King: Same-sex marriage a ’socialist concept’

By Jason Hancock 9/24/09 10:04 AM

Same-sex marriage is not only a radical social idea, it is a “purely socialist concept” and is part of a broader push by to turn the United States into a socialist country, U.S. Rep. Steve King said Wednesday during an interview with a conservative talk radio station.

U.S. Rep. Steve King

King was being interviewed in regards to what he believes is the impact of the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage. He repeated his earlier assertion that the Hawkeye State will become a “Mecca for same-sex marriage,” then explained that Iowans do not have “a very good understanding of what same-sex marriage does to the overall institution of marriage.”

In order for a socialist society to come about, the foundation of society, i.e., marriage, must be destroyed, King said.

“If there’s a push for a socialist society, a society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together living collectively off of one pot of resources earned by everyone, this is one of the goals they’d have to go to, is same sex marriage, because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal,” King said. “They want public affirmation. They want access to public funds and resources. Eventually all those resources will be pooled because that’s the direction we’re going. And not only is it a radical social idea, it is a purely socialist concept in the final analysis.”

However, as the Raw Story’s Daniel Tencer points out, King manages to ignore historical fact in his assessment of socialism and homosexuality.

In the “socialist paradise” known as the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin criminalized homosexuality with a punishment of up to five years of hard labor. Some historians have argued that many individuals accused of pedophilia in the Soviet Union were in fact engaged in adult homosexual relationships.

Sweden, long considered a social democracy, is today a leader in the gay rights movement; but in 1979, it declared homosexuality an “illness.” Transvestitism was only de-listed as an illness in Sweden in 2008.

King also defended former Sen. Rick Santorum,R-Pa., who said legal same sex marriages would open the door to legal polygamy or bestiality. Santorum will be speaking in Iowa Oct. 1.

(h/t Think Progress)

What's next?

facebook-1678402953

King needs to go to!!!

EricaJa

Hahaaahaahaha!

Sorry everybody! The title alone made me giggle!! This is simply hilarious!

lenworthpoyser

WTF is he talking about? I swear they just make up this crap as they go. Conservatives love talking about what a dim future we will have if we agree to something they don't like, yet can never provide examples as to what horrible events will take place.

Peggy2

CAPABLE of monogamy? Mighty big of you. At least with the vast majority of heteros, monogamy is the DESIRED NORM.

"We should put an end to our embarrassment about transcending monogamy, for by moving beyond it we have also transcended the possessiveness and jealousy adopted from tradtional heterosexual relationships in which males "own" women, who are in turn dependent. By openly and honestly incorporating recreational sex into our relationship we have tapped a rich quarry of "resistence," that essential quality needed for rewarding, ongoing sexuality...." -- homosexual activist Bruce Voeller, "Stonewall Anniversary," The Advocate (July 12, 1979)

onanov

For those of you who are wondering where Steve King came up with this idea, there's this: http://snurl.com/s4mbj

Peggy2

Nice try. No matter the color of a male and female's skin, their anatomical parts are still complementary. Apples and oranges, pal.

lenworthpoyser

My question for most people with that argument is this, what about hermaphrodites and chimera born with no genitals, or both male and female parts. Who do they marry? What sex do they choose? Isn't it obvious that if "God creates" people with both genatalia or none at all, that gender is of no concern to him?

lenworthpoyser

And about that whole racism argument, don't fool yourself Peg. What party do racists tend to be in? I'll give you a hint, that black guy whose president is a democrat.

onanov

So, Peggy, what was your side's excuse for pointing to the Reds for influencing mixed marriages back in the 1950s and 60s? This photo just depicts the same people with a different cause, after all. Of course, no one would ever accuse the Christian Right as quick on the uptake with their own ironies.

Peggy2

Can't bring yourself to discuss the natural outcomes of promiscuous sex? Too bad.

onanov

Ask your priest :-) He might know more than me.

Peggy2

I don't want to talk about religion. Let's stick to nature.

List the pros and cons of sex within the confines of heterosexual marriage, and then the pros and cons of promiscuity, gay or straight.

onanov

Sorry, but I know that religion drives your politics--not nature; and you don't get to dictate what we talk about anyway. If we were talking about nature, we'd be talking about the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature outside of primates. As far as the "pros and cons" of promiscuity that's only a debate you can have with yourself and your religion. That ideal concept of monogamous marriage, for better or worse, isn't one that's been around all that long if you go back and study the history of marriages anyway.

Peggy2

You're wrong again. If the state (taxpayers) is footing the bill for people's behavioral consequences, or telling them how to live to avoid such consequences, then everything is on the table, including homosexuality. No religion involved...that wasn't so hard now, was it?

Oh, and the difference between you and an ape is that you have free will and reasoning. You can deduce that your actions may cause you trouble down the road and choose not to take your pants off.

Gotta' run.

onanov

And aside from this your opposition to same sex marriage would indicate that you aren't really a supporter of monogamy after all. Right? Does it actually give you comfort to know that two persons of the same sex would actually be sexually faithful to each other? Just to remind you, this is you, isn't it?

http://www.daylife.com/photo/04wo98P7TI36o

onanov

The problem is, Peggy, that your goal to get government involved in the decisions of individual Americans is a very slippery slope. Aside from that, it's counterproductive--where your way is taught--my home states of Georgia and Alabama, for instance (places where abstinence education rules the day) unplanned pregnancies, divorce, std rates, HIV, etc., are rising rapidly and in fact out of control. Places that don't adopt these policies (like Massachusetts, for instance and to a lesser extent here in Iowa) have either steady or declining rates for all these. Religiosity just keeps people fat, dumb, diseased and pregnant. Perhaps this is Steve King's natural constituency--there are more politicians down there like him than there are up here.

Peggy2

Sort of like the Democratic Party of today accusing Republicans of racism. Ironic indeed.

onanov

Not Republicans in general, just Republicans of a certain ilk.

Peggy2

Yeah, the outspoken ones. ( :

Have a great weekend, my friend. Peace.

WTFBlog

Iowans do not have “a very good understanding of what same-sex marriage does to the overall institution of marriage.”???

It does NOTHING to the institution of marriage, if King wants to preserve marriage, I suggest he starts campaigning to make divorce illegal, and hell, while he's at it, he should make adultery punishable by DEATH.

Peggy2

"Among gay men a long-lasting monogamous relationship is almost unknown." - gay activist Dennis Altman, The Homosexualization of America (Boston: Beacon Press, 1982), 187.

WTFBlog

And your point?

Peggy2

Why pretend to be married if there's no intention of being monogamous?

It absolutely cheapens the institution of traditional marriage.

WTFBlog

No intention of being monogamous, the same can be said for heterosexuals, your argument is flawed.

Peggy2

Are you agreeing that homosexuals who enter into a bogus marriage have no intention of being monogamous?

King: Same-sex marriage a ’socialist concept’

Related Stories:

What's next?

Top Stories: