way to monogamy, wives as property without rights have given way to wives as equal partners, and marriage for the sake of property and survival has given way to marriage for love and personal fulfillment. Quite a few more equally significant changes could be listed and discussed, but those three are enough. All of them certainly led to, or were part of, substantial changes in society as a whole — and very good changes, too, many will agree. Civilization certainly didn't end either as a result of or even in connection to those developments.

So what reason is there to think that the same would occur if gay marriage were legalized? What's significant here is that all the changes were, as far as I know, opposed by religiously orthodox, conservative, and traditionalist forces — just as those forces are opposing gay marriage. The pattern is both consistent and predictable.

But if the younger generation keeps going the way it’s going, it could be 50 percent in ten years.
It could.

I just wonder what you’d say to the gay couple who says, “Well, we want to live this way, and my partner can’t come visit me in a nursing home.”
He can with a power of attorney. That’s the fallacy, that this requires some new definition of marriage. It’s simply not the case.

So why can’t you call it a civil union?
Because it really is a precursor toward marriage. Once the government says this relationship is in essence similar to or equal to a marriage—we’re not going to call it that, but that’s what it is—and you grant it the same basic rights as marriage, then you’ve effectively done it.

If anyone wonders whether Huckabee's position on gay marriage is motivated more by concern for the semi-historical form of marriage we currently have or a deep-seated anti-gay animus, just consider how he reacted to AIDS in the 1990s:

In 1992, Huckabee wrote, "If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague."

"It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents."

Source: Yahoo!

So, Mike Huckabee believed that people with AIDS should be quarantined and that too much money was being spent on researching the disease. Wait, what? Even if we accepted as plausible his excuse that people suffering from a "plague" should be isolated from the rest of the population because the dangers are so serious, how can that be squared with the idea that it's so unimportant that it doesn't need so much money to research it?

If the threat is big enough for quarantine, it's big enough for significant research; if it's not worth so much government attention on research, it's certainly not enough of a threat to warrant large-scale quarantining of victims. I get the impression that Huackbee would have preferred to see AIDS patients die isolated, alone, and quickly.

Generally speaking, do you think it’s fair for people to take a candidate’s theological convictions into consideration at the polling place?
As long as everyone gets the same scrutiny. That’s what I don’t think is fair: I’ve been given an unusual level of scrutiny. No candidate gets quizzed to the depth that I do about faith.

Mike Huckabee has a point, but he's wrong on every count here. It may sound fair to give the same scrutiny to every candidate's theological convictions, but it's not necessarily fair. A candidate who never mentions religion, never implies that their religion is a positive force in their decision-making, and never panders to religion shouldn't be subjected to extensive scrutiny on their theological beliefs. To put it simply: if they don't make an issue out of it, then others shouldn't.

If another candidate in the same race does do all the above, however, then why should their theological convictions not be subjected to close scrutiny? It's not fair to treat two candidates the same if they are behaving in starkly different ways — and it's not even very honest of Huckabee to be decrying scrutiny of his religion when he appears to be using the question of religion to attack Mitt Romney in Iowa.

Huckabee's television commercials, where he tells voters "Faith doesn't just influence me, it really defines me," proclaim him a "Christian leader." Imagine if such a commercial were run in a race where his main rival were a Jew or an atheist — the subtext of "who's the Christian in this race" would be an obvious attempt at religious bigotry. The same is true when the rival is a Mormon because he knows most conservative Christians regard Mormonism as a heresy.

Huckabee is doing much more than the other Republicans to emphasize his religion. He wants to tell voters that his being a "Christian leader" is very important, but when specific questions come along about his Christian beliefs he dodges them by insisting that he's not trying to run a "theological school." None of the other candidates are getting enough scrutiny based on the degree to which they are trying to use religion, but it's fair for Huckabee to get more scrutiny on the basis of his extensive use of religion.

Comments
December 18, 2007 at 1:01 pm
(1) Ron says:

To appoint a man of this stripe to guard our constitution would be like appointing the fox to guard the chicken house.

December 18, 2007 at 2:37 pm
(2) 411314 says:

“Even if we accepted as plausible his excuse that people suffering from a “plague” should be isolated from the rest of the population because the dangers are so serious, how can that be squared with the idea that it’s so unimportant that it doesn’t need so much money to research it?

If the threat is big enough for quarantine, it’s big enough for significant research…”

Where did he say anything about the amount of money that should be spent on research?

“…he appears to be using the question of religion to attack Mitt Romney in Iowa.”

He is? I must have missed that. What has he been saying?

December 18, 2007 at 3:00 pm
(3) GabrielAmerican says:

“There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived.”

This is exactly the sort of historical ignorance that convinces the credulous masses in America to continue with their delusional belief that they are the apex of civilization. What about Scandinavian countries whose attitudes towards family and marriage are quite a bit different than those here in the States? Far from descending into chaos and failing as nations, these countries are amongst the most peaceful, stable, successful, and generous on the planet.
Huckabee is displaying the myopic vision that so plagues his kind. Perhaps, a bit of travel would do him good. Let him go to Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and see what the world of future looks like.
If he wants to live in an antiquated ignorant land he can rent a cave in Northern Pakistan and trade his daughter for a nice rug.

December 18, 2007 at 3:00 pm
(4) Austin Cline says:

Where did he say anything about the amount of money that should be spent on research?

From the news article: “In light of the extraordinary funds already being given for AIDS research, it does not seem that additional federal spending can be justified,” Huckabee wrote. “An alternative would be to request that multimillionaire celebrities, such as Elizabeth Taylor (,) Madonna and others who are pushing for more AIDS funding be encouraged to give out of their own personal treasuries increased amounts for AIDS research.”

He is? I must have missed that. What has he been saying?

From the end of this article: “Huckabee’s television commercials, where he tells voters “Faith doesn’t just influence me, it really defines me,” proclaim him a “Christian leader.” Imagine if such a commercial were run in a race where his main rival were a Jew or an atheist — the subtext of “who’s the Christian in this race” would be an obvious attempt at religious bigotry. The same is true when the rival is a Mormon because he knows most conservative Christians regard Mormonism as a heresy.”

December 18, 2007 at 3:18 pm
(5) randomguy says:

before i comment i want to you to note that i do not care whether or not homosexual people marry. that is their own decision and their own lives.
and i am not trying to use my beliefs to force them to change their lifestyles.

however austin you asked:
I wonder if Mike Huckabee can name just one civilization which has ended entirely or even largely due to their rewriting the nature of marriage and family?

i remember when reading Juvenal he went on about the amount of sexual deviances and whatnot that he described in his work. and he attributed the decline of the Roman nation to that.

December 18, 2007 at 3:31 pm
(6) Austin Cline says:

i remember when reading Juvenal he went on about the amount of sexual deviances and whatnot that he described in his work. and he attributed the decline of the Roman nation to that.

1. So you “remember” Juvenal saying this — you can’t even say for sure that he did?

2. Why should anyone think that Juvenal’s opinion on this matter is even reliable, much less accurate?

3. Is there anyone else — anyone reliable — who has argued for this claim? If so, upon what do they base these arguments?

4. Rome was still quite strong at the time that Juvenal was writing, so it’s difficult to credit anything he says about a “decline” that would — at best — barely have been underway.

5. These so-called “sexual deviances” were not a “rewriting” of the “nature of marriage and family” for two reasons. First, they involved sexual behavior rather than the nature of marriage and family. Second, the behaviors which Christians complained about had existed for a long time and thus were not a new “rewriting” of anything.

December 18, 2007 at 3:52 pm
(7) tracieh says:

>“There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived.”

In my opinion, this statement is meaningless. I recall studying cultures that practiced polyandry, polygamy, monogamy, open homosexuality, pederasty, where children born to young women prior to marriage were proof of her fertility (and thus made her more desirable), where women who could be shown to not be virgins prior to marriage were considered ruined, where marriages were contracted for set periods of time (not considered as life-time unions, cultures where children were sent to be reared by friends and relatives as a general rule (as opposed to their parents), and on and on and on.

I guess my question then is: What does marriage and family “mean”? I have seen nothing to indicate it’s not purely contextual and socially defined.

December 18, 2007 at 3:57 pm
(8) Ned B. says:

In relation to Huckabee’s (and many others’) ideas about marriage and families, there doesn’t seem to be one main form of marriage or family that has been similar in all or mosst civilizations. Perhaps Huckabee should take a good cultural anthropology or sociology of the family course. I sometimes teach our dept.’s cultural anthropology course.

When we cover marriage, family and kinship, it is obvious that viable family and marriage forms are to be found in a great variety around the world. There are patterns. Certain types of family forms are more likely in certain kinds of cultural settings (e.g. patrilineal and patriarchal arrangements are predominant in pastoral societies). But many of these forms of family and marriage that are very different from ours have been found in societies (e.g. matrilineal kinship in the Navaho and Trobriand Islanders)whose family forms appear to have been stable for a considerable period (at least several centuries).

The same is true of a variety of sexual practices. For example, homosexual behavior (picked here because thats the one everyone seems to be discussing) ranges from being taboo to being nearly obligatory (e.g. if Huckabee had lived in Greece of 5th. century bce, he would almost certainly had a number of homosexual affairs by the time he was say 30). In fact, in the data base of societies compiled by the cultural anthropologist Murdock in the late 1940s, only roughly a third of these societies seem to prohibit or strongly disapprove of homosexual behavoir.

If Huckabee wants to oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds that it always or nearly always leads to societal dissolution or even major problems, he is contradicted by all of the evidence of which I am aware.

December 18, 2007 at 4:01 pm
(9) DeeGee says:

And should we forget about how interracial marriage was prohibited in most of the country in the last century, but now is allowed everywhere, thanks to the Warren Court’s Loving v. Virginia case in 1967. That decision allowed people to marry who could not have done so before in many states.

Huckabee is one scary dude. He should run for Pope, not president.

December 18, 2007 at 7:45 pm
(10) Gotweirdness says:

I don’t think Huckabee is Catholic so I doubt he could run for Pope. Still, it wouldn’t surprise me if some group of extremely conservative Christians planted a bomb on Huckabee’s doorstep because he is a blasphemer for not following their interpretation of the Bible. Its always funny how schisms are greater between sects within one religion since every sect assumes it has the one “true” interpretation of the the holy scripture.

December 18, 2007 at 8:30 pm
(11) Patrick Quigley says:

I don’t think the issue’s about being against gay marriage. It’s about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that’s important.

What a nasty bit of framing. He isn’t advocating for “traditional marriage,” he is advocating for the exclusivity of “traditional marriage.” Logically that includes being against gay marriage.

The implication here is that supporting same-sex marriage and supporting opposite-sex marriage are incompatible positions. Are there any advocates of same-sex marriage who also want to eliminate heterosexual marriage? If so, I’ve never heard about them. But by phrasing the question this way, he raises the boogeyman of a “gay agenda” to eliminate heterosexuality.

And he really isn’t supporting “traditional marriage” either unless he plans to repeal all of those divorce laws.

On further reflection, maybe that is his plan.

December 18, 2007 at 8:48 pm
(12) Patrick Quigley says:

Good point DeeGee. The return of traditional marriage would require restoring the laws against miscegenation. Of course there was a congressman this past year that complained that we changed marriage once before and shouldn’t make that mistake again. (It’s driving me crazy that I can’t remember who that was.) Maybe Huckabee has the same opinion and would try to repeal the right to marry someone with a different amount of melanin.

December 18, 2007 at 8:51 pm
(13) Patrick Quigley says:

Gotweirdness:I don’t think Huckabee is Catholic so I doubt he could run for Pope.

He is not Catholic. He is a Southern Baptist Minister. Interestingly he claims to have a degree in theology, but it apparently is actually in religion, which isn’t quite the same thing.

December 18, 2007 at 8:55 pm
(14) Patrick Quigley says:

411314:“…he appears to be using the question of religion to attack Mitt Romney in Iowa.”

He is? I must have missed that. What has he been saying?

Well how about his “innocent” question posed to a reporter after Romney’s recent speech on his religion. Huckabee asked “don’t Mormons believe that Satan and Jesus were brothers?”

December 18, 2007 at 10:12 pm
(15) Ron says:

(Huckabee asked “don’t Mormons believe that Satan and Jesus were brothers)?”
And this is the difference between the religious mind and the non-religious mind. In my uneducated non-religious mind all questions must remain just that. questions. Until there are verifiable answers

December 19, 2007 at 1:24 am
(16) Gotweirdness says:

“And this is the difference between the religious mind and the non-religious mind. In my uneducated non-religious mind all questions must remain just that. questions. Until there are verifiable answers”

Shsssh, don’t tell anyone that the answer is 42.

December 19, 2007 at 12:05 pm
(17) Eric says:

“i remember when reading Juvenal he went on about the amount of sexual deviances and whatnot that he described in his work. and he attributed the decline of the Roman nation to that.”

Even if you could show that certain Roman sexual behaviors correlated with the decline of the Roman Empire (which I don’t think is possible), you’d still need to show the causal link between the behaviors and the decline. Simply pointing out that Romans engaged in certain sexual behaviors and that their empire collapsed is not enough.

December 19, 2007 at 12:43 pm
(18) Mirage says:

Even if you could show that certain Roman sexual behaviors correlated with the decline of the Roman Empire (which I don’t think is possible), you’d still need to show the causal link between the behaviors and the decline.

…and even then, it would prove nothing, because this is about family structure, not sexual behavior.

I am sick of all the ignorance that has been used to attack and demerit gay people for so long under these tyrannical religions. The effort to keep us from our natural right to marry and have families is nothing short of evil and fueled by hatred.

Simply put, when the KKK agrees with you, YOU ARE WRONG.

– k8e

December 19, 2007 at 4:19 pm
(19) Simon says:

Here’s a comic from almost four years ago which answers Huckabee and his ilk fairly succinctly.

http://dir.salon.com/story/comics/tomo/2004/03/01/tomo/

Same sex marriage was introduced over here in Spain a couple of years ago, and besides slightly longer waiting lists at the registry office, nothing happened. No downfall of civilisation, no-one demanding the right to marry their goldfish – nothing. Just before the legislation was passed, the conservatives knowing that they couldn’t stop it (they didn’t have the numbers in Parliament and all reliable studies showed overwhelming public support) they started claiming that they had no problem with same-sex civil unions; as long as it wasn’t called marriage!!

The same happened when divorce was legalised here. Doomsday predictions from the conservatives beforehand, but society very anti-climactically carried on normally afterwards. When the conservatives got back into power, they made no attempt to revoke the law. And if you believe the polls, they’re the ones who most take advantage of it.

Likewise, no attempt will be made to revoke same-sex marriage when they get back in. There has already been a few conservative politicians marry their same-sex partners. There have been a few grumbles, but generally it has already been accepted as fact and forgotten about.

The grave threat to civilisation now is proposed changes to abortion laws…

December 19, 2007 at 8:48 pm
(20) CrypticLife says:

Ron, I don’t think it’s a “non-religious” mind that doesn’t interpret Huckster’s question as an attack. Atheists can certain recognize when someone is making a backhanded religious appeal, and his “question” (because it wasn’t really a question) certainly qualifies.

Huckabee could be more frightening than a third George Bush term.

December 19, 2007 at 9:00 pm
(21) Ron says:

(Huckabee could be more frightening than a third George Bush term).
COULD??? (backhanded religious appeal) I recognized it as such. but, my point was, which superstition is the most credible? That of Huckabee, or Romney?

December 19, 2007 at 9:24 pm
(22) Ron says:

CrypticLife. OK. I thought it through now. I was failing to see it from Huckleberry’s perspective!

December 19, 2007 at 11:30 pm
(23) John says:

Given the revelations about the secret sex lives of conservative politicians and religious leaders, I wonder if their real fear is that they will no longer have an excuse not to divorce their wives and marry their gay lovers if gay marriage becomes legal.

December 20, 2007 at 12:50 am
(24) Gotweirdness says:

Funny thing about the religious conservatives, they’ll attack anything or anyone that doesn’t fit their moral values. Yet they do a complete 180° and engage in the very practices they blame others for.

December 20, 2007 at 11:29 pm
(25) FriedTofu says:

Chad-

Sex might practically only be to ensure that a species doesn’t go extinct, but I sincerely doubt that the human race will be extinct from underpopulation any time soon. Major death from overpopulation, maybe, but I fail to see how homosexuals not reproducing would in any way hasten *this* outcome.

December 20, 2007 at 11:40 pm
(26) John says:

Chad,

For you the point of sex might be to “repeoduce”, but for me the whole point of sex is pleasure. The fact that we get reproduction from sex so our species doesn’t go extinct is just a bonus.

December 21, 2007 at 8:24 am
(27) Ron says:

John. You are not to have sex for pleasure. Ask any priest.

December 21, 2007 at 9:51 am
(28) beloved zappa says:

To redefine marriage and the family is to destroy your society? Well… did the industrial age, the demise of the extended family, the rise of the nuclear family, day-care (mothers going to work) or even the mass migration to the cities and industrial centers destroy society?!

December 21, 2007 at 11:16 am
(29) ee says:

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/14889411/detail.html

It is trully amazing how far policing sex has gone

December 21, 2007 at 12:48 pm
(30) John says:

Ron,

Don’t you mean, “You are not to have sex for pleasure with any consenting adult. Ask any priest?”

December 21, 2007 at 3:18 pm
(31) Ron says:

Given the church’s attitude towards pleasure, I am amazed that a slice of pecan pie with cool-whip on it hasn’t been declared to be sinful.

December 21, 2007 at 4:28 pm
(32) John Hanks says:

Anybody who thinks the clergy hold up civilization has a soft spot for Hitler as well.

December 23, 2007 at 7:58 am
(33) Pete1141 says:

Has anyone pointed out to Ted Bumblebee that “being gay” is not compulsory it’s optional ,at least that is so in the UK at the moment .

January 3, 2008 at 1:48 am
(34) Steven Parker says:

The world has truly gone mad. How did a man like George Bush ever steal the highest office in the world? Now just look at the sad line-up of thse who would sit in the oval office next. Huckabee by far is the most scary and if Bush could steal the presidency then so could this maniac. When heterosexuals stop divorcing each other at the rate of 4 out of every five marriages then I will at least listen to this sanctitiy of marriage argument. But when I know several lesbian biker couples who manage to stay in a loving relationship for decades when their straight counterparts cannot make it past 4 years then I know the thinking is messed up big time.

January 23, 2008 at 9:11 pm
(35) nunya says:

I think that people should marry who they want to marry. End of story. I also think that Huckabee is just ignorant for most of the things he has said. He basically said that people with AIDS should be put onto their own little island where they cant spread the ‘plague’. Does he think that the world is going to become like it did in the movie ‘I Am Legend’? I think we should put him on his own very small island so he doesnt spread stupidity. Seriously.

March 5, 2008 at 2:52 pm
(36) jos76 says:

I’m shocked and disappointed that Huckabee would take money from struggling, hard-working Americans in order to fund his campaign. He said in his drop-out speech that it was…”the sacrifices of a truck driver in Michigan, of a housewife who sold her wedding ring on eBay and gave the contribution to the campaign, a janitor in Alabama who has a wife in a wheelchair who gave $20, not out of his abundance, but out of his poverty, so that our campaign could stay on the track.” In a bad economy, why would someone running for President take their money to fund a campaign that was clearly going to be fruitless? What would become of the economy if selfish Huckabee were President?
Jos76
http://www.jos76.wordpress.com

April 13, 2010 at 5:38 pm
(37) BP says:

With the exception of putting all people with AIDS in confinement, I agree with everything Huckabee says. How would any of us be here if Adam and Eve were GAY!!? Oh wait, I bet none of you believe in them? Ok, lets go another route. How would any of us be here if your mom and dad were gay? Gay is simply a person who never chose to grow up. Its really sad the way our Country and world is going. I’d vote for him to be president in a heart beat and I hope at least 51% of Americans do the same. Its about time we get someone with a Godly agenda, “Jesus” agenda, running this country. God knows, if we keep going the way we are it will be the end a peaceful society. The people wanting proof of his statements need to read the bible. All the proof you need is in it. Do what you want or who you want but dont try to change the values and laws that this county was founded on. People have the right to do what they want, they dont have the right to put their wrong doings into law to MAKE US see them as right. Its that simple. Its a right and wrong way of thinking. There are no gray areas and there are no exceptions. If being gay was normal and right then we wouldnt even be talking about it. Is it really that hard to see??????

April 13, 2010 at 6:00 pm
(38) Austin Cline says:

With the exception of putting all people with AIDS in confinement, I agree with everything Huckabee says.

Why do you disagree with that?

How would any of us be here if Adam and Eve were GAY!!? Oh wait, I bet none of you believe in them?

No, I don’t believe in fairy tales anymore.

Ok, lets go another route. How would any of us be here if your mom and dad were gay?

This question isn’t any more useful than asking how any of us would be here if our parents never met. Well, we wouldn’t be. So what? That doesn’t mean that there is something wrong or abnormal about two random people never meeting. There are untold billions of people who would exist today if their ancestors had met different people and married different people. But they didn’t. So, we have a different set of people alive today than we otherwise would.

So what?

Gay is simply a person who never chose to grow up.

So, when you were young you were gay?

Its really sad the way our Country and world is going.

Which direction is that and why is it “sad”?

I’d vote for him to be president in a heart beat and I hope at least 51% of Americans do the same. Its about time we get someone with a Godly agenda, “Jesus” agenda, running this country.

Why?

God knows, if we keep going the way we are it will be the end a peaceful society.

Why?

The people wanting proof of his statements need to read the bible. All the proof you need is in it.

Why do you consider it proof?

Do what you want or who you want but dont try to change the values and laws that this county was founded on.

Would that include slavery and no suffrage for women?

People have the right to do what they want, they dont have the right to put their wrong doings into law to MAKE US see them as right.

You mean, like interracial marriage and desegregation?

Its that simple. Its a right and wrong way of thinking. There are no gray areas and there are no exceptions.

And why do you assume you’re on the right side?

If being gay was normal and right then we wouldnt even be talking about it.

So, since people have debated interracial marriage and still debate interracial marriage, then it can’t be normal or right?

People debating being a Christian, so I guess that can’t be normal or right.

Is it really that hard to see??????

Yes.

March 4, 2012 at 12:58 am
(39) Herb says:

Sodom and Gomorrah to start with!!! Read your Bible!!! Rome also destroyed its owself with homosexuality among others!!!

May 15, 2012 at 5:01 pm
(40) abrom says:

Mike I agree with u, why should I suffer another sick sexual idea

May 17, 2012 at 10:38 am
(41) Austin Cline says:

Mike I agree with u, why should I suffer another sick sexual idea

The rest of us have to suffer sick religious ideas.

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.