An Exhaustive, Point By Point Illustration Of Mike Huckabee's Tenuous Grip On Reason
(Fair Warning: this post is close to 2,000 words long.)
Well, Mike Huckabee has made an ass of himself.
While his equation of incest and homosexuality are drawing a lot of focus, I thought I would just concentrate on how his statements show his mind is unable or unwilling to function in a logical capacity.
Tedious and lengthy deconstructions of logic follow:
1) Allowing gays and lesbians to marry is comparable to legalizing incest, polygamy and drug use. - If I'm correct in trying to follow his logic trail, it looks something like this:
A) incest, et al. is immoral.
B) Incest, et al. is outlawed because it is immoral.
C) homosexuality is immoral.
Therefore, homosexuality should be outlawed, because it is immoral.
He can't be arguing that homosexual sex is illegal. He must be aware of that.
A & C are subjective. It appears Mr. Huckabee believes it is possible for the entire nation to share one unified moral base. Barring that, he believes the nation ought to share a unified moral base. I'm going to grant him this absurdity, because I can show that even if such a thing weren't strictly prohibited by the separation clause in our Constitution, his logic in this statement is still faulty.
B is a questionable assumption. It can be strongly argued that incest and polygamy are in fact outlawed based upon their being viewed as immoral. But it is an error to assume immorality is the cause and not just a coincidence, and also a mistake to assume that all immoral things are and should be outlawed. Divorce is not outlawed. Adultery, women talking back to their husbands, and children not obeying their father are not outlawed. These are immoral things.
Drug use itself is not universally outlawed. One can purchase many drugs over the counter, and use them freely, in front of police officers (who might be using them as well). Alcohol was at one point outlawed because it was immoral. It is not now.
So yes, this statement has so many logical holes in it that it is rightfully ridiculed.
2) ... gay couples should not be permitted to adopt. "Children are not puppies"
I really don't see a logical connection at all. Perhaps he was suffering from glossolalia?
Let me just quickly mention that every agency directly involved in adoption has issued public statements that they are strongly in favor of allowing homosexual couples to adopt. Mr. Huckabee is simply being lazy in assuming there is some detriment or flaw in a homosexual couple that makes them bad parents. Again, every agency that has looked at the facts, from scientists who conducted studies, to state adoption boards, has confirmed that homosexual couples make fit parents.
This is a flat out ignorant statement, and it is rightfully ridiculed.
3) Not every group's interests deserve to be accommodated, if their lifestyle is outside of "the ideal."
What Mr. Huckabee is advocating here is an internal version of ideological exclusion. The former Soviet Union practiced it to quiet dissidents and to control its population. We practiced it when we refused to allow Cat Stevens and Tariq Ramadan to enter the U.S., and nobel prize winners such as Pablo Neruda and Nelson Mandela. Is there a good use of ideological exclusion? Not when your nation holds free speech and equality as one of its most cherished rights.
Anyway, the logic here is:
A) Not every group's interests deserve to be accommodated.
... 1) accommodation of a group's interests is a priviledge, not a right.
... 2) multiple group's interests are necessarily mutually exclusive.
..... a) homosexual groups infringe upon our interests.
B) Therefore, some groups's interests must be forbidden.
C) We should forbid the interests of a group that is not ideal.
... 1) homosexuals are not ideal.
A, by itself, creates a false dilemma. It implies that
A,1: right to assembly, freedom of speech, and pursuit of happiness are not guaranteed rights under The Constitution, or not the "interests" that Huckabee is talking about, and
A,2: action must be taken to curtail the interests of some groups.
Whereas the arguable truth of the matter is that in most cases, no action is required, because multiple groups' interests are often not in conflict, are guaranteed by The Constitution, and even when they are in disagreement, those groups can meet and function without conflict. Look at NAMBLA or the KKK, if you want evidence.
Or for a better comparison overall, look at the arguments of those who were against legalizing interracial marriage.
C is the condition The Puritans found themselves in, and the reason The Colonies were founded.
This is a dangerous and seditious statement, and if taken seriously, it undermines the American ideal of equality for all. It is rightfully ridiculed.
4) 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, should we accommodate them?
Putting all of these groups together in a bag and jumbling them up is simply lazy thinking.
Drugs, incest, and polygamy do not have any immediately recognizable trait in common with each other, or homosexual marriage. They are Weak Analogies.
This is a lazy statement, and it is rightfully ridiculed.
5) ... 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.
Slippery Slope is itself a fallacy. Mr. Huckabee is so ignorant of logic that he says his argument qualifies as a Slippery Slope himself, as if this reinforced, rather than refuted what he said.
He also makes a mistake in application. There is no reason not to include himself and his desire to decide which lifestyles should not be accomodated. However, since the Slippery Slope is a false condition, it does not matter that he unwittingly condemns himself in his statement. Twice.
Rephrase the question he asks, "Why do you get to choose that two men are not OK, but one man and one woman are OK?" and you can see that his selections are random and have no relevent conclusion.
This statement contains no logic. Mr. Huckabee is unaware of the meaning of his own words. It is rightfully ridiculed.
6) the burden of proving that a gay marriage can be successful rests with the activists in favor of changing the law.
This is the first thing Mr. Huckabee has said that comes close to reason. The burden of changing the law does indeed rest with the activists. However, no one must prove that gay marriage can be successful. If we had to prove that something had to be successful in order to be lawful, we would have to outlaw the Flugtag.
For trying to divert us onto a discussion of whether homosexual marriage can be successful, this qualifies as a Red Herring.
This is not a completely ridiculous statement. It is merely wrong, and diversionary.
7) "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."
Again, these are not mutually exclusive. This is a False Dilemma. And no one has to prove anything. The issue is whether to exclude homosexuals from marriage. The definition of marriage is an issue of semantics, and a diversion into a different, unimportant discussion. Red Herring. It is an act of incredible simplicity to change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, if such a thing is even needed. To raise the issue as if it posed some kind of stumbling block is disingenuous and insulting.
This is a diversionary and insulting statement, and it is rightfully ridiculed.
8) "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."
True. He does not believe we should change the definition of marriage.
It is quite possible that the magazine in question, and the rest of us, are sensationalizing his views. His views are also well-known. It might be arguable that they are unusual, but it is surely arguable that they are normal.
These statements cover Mr. Huckabee's opinion, and they are perfectly reasonable.
9) "I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle," he wrote, in response to a question about gays in the military.
This is also a statement about his opinion. I might agree or disagree with the opinion, but the statement itself is fine. It is left to be inferred that aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyles should not be allowed in the military. That connection is questionable. For instance, killing is often considered aberrant, unnatural, and sinful. However, to exclude it from the military would be to eliminate the military.
His logic may or may not be questionable, but since he stated it as a feeling and not a fact, there is nothing wrong with the statement.
10) He also advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, saying it was necessary to confine "carriers of this plague."
Factually, this is completely void.
This statement reveals Mr. Huckabee to be ignorant, in 1992, about the facts of AIDS, and it is rightfully ridiculed.
11) As governor, Huckabee supported an Arkansas policy that prevented same-sex couples from serving as foster parents.
This is not a statement, and so I am not evaluating its logic. If I were, I'd say it demonstrates that Mr. Huckabee is consistent with what he believes to be logically correct ideas about homosexuality. That, in itself, is admirable. It only becomes unfortunate when the errors of his logic are revealed.
This is not a statement made by Mr. Huckabee.
12) 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.
First, see my earlier argument about semantic arguments on the definition of marriage being a Red Herring.
Second, saying that something has historically been the norm has (historically), never been an impressive argument. It is an Appeal to Antiquity. Read up, Mr. Huckabee. If marriage being between one man and one woman is a good idea simply on the grounds that "Marriage has historically never meant anything other than a man and a woman," then we should enact some major revisions of our laws, and probably switch over to a monarchy. Historically speaking, child labor and slavery are the norm.
This statement is based on the idea that nothing should ever change. It is rightfully ridiculed
The statements presented in the article might represent an accurate and complete catalogue of Mr. Huckabee's statements on gay marriage. They might represent a biased and incomplete catalogue. Based on this article, however, I can conclude that he has said enough things that are factually ignorant and logically fallacious to conclude that:
In summation, Mr. Huckabee's statements are completely estranged from reason. He repeatedly demonstrates lazy thinking. His decision making capability is dangerously flawed. He would make an atrocious president. He is likely to make large mistakes and cause great harm whenever in a position of power.
Well, Mike Huckabee has made an ass of himself.
While his equation of incest and homosexuality are drawing a lot of focus, I thought I would just concentrate on how his statements show his mind is unable or unwilling to function in a logical capacity.
Tedious and lengthy deconstructions of logic follow:
1) Allowing gays and lesbians to marry is comparable to legalizing incest, polygamy and drug use. - If I'm correct in trying to follow his logic trail, it looks something like this:
A) incest, et al. is immoral.
B) Incest, et al. is outlawed because it is immoral.
C) homosexuality is immoral.
Therefore, homosexuality should be outlawed, because it is immoral.
He can't be arguing that homosexual sex is illegal. He must be aware of that.
A & C are subjective. It appears Mr. Huckabee believes it is possible for the entire nation to share one unified moral base. Barring that, he believes the nation ought to share a unified moral base. I'm going to grant him this absurdity, because I can show that even if such a thing weren't strictly prohibited by the separation clause in our Constitution, his logic in this statement is still faulty.
B is a questionable assumption. It can be strongly argued that incest and polygamy are in fact outlawed based upon their being viewed as immoral. But it is an error to assume immorality is the cause and not just a coincidence, and also a mistake to assume that all immoral things are and should be outlawed. Divorce is not outlawed. Adultery, women talking back to their husbands, and children not obeying their father are not outlawed. These are immoral things.
Drug use itself is not universally outlawed. One can purchase many drugs over the counter, and use them freely, in front of police officers (who might be using them as well). Alcohol was at one point outlawed because it was immoral. It is not now.
So yes, this statement has so many logical holes in it that it is rightfully ridiculed.
2) ... gay couples should not be permitted to adopt. "Children are not puppies"
I really don't see a logical connection at all. Perhaps he was suffering from glossolalia?
Let me just quickly mention that every agency directly involved in adoption has issued public statements that they are strongly in favor of allowing homosexual couples to adopt. Mr. Huckabee is simply being lazy in assuming there is some detriment or flaw in a homosexual couple that makes them bad parents. Again, every agency that has looked at the facts, from scientists who conducted studies, to state adoption boards, has confirmed that homosexual couples make fit parents.
This is a flat out ignorant statement, and it is rightfully ridiculed.
3) Not every group's interests deserve to be accommodated, if their lifestyle is outside of "the ideal."
What Mr. Huckabee is advocating here is an internal version of ideological exclusion. The former Soviet Union practiced it to quiet dissidents and to control its population. We practiced it when we refused to allow Cat Stevens and Tariq Ramadan to enter the U.S., and nobel prize winners such as Pablo Neruda and Nelson Mandela. Is there a good use of ideological exclusion? Not when your nation holds free speech and equality as one of its most cherished rights.
Anyway, the logic here is:
A) Not every group's interests deserve to be accommodated.
... 1) accommodation of a group's interests is a priviledge, not a right.
... 2) multiple group's interests are necessarily mutually exclusive.
..... a) homosexual groups infringe upon our interests.
B) Therefore, some groups's interests must be forbidden.
C) We should forbid the interests of a group that is not ideal.
... 1) homosexuals are not ideal.
A, by itself, creates a false dilemma. It implies that
A,1: right to assembly, freedom of speech, and pursuit of happiness are not guaranteed rights under The Constitution, or not the "interests" that Huckabee is talking about, and
A,2: action must be taken to curtail the interests of some groups.
Whereas the arguable truth of the matter is that in most cases, no action is required, because multiple groups' interests are often not in conflict, are guaranteed by The Constitution, and even when they are in disagreement, those groups can meet and function without conflict. Look at NAMBLA or the KKK, if you want evidence.
Or for a better comparison overall, look at the arguments of those who were against legalizing interracial marriage.
C is the condition The Puritans found themselves in, and the reason The Colonies were founded.
This is a dangerous and seditious statement, and if taken seriously, it undermines the American ideal of equality for all. It is rightfully ridiculed.
4) 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, should we accommodate them?
Putting all of these groups together in a bag and jumbling them up is simply lazy thinking.
Drugs, incest, and polygamy do not have any immediately recognizable trait in common with each other, or homosexual marriage. They are Weak Analogies.
This is a lazy statement, and it is rightfully ridiculed.
5) ... 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.
Slippery Slope is itself a fallacy. Mr. Huckabee is so ignorant of logic that he says his argument qualifies as a Slippery Slope himself, as if this reinforced, rather than refuted what he said.
He also makes a mistake in application. There is no reason not to include himself and his desire to decide which lifestyles should not be accomodated. However, since the Slippery Slope is a false condition, it does not matter that he unwittingly condemns himself in his statement. Twice.
Rephrase the question he asks, "Why do you get to choose that two men are not OK, but one man and one woman are OK?" and you can see that his selections are random and have no relevent conclusion.
This statement contains no logic. Mr. Huckabee is unaware of the meaning of his own words. It is rightfully ridiculed.
6) the burden of proving that a gay marriage can be successful rests with the activists in favor of changing the law.
This is the first thing Mr. Huckabee has said that comes close to reason. The burden of changing the law does indeed rest with the activists. However, no one must prove that gay marriage can be successful. If we had to prove that something had to be successful in order to be lawful, we would have to outlaw the Flugtag.
For trying to divert us onto a discussion of whether homosexual marriage can be successful, this qualifies as a Red Herring.
This is not a completely ridiculous statement. It is merely wrong, and diversionary.
7) "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."
Again, these are not mutually exclusive. This is a False Dilemma. And no one has to prove anything. The issue is whether to exclude homosexuals from marriage. The definition of marriage is an issue of semantics, and a diversion into a different, unimportant discussion. Red Herring. It is an act of incredible simplicity to change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, if such a thing is even needed. To raise the issue as if it posed some kind of stumbling block is disingenuous and insulting.
This is a diversionary and insulting statement, and it is rightfully ridiculed.
8) "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."
True. He does not believe we should change the definition of marriage.
It is quite possible that the magazine in question, and the rest of us, are sensationalizing his views. His views are also well-known. It might be arguable that they are unusual, but it is surely arguable that they are normal.
These statements cover Mr. Huckabee's opinion, and they are perfectly reasonable.
9) "I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle," he wrote, in response to a question about gays in the military.
This is also a statement about his opinion. I might agree or disagree with the opinion, but the statement itself is fine. It is left to be inferred that aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyles should not be allowed in the military. That connection is questionable. For instance, killing is often considered aberrant, unnatural, and sinful. However, to exclude it from the military would be to eliminate the military.
His logic may or may not be questionable, but since he stated it as a feeling and not a fact, there is nothing wrong with the statement.
10) He also advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, saying it was necessary to confine "carriers of this plague."
Factually, this is completely void.
This statement reveals Mr. Huckabee to be ignorant, in 1992, about the facts of AIDS, and it is rightfully ridiculed.
11) As governor, Huckabee supported an Arkansas policy that prevented same-sex couples from serving as foster parents.
This is not a statement, and so I am not evaluating its logic. If I were, I'd say it demonstrates that Mr. Huckabee is consistent with what he believes to be logically correct ideas about homosexuality. That, in itself, is admirable. It only becomes unfortunate when the errors of his logic are revealed.
This is not a statement made by Mr. Huckabee.
12) 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.
First, see my earlier argument about semantic arguments on the definition of marriage being a Red Herring.
Second, saying that something has historically been the norm has (historically), never been an impressive argument. It is an Appeal to Antiquity. Read up, Mr. Huckabee. If marriage being between one man and one woman is a good idea simply on the grounds that "Marriage has historically never meant anything other than a man and a woman," then we should enact some major revisions of our laws, and probably switch over to a monarchy. Historically speaking, child labor and slavery are the norm.
This statement is based on the idea that nothing should ever change. It is rightfully ridiculed
The statements presented in the article might represent an accurate and complete catalogue of Mr. Huckabee's statements on gay marriage. They might represent a biased and incomplete catalogue. Based on this article, however, I can conclude that he has said enough things that are factually ignorant and logically fallacious to conclude that:
In summation, Mr. Huckabee's statements are completely estranged from reason. He repeatedly demonstrates lazy thinking. His decision making capability is dangerously flawed. He would make an atrocious president. He is likely to make large mistakes and cause great harm whenever in a position of power.