Mike Huckabee is defending himself against — but not apologizing for — accusations of homophobia based on his New Yorker profile by explaining the difference between “icky” (which he didn’t say) and “ick factor,” which he did. His “use of the phrase ‘ick factor’ was as the established notion from within the Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Transgender (GLBT) community,” he says. “It was not an indication of personal aversion, but rather a reference to an established phrase used mostly from same-sex marriage advocates and militants – not one I created.” Mr. Huckabee is right in one sense: We do sometimes use the phrase, or a variation of it, but only when describing heteronormative fears about what happens when two people of the same sex lie down in bed together. Like Huckabee’s. But isn’t this just like Mike?
Last time he got called out for an idiotic comment about our community, he also blamed someone else for his word choice. When he compared tolerating gay marriage to tolerating drug use, Huckabee insisted a college reporter made him same that. We all know he was lying.
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
What a strange coincidence! The term I use when I see a picture of the two tons of not so much fun Shcmuckabee family is “ICKY”
[img]http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Huckabee%20family.jpg[/img]
slobone
Here’s the full quote from the New Yorker:
======
One afternoon in Jerusalem, while Huckabee was eating a chocolate croissant in the lounge of the Crowne Plaza Hotel, I asked him to explain his rationale for opposing gay rights. “I do believe that God created male and female and intended for marriage to be the relationship of the two opposite sexes,” he said. “Male and female are biologically compatible to have a relationship. We can get into the ick factor, but the fact is two men in a relationship, two women in a relationship, biologically, that doesn’t work the same.”
I asked him if he had any arguments that didn’t have to do with God or ickiness. “There are some pretty startling studies that show if you want to end poverty it’s not education and race, it’s monogamous marriage,” he said. “Many studies show that children who grow up in a healthy environment where they have both a mother and a father figure have both a healthier outlook and a different perspective from kids who don’t have the presence of both.”
In fact, a twenty-five-year study recently published by the American Academy of Pediatrics concluded that children brought up by lesbians were better adjusted than their peers. And, of course, nobody has been able to study how kids fare with married gay parents. “You know why?” Huckabee said. “Because no culture in the history of mankind has ever tried to redefine marriage.”
But in the Old Testament polygamy was commonplace. The early Christians considered marriage an arrangement for those without the self-discipline to live in chastity, as Christ did. Marriage was not deemed a sacrament by the Church until the twelfth century. And, before 1967, marriage was defined in much of the United States as a relationship between a man and a woman of the same race.
Regardless of the past, wouldn’t Huckabee be curious to know whether allowing gay people to marry had a positive or negative effect on children and society?
“No, not really. Why would I be?” he said, and laughed.
Because saying that something ought to be a certain way simply because that’s the way it supposedly has always been is an awful lot like saying “because we said so.” And Huckabee is supposed to be the guy who questions everything
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/28/100628fa_fact_levy?currentPage=all#ixzz0rgyP0jLG
========
I don’t know how to bold here, but one thing that jumps out at me (other than that he likes chocolate croissants) is where he says monogamous marriage is the best way to prevent poverty. Sorry, but isn’t that an argument FOR same-sex marriage?
As for the ick factor, can anybody really take that argument seriously when so many straight guys are obsessed with anal sex, bukakke, and other decidedly icky practices?
swarm
#2 “As for the ick factor, can anybody really take that argument seriously when so many straight guys are obsessed with anal sex, bukakke, and other decidedly icky practices?”
I’d go as far as to say “MOST straight guys”. Totally trufax. Including bottoming. Possibly a majority percentage even. j/s.
gilber
icky? poor guy,i’m sure he is one of those perverts that like to fuck the tits of his “other half” before their new born baby put his mouth on it.yuk…. or worse, put his sweaty testicles inside his poor wife’s mouth,grotesque.that’s what happens when a sexually dimorphic couple pretend to belong as much as homosexuals do.
Stephen
Mike, don’t forget that the ‘ick factor’ works both ways!
I can’t stand the thought of you having sex with your wife any more that you can stand the thought of me having sex with my husband.
In other words; what is normal for you is not my norm, and what’s normal for me is not your norm.
So get your filthy mind out of my bedroom already!
B
No. 2 · slobone wrote, “Here’s the full quote from the New Yorker: … The early Christians considered marriage an arrangement for those without the self-discipline to live in chastity, as Christ did. …”
It’s really more complex. Read http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,779910,00.html for starters: Paul believed it was
better to marry than to burn (with passion), more or less what Slobone quoted, but then Augustine thought marriage was good (the alternative in his time was the licentiousness of Greco-Roman civilization).
It should be noted that Paul expected the world to end in his lifetime, making marriage and children rather pointless to him.
Read http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl16.htm for some of the history (current Christian beliefs regarding the end of the world are the result of trying to reconcile a belief that Jesus must be infallible with the obvious failure of the predictions regarding the end of the world (which has been “soon” for a good 2000 years).
The differences regarding marriage reflect different ways of expressing prudishness – in all cases, if you want to sell “forgiveness of sins”, then the obvious marketing ploy is to define something people can’t easily resist doing as a “sin”.
The part of the Bible attributed to Paul was also written in a particular historical context. If you don’t know the context, what is being said may be misinterpreted.