Unreasonable Accommodation

Former Arkansas Governor (Presidential hopeful/Fox News host) Mike Huckabee raised some left eyebrows recently when he said (regarding civil unions/gay marriage):

Huckabee: “You don’t go ahead and accommodate every behavioral pattern that is against the ideal. That would be like saying, well, 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, so we should accommodate them. Where do we stop?”

Interviewer: “So accommodating gays and lesbians is equivalent to accommodating those who are incestuous?”

Huckabee: “What I’m saying is, that once you accommodate someone’s desires for a lifestyle, who gets to choose where it starts and where it stops? I mean, it’s only when you get to say: ‘Look, I get to make that choice.’ I’ve always found it disingenuous, once again, when people say: ‘Well, it’s okay for this to be changed, but not polygamy’, for example. Why not? What’s different?

He expounded further:

Huckabee: “The purpose in which two people come together is not only to create the next generation, but to train their replacements. Now, if we are going to accommodate a different definition than that, then why do you get to choose that two men are okay, but one man and three women aren’t okay? Why? Who gives you the right to say that the polygamist is not just as right in his argument as is the person who wants same sex?”

Listen. I can’t argue with that. It’s clearly impossible to draw that line. Once you start changing who can and can’t get married, then Pandora’s box is open. And you don’t have to take my word for it. It’s a historical fact. It used to be, in America, that you couldn’t get married if you weren’t the same race (at least, until 1967 (or 2000)). Or the same religion. Or too close on the family tree. The marriage age used to be much lower. But then they started changing things, and where have we ended up? Now you have a handful of states that recognize gay marriage, and probably more soon. And who knows what could be next? Human-animal marriage? Gay human-animal marriage? There’s no way to re-draw that line once we start erasing it. The only answer is to leave it where it’s been for 5,000 years by repealing all of these recent changes. Now that’s traditional.

Advertisements
Comments
One Response to “Unreasonable Accommodation”
Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] Good Common Sense also comments on Huckabee’s comments: Once you start changing who can and can’t get married, then Pandora’s box is open. And you don’t have to take my word for it. It’s a historical fact. It used to be, in America, that you couldn’t get married if you weren’t the same race (at least, until 1967 (or 2000)). Or the same religion. Or too close on the family tree. The marriage age used to be much lower. But then they started changing things, and where have we ended up? Now you have a handful of states that recognize gay marriage, and probably more soon. And who knows what could be next? Human-animal marriage? Gay human-animal marriage? There’s no way to re-draw that line once we start erasing it. The only answer is to leave it where it’s been for 5,000 years by repealing all of these recent changes. Now that’s traditional. […]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: