[whmatthews]

Love how this is being reported 15 years later...

Huckabee called homosexuality 'sinful'
By: Mike Allen
Dec 8, 2007 10:49 AM EST

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, surging in Iowa polls in the Republican presidential race, wrote on a questionnaire while running for U.S. Senate in 1992 that homosexuality is "aberrant" and "sinful."

"I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk," Huckabee wrote in the questionnaire for The Associated Press, which reported the answer on Saturday.

In another answer that could damage his standing in the presidential race, Huckabee wrote on the questionnaire that AIDS research was receiving an unfair amount of federal money. Instead, he said celebrities should pay for the research themselves.

"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, according to the AP.

"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."

The revelations could dampen the enthusiasm for the candidacy of Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, because the language clashes with his image as a compassionate, sunny leader.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7270.html


Makes me want to vote for him even more.

[kel varson]

Already a similar thread in Lynchburg Life, but whatever. See: http://www.flamefans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7162

Even though I actually agree with him about AIDS/HIV, if he takes that position today he won't be electable.

Here's my take on the AIDS thing. It really ticks me off that other diseases which are not preventable such as Cancer and Alzheimers do not recieve the funding that AIDS does.

I am sympathetic to AIDS patients and I believe we need a cure, but I also believe other such as cancer and alzheimers should receive more funding.

There is a slippery slope with my argument though. For instance, do we say because people are overweight that heart disease and certain types of cancer and diabetes are brought on by their lifestyles and they deserve fewer tax dollars? I guess if you are going to be consistent then yes. Tax dollar for Heart Disease and Diabetes research should be reduced. More funding should go towards doctor's teaching preventative medicine such as exercise and healthy eating.

We have way to many pharmeceutical companies spending money for drugs when all people need to do is lose some weight. Two examples would be diabetes and erectile dysfunction.

While many cases of heart disease, diabetes and ED are not caused by obesity, the large percentage are.