Jon Stewart Explains Gay Marriage To Mike Huckabee
Last night's Daily Show featured a two-part interview with former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. For the first part of the interview, Jon kept the discussion to issues pertaining to Huckabee's new book, like how to explain to fiscal conservatives who want roads and schools and parks and cops that those things are what government is. But when they came back for part two of the interview, Jon took on the measured, tentative, trying-to-be-respectful tone that's always an omen that he's about to TOTALLY GO OFF. This time, the subject is gay marriage (and gay civil rights in general) and Jon takes Huckabee by the throat and just won't let go. Jon wins, both because there's no way to lose and because he's smarter than Mike Huckabee, but it's almost like Mike just happened to be there on the day Jon decided to launch a tirade, and even Britney Spears doesn't come away unscathed:
Go, Jon! You know an argument has gone as far as it can go when someone resorts to invoking Britney Spears and Kevin Federline.
Posted by Lindsay at 9:30 AM in Interviews, Late Night, Politics
Tags: Jon Stewart | Mike Huckabee | The Daily Show
After I watched this last night I IMMEDIATELY commemorated it with a facebook status thanking him. If anything good came from prop 8 not passing, it's that everyone who used to be passive about gay rights is now coming out of the woodwork to show their support. First Keither Olbermann, then EVERYONE in Prop 8 the musical, and now John Stewart. I would hate this country so much if it weren't for them.
Score = 4
Yes, Jon Stewart. Yes.
Score = 1
I guess us Canadians suck or something, because I can't get the video to work in my country. :(
Score = 0
They have it at thecomedynetwork.ca.
Score = 0
That was great. And kudos to Huckabee for having a conversation about it. A lot of other Republicans would just start spouting off. While I in no way way agree with his standpoint, at least he laid it out thoughtfully.
To me, it just seems like such a non-issue. I cannot wrap my head around why it's such a bad thing to let gays marry. I frankly don't care if they do, so let 'em. It just seems like there are far more important things for the government to deal with than this.
Score = 13
So going on a tirade on your own show makes you right now?
Jon is a cool guy, not much he is intellectually right on though. The idea that people think he is smarter than Huckabee is pretty hilareous.
Score = -62
your comment is HILARIOUS considering it comes from someone who can't spell HILARIOUS
Score = 22
Most people who are for changing the specific definition of marriage do not care about marriage period. And often they do not want polygamy to be legal, so why the hypocrisy. They say "well that is different" and yes it is. On man one woman, one person with one person regardless of gender, or multiple partners all are different things. Marriage happens to mean one man one woman. Even in Greece when homosexuality was publically accepted more than in any other society, men did not marry men or women marry women... The reasons are obvious. A discussion of marriage being changed is not necessarily a discussion on homosexuality or its moral value. This is why Proposition 8 simply defined marriage and does not target any random thing that is not marriage.
Honestly anther reason why people think it is okay to redefine marriage is that we have already redefined it, by making it mean something other than "for life." Divorce on demand has damaged marriage more than gay marriage would. So it is good that Huckabee is not unaware of this and chose to legally bind himself in a contract were he could just divorce with ease, so he is no hypocrite on this as he has been fighting to strengthen marriage on all fronts whether in his personal life or as Governor of his state.
Score = -14
(sigh)
Let's take this one point at a time:
"Marriage happens to mean one man one woman. Even in Greece when homosexuality was publically accepted more than in any other society, men did not marry men or women marry women."
Actually, as Jon notes, the definition of marriage has evolved throughout time. In the Old Testament, polygamy was the norm. Only in the New Testament does Jesus abolish the practice of taking a second wife if your first one is infertile. Up until the 18th century, marriages were arranged as a means of consolidating power or property. Up until 1967, in many states, marriage meant "one man and one woman, but only of the same race". Up until the 1980s, many states had laws that required men to be the breadwinners in a marriage. What's more, the definition of marriage has already undergone changes -- in two states, several Christian denominations, and in many countries in Europe, gay marriage is becoming the norm.
"The reasons are obvious."
Are they? Go on, list them. So far, all anyone's been able to present is a circular argument: "We can't change the definition of marriage, because that's not how marriage is defined." It's the equivalent of telling the suffragists, "women can't vote, because a vote is something only men can do." You've got to have a better reason than that -- like, say, a specific harm that would come from the redefinition, or a reason why the term is so inelastic that it can only apply to two individuals of opposite genders. I haven't heard that explanation yet. Have Connecticut or Massachusetts slid into anarchy in the wake of gay marriage?
"Honestly anther reason why people think it is okay to redefine marriage is that we have already redefined it, by making it mean something other than for life.' Divorce on demand has damaged marriage more than gay marriage would."
Well, we partly agree there -- straight couples have done a swell job of undermining the institution of marriage. But so have laws like Proposition 8. The unintended consequence of gay-marriage bans is that, by restricting marriage -- and thereby forcing loving, committed couples to remain unmarried -- they inadvertently send the message that marriage is unnecessary for building a life and a family together. The movement for gay marriage is fundamentally a conservative one -- it's a statement that gay couples want to commit to one another for life. I've never completely understood why Mike Huckabee and his ilk are essentially telling the children of gay couples, "I'm very sorry, but in order to preserve marriage as the bedrock of society and the foundation of the family, I'm legally requiring your parents to live out of wedlock. In order to send a message that you should commit to someone for life before starting a family, your moms have to shack up. Sorry."
Score = 46
Thank you for the very eloquent comment, sparky. It's a shame that not everyone can put their thoughts out there without resorting to name calling or twisting the words of the bible to suit their needs/views.
Score = 3
Greeks also thought a series of 13 gods controlled them from on top of a mountain. They also only let free, land owning men vote.
This is 2008. Things change. Get with it.
Score = 6
Actually, homosexual marriages did occur in Ancient Greece. Hell, even the ancient Romans did it until Constantius 2 outlawed it in 342 (He was a Christian, btw).
Score = 3
Nice tie, Huck.
Score = -1
What boggles my mind is how the arguments against gay marriage are so without merit. Huckabee's big argument was that we would be "redefining" a word (which Stewart was able to shoot down with ease) which he then said would change a social structure; which it wouldn't.
To quote an amazing show, arguing against anti-gay marriage advocates is like arguing against "special education nightmares."
Score = 1
claiming an argument is without merit is not an argument.
Score = -5
Too bad Jon felt the need to continually talk over his guest. Huckabee had a point to make but Stewart kept moving the goal post. If he wanted to know why gay marriage is found objectionable (and he obviously is smart enough to locate those answers himself) then he should take the discussion on the merits of the answers given.
Marriage has always (not just within the Judeo-Christian tradition) been between a man and a woman. While the interrelational dynamics have changed (ie., chattel to equal) that doesn't change the foundation of marriage (male and female). Marriage was and is primarily for child-rearing- hence, Stewarts argument for polygamy actually re-enforces the argument that homosexual relationships cannot be "marriage" per se. (Polygamy was specifically for the development of offspring.) To say that changing the fundamental elements of marriage is "evolution" of marriage is as silly as saying that Sodium Chloride (salt) can have one of the elements changed and still remain the same. It simply cannot.
His diatribe on which is more of a choice religion or homosexuality is cute... but without merit in that there has yet to be any evidence presented that demonstrates conclusively that homosexuality is genetic. But Jon won't be bothered with facts...
In the end it is not semantics but biology that keep homosexuals from procreating. All the side stepping around the issue will not change that. Marriage isn't a right given by the government, it is biologically derrived from nature. A fact that won't be tampered with.
Score = -45
I guess I have to get divorced. I've been married for five years and have no children. Or does that mean I'm not married at all, by your logic?
Score = 11
Marriage is most definitely a social ritual and NOT "biologically derived from nature." And, yes, it is most definitely a right dispensed by the government. If you want to get married in this country, you MUST get a lisence to do so -- otherwise the marriage is not recognized. Marriage isn't a biological process at all, nor is it necessary. I think the word you're looking for is sex? reproduction?
Score = 9
The confines of the definition of marriage equating to chemical formulas? Give me a fucking break - there is NO conservative argument that can be made AT ALL that makes sense in denying the right of marriage to those who love one another but are of the same sex. When you live in America (or another Western culture & country) you have to understand that society evolves, shapes and informs us without yield. It's fools that think it worth their time to try and stop the tides of change. Not one opponent of civil rights in the 1960s can come out looking heroic or admirable in history's reflection. It's a shame that the conservatives in this country seem to think that there's no room for anything different outside of the immediate world around them, giving unnecessary leverage to juvenile ideas that permeate the political sphere all too frequently.
Score = 5
If anything, biology supports the homo sapien as NOT being a monogamous creature. There's plenty of scientific evidence to support that, which would make sense of polygamy having been a practice found within the bible. Which, in turn, could negate arguments that monogamous two-person marriage was designed for procreation, if polygamy was designed for more efficient procreation that more closely mirrored the true biology of humans.
Score = 3
"but without merit in that there has yet to be any evidence presented that demonstrates conclusively that homosexuality is genetic."
It doesn't have to be genetic to be determined. Hormones in the womb while your mother was pregnant, something during early years upbringing... the determination does not need to be genetic for it to be pre-determined.
Score = 3
Just to be annoyingly pedantic here, I'm going to point out your chemistry analogy is wrong. I'm a biochemistry major. I have to do this.
NaCl does indeed make salt, what we commonly call table salt. But if were to change one of the elements, say, from sodium to potassium, we would still have a salt. Just not necessarily one that you would want to put on your cheeseburger. The chemical definition of a salt is an ionic compound composed of an anion and cation. It basically boils down to having an ionic bond.
Now to take and twist your chemistry analogy - no, the specific elements aren't what's important in a salt, the bond between them is. Likewise, I personally don't believe the genders of two people matters in their relationship. Their love for each other is the most important part. So really, your argument turns around and supports gay marriage in the end!
Score = 3
Just to be annoyingly pedantic here, I'm going to point out your chemistry analogy is wrong. I'm a biochemistry major. I have to do this.
NaCl does indeed make salt, what we commonly call table salt. But if were to change one of the elements, say, from sodium to potassium, we would still have a salt. Just not necessarily one that you would want to put on your cheeseburger. The chemical definition of a salt is an ionic compound composed of an anion and cation. It basically boils down to having an ionic bond.
Now to take and twist your chemistry analogy - no, the specific elements aren't what's important in a salt, the bond between them is. Likewise, I personally don't believe the genders of two people matters in their relationship. Their love for each other is the most important part. So really, your argument turns around and supports gay marriage in the end!
Sorry about the nerdiness, folks. It had to be said.
Score = 1
Marriage should be between two non-related consenting adults, no matter who they are, bottom line, period, the end.
1) Marriage is a contract for property and family legal rights. Preventing equal access violates the constitution and the spirit of America.
2) In contemporary culture, the ideal marriage is a legal arrangment formalizing romantic love. Who are we to tell two people who are in love that they cannot formalize this relationship because we don't like how they have sex? How would you like it if you couldn't marry the person you love because someone else had political power and defined the law to exclude you?
3) The most repititious non-religous argument against gay marriage is that marriage is the nucleus of the family structure and that since gay people cannot have children, there is no reason for them to need or want marriage. If we were to follow this logic to its conclusion, then the marriages of people who chose or were unable to have children would have to be annulled.
4) Have you ever had non-intercourse, non-marital sex? Because the bible decries that, too. So should we annul the marriages of couples that have oral sex?
5) It's about human beings having equal rights, period, the end. I bet there's a lot of overlap with people who are against equal gay rights with people who are against equal rights, period. We cannot and should not put human rights up for popular vote! You could hold an election in my southern city today and I guarantee the majority would be in favor of resegregating the schools. There is danger in allowing the majority to violate the rights of the minority. That's why we have a constitution.
Score = 13
Anybody want to take a guess on the number of months it'll be before we catch Huckabee shacked up with a gay hooker?
Score = 2
you seem to be implying gay sex is wrong. i think it's funny when charges of homosexuality usually start flying among gay-marriage supporters.
Score = 0
i feel like a really bad Democrat for loving Mike Huckabee. He's so funny and charming and adorable that I forget what an old timey freak he is.
When he's not talking about his beliefs, or platforms, or opinions, he's pretty awesome.
Score = 1
I totally agree with you Becca. If he wasn't so religious I would have considered voting for him. The guy has charisma and intelligence in spades, and his "No more income tax" plan was fun and creative if impractical.
I don't share his opinion about gay marriage, though I'm not really all that concerned about it. Frankly, I don't understand why it's wrong to compare gay marriage with polygamy. I mean, they're both just different things. The weird religious argument against gay marriage seems to always boil down to semantics. People are unwilling to move away from a union of one man and one woman. Well, isn't that the same reason polygamy is outlawed? I mean, if 'man' and 'woman' aren't actually part of the legal definition of marriage, why are '1' and '1'? Why not 2 men and 2 women getting into a four-way marriage? To the same end, what does homosexual marriage really do better than incestuous marriage? If a brother and sister promised not to have biological children, as two men implicitly promise not do, what's to stop that union of two citizens who want to express the so-called "right" to marry?
I understand that it's a big deal, and I don't want to be accused of making light of it, but I have a hard time understanding why gays should get "rights" that aren't actually rights in that they actually aren't extended to tons of citizens. Hell stupid Heidi and Spencer aren't even legally married despite having the ceremony. Marriage is clearly a legal agreement and not some ultimate human right. Everyone can see that.
Score = -10
I'm sorry, but Huckabee is an outrageous cunt. Just die, Huckabee. Serious.
Score = -6
I agree, he should just stick to playing the bass and get far, far away from politics. I used to have some respect for him because he seems like a nice enough guy, but seeing him on the View trying to compare one instance of an old lady with a cross getting pushed at a Prop 8 rally to thousands of cases of gay people getting beaten and murdered, while at the same time saying that gay people getting harassed is not the same thing as black people getting harassed just made me sick.
Score = 2
I thought liberals thought marriage was an outdated ritual to begin with?
Score = -1
Outdated? Yes. I'd still like to share health care benefits with my boyfriend, file taxes jointly, visit him in the hospital if he is sick or injured, and maybe have custody of any children we may adopt if something happens to him. BTW no homosexual can adopt in my state. In some other states homosexual couples aren't allowed to adopt, but in my state I can't adopt at all. Thanks, Anita Bryant.
I've been with the same guy for longer than most of the hetero marriages in this country last. so I think I'd do a better job protecting the sanctity of marriage than you hating breeders (and closet cases).
Score = 4
"Marriage isn't a right given by the government, it is biologically derrived from nature."
No. Wrong. On both counts. I'm not even sure what you mean by the second half -- that marriage is "biologically derived from nature". It's not like marriage licenses grow on trees. And it's not like marriage is a phenomenon observable throughout the animal kingdom. (Although, since you bring it up, homosexuality is something that's found throughout nature -- does that mean it's biologically derived?) Marriage is a social construct, something created, and continually redefined, by society.
As for the part about how "marriage isn't a right given by the government" -- actually, it is. That's kind of what this whole fight is about. The government has put itself in the marriage-license business, and hands out rights, privileges and tax breaks to go with them. If you want to argue that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business -- that it should leave marriage up to individuals and their churches, and that it should limit itself to overseeing joint-property, custody, and other agreements -- then I'll gladly join you in that fight. But for as long as the government's in charge of marriages, then that's how long gays will be petitioning government for equal treatment under the law.
Score = 6
Not to overshadow myself, but I think everyone here is confusing rights with privileges. Generally, if you need the government to give you a license to do something, it's a privilege. Like getting a driver's license. You don't have a right to drive. You have a privilege, and it can be taken away. Even voting isn't really an absolute right, as convicts lose their privilege to vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act#No_affirmative_right_to_vote
That's a link to a brief description of what I'm talking about with regard to voting.
Score = 0
Even if you accept the premise that marriage is a privilege, rather than a right, I'm not sure how that changes the parameters of the argument. As Jon Stewart says in the clip, "Well, then how about we make it so that Hispanics can't vote?" The state shouldn't exclude an entire class from a privilege without demonstrating a compelling interest in doing so. There's a good reason why felons lose their vote -- it's a punitive measure. There's a good reason for taking drivers' licenses away from those who drive drunk. What's the compelling reason for the state to deny gays marriage licenses?
Score = 1
I still just wonder how gay marriage is different from incestuous marriage and polygamy. Those are also illegal in America. I have no issue with gays. Gays like me and I like gays. In fact, I kind of hate marriage for all. I just think people pick and choose to like gay marriage and claim that there should be no "Definition" of marriage, but they still hate a bunch of weird marriages that defeat their concept of what marriage should be.
Score = -3
Um. I'd recommend that you ask the gay friends who you like, and who like you, what they think of you comparing their marriages to incest.
But since you ask: Let's set aside, for the moment, society's interest in limiting inbreeding. And let's also set aside the unequal power dynamics inherent to both incest and polygamy, which give both arrangements an extremely high potential for exploitation. Let's take this just as an issue of equal treatment under the law.
Generally, the law protects classes based on characteristics that are innate and immutable -- race, ethnicity, gender. The scientific literature supporting homosexuality as something that is innate and genetic is growing. There is no comparable genetic predisposition toward polygamy or incest. Simply put: Homosexuality is not a choice. Polygamy and incest are. And that is -- among many other reasons -- why the two are not comparable, and why gay marriage doesn't create a "slippery slope" toward polygamous or incestuous marriage.
Score = 5
See, you innately hate incest. You presume some kind of inherent, unfair power dynamic in incestuous and polygamous relationships. It's that kind of presumptive thought that's working against the gay and lesbian population. I'm really just playing devil's advocate here, though. I don't care about who gets married. Hell my college girlfriend got married to some guy she flipped for like 4 years ago, and they're already divorced and I'm thrilled I didn't get them a gift.
Score = -2
I agree with sparky. And if the government does decide to ban gay marriage, at least make it so that they'll get the same rights as a married couple as domestic partners.
Score = 0
Well just look to Canada for an argument in support of Gay Marriage. Seems to work fine up here. No social disorder, and I'm pretty sure conservatives are getting along just fine knowing that their marriage means as much as the one between the two gay folk.
Score = 5
Homosexuality is a categorical constant across fauna, Dave. Even 10% of fruit flies are gay. THAT's biology.
Score = 2
ugh.
i'm a christian and even I realize that gays should be able to marry.
the definition of marriage is based on christian principles that have to do with sexual immorality. so, if we were to actually follow this logic, that would mean couples who perform oral sex should not be able to marry??
no where in the Bible is marriage defined. right? am i wrong? all that is defined is sexual morality. and no one is sexually moral by those standards. so, mike huckabee - no one should be able to marry, correct?
Score = 2
i should not that i am a christian who actually is a christian and actually believes that the Bible is truth.
Score = 0
Keep up the good work Joh, Love your show.
Score = -4
Someone up top touched on the real issue with this video: Jon Stewart, as brilliant and culturally vital as he and his show is, is a terrible interviewer. Look, I know he gets to hide behind the "comedy show, not a news or talk show" thing, and I agree with that. This is still a comedy show. But stop talking over your subject and let him state his rebuttal, however bassackwards you think it may be.
Score = -4
Re: the whole rights vs. privileges argument, I really don't see why people who are gay shouldn't have the RIGHT to enjoy the same PRIVELEGES that people who are heterosexual do.
Also, the "don't you want kids with gay parents to live in a more stable environment" argument is pretty much a waste as one can probably assume that people against gay marriage are also against gay adoption. All this "marriage is between a man and a woman" rhetoric is hilarious. Even if you don't agree with the gay "lifestyle" (also a ridiculous term; there's no such thing as a hetero lifestyle), can't you stop actively preventing people who are gay from having to pay more taxes?
Score = 0
People don't have the right to enjoy the same privileges as everyone else. That's the distinction between rights and privileges. Army veterans are preferred for law enforcement employment over non-veterans. People of driving age, be it 16 or 17 or 18 or however old you have to be to drive- they can drive while people younger than that age cannot. 18 year olds can vote and 17 year olds can't. Men can go into the Mens' Room, not the Ladies' Room. 21 year olds can buy beer, 20 year olds can't. Handicapped people can park in handicapped parking spaces, non-handicapped people can't. That's the whole point of a privilege. Privileges are awarded to certain classes, and denied from other classes.
Score = 2
Right. But there generally has to be a good reason given for restricting privileges. There are good reasons for placing age limits on voting and drinking: Because those under a certain age are assumed to be too immature to handle the responsibilities of those activities. There's a good reason for excluding men from the ladies' room, and vice-versa: That people want and expect some privacy in that area. You have yet to offer up a good reason for excluding gays from the privilege of marriage.
Score = 1
I agree with what you've said to a point. My reason for the privileges/rights post was to point out that some privileges are just withheld, not necessarily taken away. Not all classes qualify for every governmental privilege. However, what California's legislature did was significantly different. Frankly, I think it's fundamentally wrong for the california legislature to write a law that outright overrules their supreme court. The federal system won't allow that. I am very surprised that the Californians [i]could[/i] take away a right through legislation. That sort of disenfranchises a minority population.
(I was attempting to use italics. If you can see i's in brackets, I clearly failed, and I do not understand the italics system.)
Score = 0
I am mostly straight but open to the possibility that if I meet someone, ANYONE, and fall in love, man or women, then i would pursue a relationship with them. Why is it not a privilege or right for straight people as well? Why limit ourselves?
Score = 1
Well put nikijoya. Well put.
Score = 0
Huckabee just mad him self look like a fucking fool.
Score = -1
I wonder how many gay marriage supporters are married and have children themselves. I have a moral issue with gay couples being recognized as married. If we recognize this as a human right regardless of sex. I would then imagine it will be taught in elementary schools that men marry men and so on. Then what about sex ed in middle school, they would then have to include gay sex? how to properly protect your self before practicing sodomized on your sex partner? so on and so on. ENOUGH it needs to stop here and that's why this country is voting to ban it. Tolerance is something that needs a great deal of balance when not handled responsibly its can be more damaging an corrosive then intolerance. I do believe some gays are predetermined from birth toward homosexuality, but not all. I believe tolerance and certain rites for these people should be given, but not at the cost of what I believe are our children's and future generations health and well being. I'm not a religious person by the way I'm just trying to figure out what is morally acceptable and what is not and being a man, a father, and a U.S. citizen gives me and all the other citizens the rite to vote and decide this issue for our country and for EVERYONE who decides to stay and live here. We are not free to live any life style that we want, we need to decide as a whole what we will tolerate and were tolerance rightfully stops. Oh, I thought of a few cute little Jon Stewertesq arguments I could make too but I dont need any right wingers swinging on my strap like all the little lefties do on Jonny's.
Score = -19
Tolerance is something that needs a great deal of balance when not handled responsibly its can be more damaging an corrosive then intolerance.
Beautiful.
Score = 0
I'm sorry, but you seem to be confusing several issues here. You've gone from discussing whether gays should be allowed to marry to whether schoolchildren should be taught the mechanics of gay sex, and you're treating them like they're the same thing. Contrary to what the Prop 8 supporters insinuated, gay marriage does not automatically lead to children's books featuring gay characters, or gay-sex demonstrations in the classroom. What's taught in your local school is usually something that's worked out between the parents and school administrators in a community. And unless sex-ed classes have undergone a radical change since I was in junior high, schools offer parents the option of removing their kids from any discussion of sexuality.
(That said, your kids will probably find out about the existence of gay couples, whether gay marriage is legalized or not. They may even find out about them from their classmates with gay parents. The only difference gay-marriage laws will make is that, under laws like Prop 8, their friends' parents will be unmarried.)
Score = 5
Marriage is about love and commitment, not about procreation. Outlaw divorce if you want to "protect" marriage, you republican neanderthals.
if the Republicans and church-bots had their way, we'd all be having missionary-style sex in the dark with child-brides.
Huckabee is a bonehead. I hope he runs in 2012, it will be another Democratic victory.
Score = 3
if homosexuality is genetic, no matter. that's still no reason to sanctify or dignify it. as well, cancer's genetic. so are myriad other diseases. homosexuality is not a disease! well sure it is.
or it was, according to the american psychiatric association, before political pressure forced the organization's experts to retreat. imagine schizophrenics lobbying the apa to remove schizophrenia from its list of disorders. if they simply organized we'd all have to accept that there was nothing wrong with the condition, and schizophrenics could all be boy scout leaders.
of couse, homosexuality is not just a mental disorder. if not a veritable phyical disorder, it's a behavior that almost certainly leads to many different illnesses, even fatal illness. aids (there, i said it) is an untreatable disease that survives mostly among homosexuals and drug users in the united states.
heterosexual aids is a myth, the "transmission" of which may have even may have even led to the recent spike in aids among homosexuals temporarily unburdened of fate. homosexuals have even resucitated syphillis, though it's almost a century since it was in fashion. trendsetters, always!
homosexuality seems more like a public health hazard as i write this.
drug use (a meth high is practically a MUST before a good anal fisting) is particularly high among homosexuals, and so is promiscuity, leading to the rampant incidence of disease i mentioned.
but regarding that last point, if you don't think marriage is between a man and a woman, you must think it's stricly monogamous, yes? or maybe not. i do. but the redefinition of marriage has come so far that among homosexuals it now includes multiple sexual partners. so really, what gay marriage means is: no marriage at all.
for most of you, it seems there's no firm grasp on reality, merely a laissez faire attitude or else a plaintive cry for ill-defined "rights." well, when looking at the facts, there's something very wrong with homosexualtiy -- not only because of the health effects, the sheer self-destructiveness of it (after all, there'd be no human race if homosexuality were the norm) but also because of the disintegration of all boundaries that seems accompanies its advance, morally, socially and politically speaking.
disease isn't disease anymore. marriage isn't marriage anymore. and pretty soon children won't be children anymore -- that is, if the north american man boy love association has its way!
Score = -20
You are fucking insane.
Score = 8
is that how i come across?
Score = 0
Oh yeah, you're a nutjob for sure. Also, anyone qualified to speak on this subject should know that amyl nitrate is the real winner when it comes to fisting.
Score = 3
UGH. you are a disgusting homophobic moron.
Score = 6
"heterosexual AIDS is a myth"
wanna, Africa.
Africa, wanna.
I'll leave you two kids to get acquainted.
Score = 6
it's a myth in america, where we live.
Score = -6
i reckon the american psychiatric association would have a lot more to say about you
Score = 7
Bottom Line:
You either believe that there is one god Jesus Christ and one way in which to live your life, or you dont. If you have faith in the truth you would understand that two men or two women being together are not together out of creating another human being, but out of pure lust. What are they accomplishing by having sex??? Fulfilling their human desires, that is all. Proverbs 12:13 " Fear God and keep his commandments for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgement, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil." The day that we condone such perverse lifestyles, is the day that we turn our backs on the lord our god. You remember what he did to Sodom and Gomorrah. I pray for our country and that it doesnt continue to decline from all the sinful influences that we have in our society today. I pray for anyone who believes in a lie.
Score = -16
"The day that we condone such perverse lifestyles, is the day that we turn our backs on the lord our god."
You pass judgement on others for being themselves and living and loving the only way they can, and you want to talk about perverse lifestyles?! Fucking hell, I LOVE the irony of people like this spouting off about the "evils in the world". Gay relationships can just as easily be built on love rather than lust as heterosexual ones.
Score = 4
So, should we disallow infertile women from marrying? Or men with vasectomies? Are committed heterosexual couples who choose not to procreate for emotional, medical, or financial reasons merely "together out of pure lust"? Should we place a time limit on marriages without children? Say you've got eight years to bring new life into the world or you're perverting the sanctity of marriage?
Score = 4
So, should we disallow infertile women from marrying? Or men with vasectomies? Are committed heterosexual couples who choose not to procreate for emotional, medical, or financial reasons merely "together out of pure lust"? Should we place a time limit on marriages without children? Say you've got eight years to bring new life into the world or you're perverting the sanctity of marriage?
Score = 1
Ugh, these gay marriage-related videos always bring out the nutjobs....
Do you guys just search out postings like this on random sites so you can make asinine comments? I'd like to believe that most of you aren't regular readers here.
Score = 6
Well, tps12 was definitely kidding, if that helps.
Score = 0
These comments scare the shit out of me.
Score = 3
homosexuality as disease? wanna's whole post has left me incredibly insulted. i'm speechless.
Score = 4
I propose a new way of dealing with commenters like "Wanna" and "Moses". You know the Simpsons Halloween episode where all the billboards and advertisements come to life and begin terrorizing Springfield and the only way to take their power away was to pay no attention to them?...that what needs to happen. instead of trying to reason with idiots who don't want a discussion as much as they want shit all over people with their crazy fundamentalism why don't we just ignore them? just give them an "you're a f*cking idiot", or "you're insane", a negative score then thats it. there is no use trying to reason with the unreasonable and the beauty of free speech is that we are free to dismiss crazy hateful nutjobs as what they are: crazy hateful nutjobs.
i totally understand that the things they are saying are insane and often hurtful and we want to react. so do I. but i gurrentee that they get a whole lot more sadistic pleasure out of reading your angry responses than they would if they were simply dismissed as crazy. its like that richard dawkins video where he laughs with glee as he reads angry commenters, only these people are the opposite end of the spectrum. so there you go, just my thoughts. plus i got to get in a simpsons reference so, bonus.
Score = 5
what i think is that marriage is outdated. That for a country to tell you that in order to be recognized as ones partner you need a piece of paper. marriage as what it as known as today was preached by the Christians and what is funny is that Jesus broke away from Judaism to preach about a "loving, non- judgmental god" and as time has gone on many people's ideas or morals have been shaped by those ideas. i dont give a crap if its predetermined or learned ( learned how? btw) i doubt a hetero couple would say to their child i want you to be gay so i am going to force you to fall in love or be attracted to a person of the same gender. I think that people need to realize that the government and religion/beliefs should not be mixed. The government should not have a right saying if you cant married someone if your in adult non' related relationship. Plus the church promoted fear by saying you wont go to heaven if you don't have 6 of the seven sacraments which marriage is one. I think homosexuals should have the same rights a hetero couples. And also that to think about mentally ill people wanting to take themselves off a "list" is stupid as someone who has a so called "mental illness" i am perfectly functioning and do what i am supposed to keep it under control. like most people with a mental are because they want their disease under-control since it is something they are either born caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain or by a traumatic event or change in the body .
sorry if i miss spelled anything
Score = 0
... he who cannot spell ("hilarious") should not judge anyone to be smarter or less smart than another.
just a suggestion.
Score = 1
Have you realised yet that when you pray, you're talking to yourself?
YOU believe in a lie.
God is Santa- a myth for parents to attribute good behaviour in their children.
I hope you don't waste your life on myths, your poor soul.
Score = 2
"Marriage should be between two non-related consenting adults, no matter who they are, bottom line, period, the end."
why non-related? if they love each other, why is that a problem? if we're talking about history here, royalty were marrying relatives left and right.
oh, it's a problem because it's not good for the child? well then that tears apart all your arguments that marriage isn't to make children. so they would produce a disabled child, so what! they love each other and that's all that should matter.
or is it? studies have shown that children are not as well-off with a gay couple than even with a single parent, and especially than with a mother and father (female and male). so, if you're arguing relatives can't get married because it's bad for the child, gay shouldn't be allowed to marry because as soon as you allow gay marriage, you have to allow gay adoption and you're supporting insemination, but that's bad for the child, too.
so then, you're left with the argument that love is love is love and who are we to dictate who loves each other truly enough to be married? then i should be able to marry my brother, my cousin, my 5 guys that i would love to marry at the same time, or hell, even a horse if i was into that (i'm not). love is love is love is a horrible horrible horrible slippery slope that has soooo many loopholes.
there is no relative truth. only absolute. it's our job to define what the absolute truth of a family and marriage is. so, choose one way or the other, but you can't say one is okay and another is not if you're basing this all on "but they loooooove each other!!"
Score = -8
"love is love is love is a horrible horrible horrible slippery slope that has soooo many loopholes."
i hope you realize how horribly backwards this sounds. if you're actually going to wage war against love (no matter how perverse you may believe certain types to be), then i think you're part of the problem. this is not to support or condone bestiality, however, because i think we can agree to talk about human relationships here.
Score = 5
Actually, Megan, pretty much every peer-reviewed, published study that has been done on the effects of being raised by gay parents find that kids suffer no adverse effects from it:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEEDC1131F931A35751C1A964958260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all
Score = 4
I think I'm coming off a little anti gay-marriage, when I'm not. I find the whole issue sort of irrelevant. I just want all you pro gay-marriage types to acknowledge that you WOULD deny the right to marry to polygamists and to incestuous couples. I think that matters because a number of gay-marriage advocates seem to feel like the religious right is being unfair in prohibiting certain people (gays) from marrying each other. If you feel like there SHOULD be limits on who can marry, then please acknowledge that you're just as outdated as the religious right and that you just want to be in the ruling class, picking the people who you think deserve the privilege to marry. I think everyone should be able to marry, because I think marriage is ridiculously old fashioned and almost wholly ceremonial.
Score = 1
i don't think i would deny polygamists the right to marry. it's been done before, and to be honest, i don't see what the big deal is. i know plenty of people who've been in love with two people at the same time. if all parties agree, and no one is being exploited, then why should it matter?
incest was brought up in megan's post and it led me to wonder about it. if we agree that the two will not be having children in light of whatever scientific proof exists that makes their children retarded or something (i'm not a scientist), then what makes it so wrong? this is not to say that i have any attraction to my own family members. i never have. but if i consider that someone might, for whatever the reason, then i do not see what harm could actually come of them getting married, if we consider the issue of procreation to be seperate. (it is seperate.)
the only reason i "know" incest to be wrong is because i've been taught so by society. if i had to actually back it up, then i don't know where i'd start. i can't think of anything. i know people who've "experimented" with their cousins and the world didn't end. i can't relate to the desire of wanting to do such a thing, or of falling into romantic love with a family member, but i can't think of a reason to prohibit it if both people are consenting.
sorry if this came out poorly worded. my thoughts are a little unclear on the matter, and i don't really know what i think about incestgum. food for thought. ugh.
Score = 3
oh, but i will agree that marriage is essentially outdated and purely ceremonial. wanting to say "we're married" is different from wanting to say "the church has officially recognized and validated our otherwise illegitimate love, thank god."
Score = 2
family's the best way to raise a child. data bears it out.
Score = -1
two dads or two moms is still a family. if you mean a "traditional" family, then i'd certainly be interested in seeing some hard evidence of that.
Score = 4
It disgusts me how this whole fucking country is arguing over a definition of a word while we are at war and there is an economic meltdown. Can we please just put the gay marriage argument on hold until we get our shit together? Please?!
Score = -1
i don't see anyone refuting my arguments. respond to the points, otherwise you don't have one.
Score = -7
not worth it
Score = 1
just sayin used to be classed as a psyche disorder and it leads to a lot of disease. are you saying neither is true?
Score = -8
So promiscuity is only in the Homosexual population and not the Hetero population? Wow. I guess I totally missed the 60s and 70s then.... all that free love... must have been those fags.
Give me a fucking break.
Score = 4
So being straight doesn't lead to a lot of disease either? I think you are confusing being gay for promiscuity. Not every gay person in the world sleeps around.
I mean, what about the old report of the guy who had sex with tons of girls and ended up infecting a lot of them with HIV...something he knew he had in the first place. This is a straight man "spreading" disease.
But of course..not all straight men are like this, so why do you think every gay person is like that?
Making bogus generalizations/stereotypes is not helping your case at all.
Score = 5
Are we REALLY still doing this??
Anyway what happened to that idea you used to get in fairy tales that you marry someone you love? Has that been replaced by 'you marry to procreate' now?
Ah, romance...
Score = 2
Hey I totally agree with you starky...
I'm just replying to the quote made by wanna that being gay is a health hazard....
:/
-which is off-topic but I guess that's what you get in the reply section on websites
Score = 0
Lifestyles can't be moral or immoral, but sexual conduct between two men or between two women is, and I can't understand why Huckabee doesn't explain that to John Stewart. People still stand up for what's right, but they're too often fearful of backing their position up intellectually. What a pity.
Score = -8
"but sexual conduct between two men or between two women is"
I'm baffled at how some people can still use their subjective morality to state why gay marriage is "bad". How is it somehow immoral for 2 consenting adults who love each other?
I mean seriously Christians... clean up your own houses before you start chucking rocks elsewhere.
Score = 4
"just sayin used to be classed as a psyche disorder and it leads to a lot of disease. are you saying neither is true?"
congratulations. homosexuality may have been classes as a psyche disorder, sure. that doesn't make it a correct diagnosis. the world used to be classed as "flat" and we know quite better today.
also, UNSAFE SEX leads to a lot of disease -- not homosexuality.
Score = 9
Actually, the Greeks were more about pederasty, which was old, wise men teaching young boys about sex, so they would be practiced by the time they eventually married a woman. Hell, achilleus was probably gay; all signs in The Iliad point to it! What is sexually acceptable and unacceptable socially changes, but i think it's stupid to, as some in this comment thread and Mike Huckabee do, pull out random historical examples without understanding them at all. The "sanctity of marriage" movement is PURELY ignorance-fueled. It's frustrating, though, because I don't see a way to reason with them. Logic has completely left the conversation.
Score = 2
people thought the world was flat, because in a pre-scientific society, they had no proof it is round. in a modern, rational, scientific society, we know the world is round; we have proof.
in the spirit of reason and science, modern psychiatrists determined homosexuality to be a phychaitric condition. you say that is not true, but you are no galileo, in fact, are as anti-rational as anyone who thought the earth was the center of the universe. your other point makes my case.
yes, it's true that unsafe sex can lead to disease. however, at a rate much higher than heterosexuals, homsexuals practice more unsafe sex with more partners -- a behavior that carries with it an increased risk of disease in the first place. aids is one of those diseases and virtually restricted to homosexuals and drug users.
finally, if the argument here is about marriage, married, monogamous, heterosexual partners will never contract anything at all.
but after reading some of your other posts about wanting hard evidence, all of which is at your disposal, i realize i'm wasting my time. that sort of comment is an illustration of the real problem.
Score = -9
Go away, wanna.
You are stupid.
Score = 8
My grandmother is 76 years old today. She has been in a loving committed relationship for 25 years with who i consider to be my "2nd" grandma. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Reducing this whole argument to AIDS when aids is such a non-issue is ridiculous.
Score = 5
if aids is such a non-issue, why do i always see giant billboards about testing for it towering over the gay neighborhood in my city? besides, aids put the gay movement on the map, politcally speaking, and media-wise.
about your gay grandmother: if she'd always behaved behaved "gay," you'd have never been born! that's another point altogether; i'm hardly reducing the argument to simply aids.
besides, aids is indicative of a broader health concern. most people here make ad hominem attacks on me without refuting my arguments. when you have one of your own, please let me know.
Score = -11
"if aids is such a non-issue, why do i always see giant billboards about testing for it towering over the gay neighborhood in my city?"
I see AIDS billboards in many different cities... not just in "Gay" neighborhoods... for someone who doesn't care much for the lifestyle.. you certainly know where they congregate.
"besides, aids put the gay movement on the map, politcally speaking, and media-wise. "
Actually inequality put the gay movement on the map... AIDS was essentially an issue for gay people to rally around.
"about your gay grandmother: if she'd always behaved behaved "gay," you'd have never been born!"
Actually your argument here is really wrong... I know lesbian couples who have had children and didn't come without 10 miles of a penis.... it's called a turkey baster.. look it up.
"that's another point altogether; i'm hardly reducing the argument to simply aids."
Nope that's what all your arguments here have boiled down to... about not allowing gays to get married and spread the AIDS virus which (By your posts) you seem to believe just springs forth from homosexuals like sweat from our sweat glands...
Why didn't anyone tell me I had an AIDS gland?
"besides, aids is indicative of a broader health concern"
Actually according to new scientific studies AIDS will be a complete non-issue in the next 5 years or so. What new argument will you use then when we will have a vaccine for it?
"most people here make ad hominem attacks on me without refuting my arguments. when you have one of your own, please let me know."
The reason being is because you spout off the same points that any nimrod with a pulse could find out by tuning their TV to Faux News. And frankly, I don't blame them for not arguing with you... the only reason I jumped in is because I can't sleep...
Must be that damned AIDS gland again...
Score = 8
I have "grown up gay". My gay grandmothers practically raised me. I lived in a very gay community with an openly gay mayor. My mom all growing up worked in a gay bar. One of her first boyfriends after my dad turned out to be gay. I have close friends who are gay. I am a living testament to the fact that being around people who are gay does not leave you gay. Your argument that it is detrimantal to society is purely silly because it fucking is society. It isn't going away. Its not for you to cure or insight any revelations against on a message board. God doesn't codemn it because if god created everything then fucking created it and finally it is not the fucking reason we have aids. you are the reason we have aids.
Score = 7
probably shouldn't be on the computer. very drunk.
Score = 0
look what happened to the greeks
Score = -4
yes - look what happened to the greeks - they were one big disaster after another.......errm.
Score = 1
they're not around anymore
Score = -7
I'm pretty sure Greek people still exist.
Score = 9
If gay people want the right to self torture themselves by getting married like straight people have for eons, why shouldn't we let them? Share the misery I say!
Kudos to Huckabee for actually intellectually debating the issue and not getting all mad and huffy.
Score = 3
Wow.
Videogum used to be the place I'd come to listen to people give good, rational arguments for gay-marriage so I could have someone who didn't think I was an "abomination" stand up for that. And now this thing has become more bigoted than my family/friends are.
I know, arguments are good, whatever. But some of these things really are hurtful to people like me who are young, in the closet, and already realizing the prejudice they will face when they inevitably come out.
Also, to the guy that argued that it was such a bad thing for kids to be taught about sodomy in sex-ed, what's wrong with that?! Isn't that what is needed? How the hell are we supposed to learn the proper ways to go about gay sex if we aren't taught about the precautions that need to be taken, like in hetero relationships? Sorry, our fathers don't really give us that "talk" when we're tweens. And hearing how to go about sodomy will not turn heterosexuals gay, don't worry.
This is all really upsetting, and wanna, I just want to say that I am 100% sure you have never been close to a homosexual person in your life. Please go talk to someone who is gay, and realize they are just like you, they're just attracted to the same sex. You really make me sick, even as an internet troll. Congratulations.
And Gabe, please keep supporting the gay-marriage movement, it means a ton to me to see a heterosexual guy being vocal about this issue, because I never see it.
Okay, I know that wasn't a really "logical argument" type post, but I just felt like putting it out there.
Score = 12
Don't let the bigots get you down. Might I suggest moving to NYC when you're of age? I'm not gay, but from what I've seen we're a pretty accepting bunch here. Just a thought. Hang in there in the mean time, your family and friends are just idiotic if they can't accept who you are.
Score = 1
What if there were a group of people who loved to drive on the left? They did not choose to like to drive on the left, they were born that way. The law says, it does not matter who you are, you can either drive on the right, or stay at home. It is pretty obvious why: driving on the left would case lots of people lots of pain.
Should this group of people be allowed to drive on the left? If they say that in other countries, like Britain, everybody drives on the left, should that be a compelling argument in their favor? What if they say that driving is a relatively recent invention, would that cut it? What if they say that not allowing people to drive on whichever side they feel like is like not allowing blacks to vote, would that be a compelling argument?
Score = -5
While it's just adorable (read: retarded) that you are trying to equate driving on the wrong side of the rode, which would obviously cause countless accidents and is an argument you totally just pulled out of your ass because nobody wants that, with a group of people's want for an equality in their private lives that would harm NOBODY, I just have to say Go Home, nobody wants you here.
Score = 3
You are right, I totally pulled out my ass my argument, but that's not a reason to dismiss it: you'd be amazed what else I can pull out of my ass. And I will go home, because of course nobody wants me here, here being the place where we give shit to the anti gay marriage people, not the place where we try to understand what is going on. I wonder, though, where that place might be, because in the whole damn country it looks like we only have places where to worship one idea or another, this not being the exception.
However, the point still is that lots of people claim that they will be hurt if the definition of marriage is changed to include the marriage between homosexuals. In the case of driving on the left, a lot of people would also claim that they would be hurt, and the only difference is that their claim would be more verifiable. So, if a lot of people in a country are hurt, or so they claim, by an activity, do they have the right to stop it? That's the question. And the answer is not either one of the following: "But they do it in other countries", "No, but I REALLY want it", "It is not fair", "It is like blacks or Hispanics not being allowed to vote", because these would not work as compelling arguments in the case of wanting to drive on the left.
Now compare my initial post and this reply to your reply and look for the ten differences. Next time you argue something, would you like people to respond the way I do it, or the way you do it?
Score = -1
"However, the point still is that lots of people claim that they will be hurt if the definition of marriage is changed to include the marriage between homosexuals."
This is due to the fact that the religious people have been brainwashed by their clergymen. People are always fearful (Read:Ignorant) of the unknown... and in this case, gay marriage is that unknown. Most intelligent, learned people who question beyond the superficial are the ones that understand that keeping anyone from having equal rights is a travesty that cannot continue.
"In the case of driving on the left, a lot of people would also claim that they would be hurt, and the only difference is that their claim would be more verifiable."
I understand what you are trying to do here.... it goes back to the unknown aspect I touched on. You are equating Gay Marriage with driving on the wrong side of the road. That isn't a very good analogy due to the fact that Gay Marriage doesn't affect anyone except the 2 people involved... using your analogy I would equate gay marriage to driving on the same side of the road, but having your vehicle painted a garish color.... it attracts attention... doesn't harm anyone, but ultimately if you try hard enough you can ignore it because it doesn't concern you.
"So, if a lot of people in a country are hurt, or so they claim, by an activity, do they have the right to stop it?"
Of course they can... if they can provide enough evidence to show it would be destructive to society at large, but I'll touch upon that in the next paragraph leading to...
""But they do it in other countries", "No, but I REALLY want it", "It is not fair", "It is like blacks or Hispanics not being allowed to vote", because these would not work as compelling arguments in the case of wanting to drive on the left."
I think the argument of "They do it in other Countries" is a fair argument. People who are against it aren't looking at it from a socioglobal standpoint. Look at Finland, they allowed gay marriage in 2001 and the breakdown of society hasn't happened... they aren't having sex in the streets... raping small children or animals.
And the argument of not allowing blacks or hispanics to vote is also valid... because they (As minorities) should have the same equal rights as American citizens under the Constitution, which would lead you back to the Gay Marriage argument being unconstitutional. I believe when the Gay Marriage ban in overturned in CT it was done so with 4 Republicans on the Supreme Court. They knew it was a gross denial of Human/Civic rights and so overturned it.
Score = 4
You are right, I totally pulled out my ass my argument, but that's not a reason to dismiss it: you'd be amazed what else I can pull out of my ass. And I will go home, because of course nobody wants me here, here being the place where we give shit to the anti gay marriage people, not the place where we try to understand what is going on. I wonder, though, where that place might be, because in the whole damn country it looks like we only have places where to worship one idea or another, this not being the exception.
However, the point still is that lots of people claim that they will be hurt if the definition of marriage is changed to include the marriage between homosexuals. In the case of driving on the left, a lot of people would also claim that they would be hurt, and the only difference is that their claim would be more verifiable. So, if a lot of people in a country are hurt, or so they claim, by an activity, do they have the right to stop it? That's the question. And the answer is not either one of the following: "But they do it in other countries", "No, but I REALLY want it", "It is not fair", "It is like blacks or Hispanics not being allowed to vote", because these would not work as compelling arguments in the case of wanting to drive on the left.
Now compare my initial post and this reply to your reply and look for the ten differences. Next time you argue something, would you like people to respond the way I do it, or the way you do it?
Score = -2
"in the spirit of reason and science, modern psychiatrists determined homosexuality to be a phychaitric condition."
In the beginning, yes you are correct.. Psychologists believed it was a mental illness, but it has since been refuted as such by the APA (American Psychological Association) in recent years.
"yes, it's true that unsafe sex can lead to disease. however, at a rate much higher than heterosexuals, homsexuals practice more unsafe sex with more partners"
You are making broad, sweeping judgments of a particular people here... this is almost akin to saying (And please forgive me here) "All of our Chicken is gone, because of all the blacks" or whatever, you (hopefully) get my point. Do you not remember the 60s and 70s? When everyone was having sex with everyone else? That was vastly Heterosexuals doing this deed and passing around a great amount of STDs in the process. While I am a gay man, I choose not to sleep with every guy I see... now I have friends that do that... and much like there is promiscuity in the straight community... there is the same thing in the gay community. They are effectively playing Russian Roulette and one day they will pay the price... it's Darwin at it's finest.
"aids is one of those diseases and virtually restricted to homosexuals and drug users. "
Not necessarily true. You are (Once again) making an argument that has no merit... you provide no figures or facts to back up a ludicrous statement such as this. Come back with more proof that it happens this way. Though I doubt you can.
"finally, if the argument here is about marriage, married, monogamous, heterosexual partners will never contract anything at all."
Ha! This is the funniest part of all. How can two HOMOsexual partners, who are monogamous, married partners contract a STD? STDs don't just "Form" out of thin air... so this argument... also invalid.
"but after reading some of your other posts about wanting hard evidence, all of which is at your disposal, i realize i'm wasting my time. that sort of comment is an illustration of the real problem."
You provide no real arguments outside of your own (slanted) opinion. It's pure conjecture and definitely without merit.
Score = 4
Huckabee makes a good point: This issue has not passed in 30 states and prop. 8 passed. Barack Obama does not support Gay Marriage. Unfortunately, the American Consciousness does not support gay marriage. I would have to agree with lookie-here that this is because in general people in America have no understanding of what it is to be gay.
Score = 0
"Huckabee makes a good point: This issue has not passed in 30 states and prop. 8 passed."
Not particularly. Huckabee just parrots the same arguments which have no merit in a society where an individual's personal freedoms (As long as it doesn't infringe on anyone elses personal freedoms) are what this society was based off of. If we left civil rights up to the states, we would still have racial segregation in many southern states... heck I'm sure some of them would love to have slavery still instilled.
The sheer fact that prop 8 passed by about 5% when just 10 years ago is was well over 20% shows progress... also what upsets me the most about Prop 8 is that the Mormon religion donated money to the prop 8 cause and nothing is being done about questioning or revoking their tax exempt status. But that's for another argument.
"Barack Obama does not support Gay Marriage. "
He doesn't support gay marriage, true... but he does support equal rights for all and that includes Homosexuals.
Score = 3
He doesn't support gay marriage, true... but he does support equal rights for all and that includes Homosexuals.
Hmmm... I thought that gay marriage is an equal rights issue? So how can you think he supports equal rights without supporting gay marriage?
Score = 1
Here's the way I see the gay marriage issue:
Once upon a time in a land we call America, Europeans came and quickly imported Africans to build their entire country. A few hundred years went by, there was a big war, slavery was outlawed. Another hundred years went by and there was an increased call for civil rights. Up until that points, the majority of Americans saw blacks as inferior, and in many circles it was completely okay to deny them rights. Jim Crow laws prevailed in the south. Yet today, those of us who aren't bigots look back on that as a horrible period in history, and it's really not okay in modern America to consider someone inferior for being black. They were born different. That's all there is too it.
Now look at gay people. They've been screwed since the dawn of time. Forget it just being since the 1700's, if you were gay at any point since the dawn of man, you were screwed. Rights have been denied, slurs invented, and hatred runs rampant. Still today, it's completely okay to deny the basic right of marriage, which is so often abused by heterosexuals, to gay people. I think in another hundred years, we'll look back on this issue as we look back on the civil rights issue. Just as many of our early Presidents are remembered as slave owning racists, hopefully every anti gay rights social conservative since Reagan will be seen as completely idiotic bigots.
In the end, gay people want rights. The right to marry. They're not asking to fuck in your living room while forcing you to watch. They don't really want anything to do with you; they don't want to flaunt their homosexuality any more than you flaunt your heterosexuality. If you want to be a little creeped out by gay people - fine. That's your prerogative, but it's also their prerogative to be gay.
Score = 7
I personally think that marriage should not be recognized by the government, period. The reason social conservatives have a problem with gay marriage is because it is not between a man and a woman. Well, that definition comes from the Bible. Therefore, we are not practicing separation of church and state when the government recognizes marriage. The government should only recognize civil unions, which can be between any two people. If a man and a woman would like to have a separate marriage ceremony after their civil union for traditions sake, than go ahead and get one. In this day and age marriage is not considered a religious ceremony by most. People get married outside and in Los Vegas... but not even in a church. I find this very demeaning to the sacred meaning of marriage. If we reserved this sacred ceremony for only those who wished to celebrate their marriage in these holy ways, then let it be. There would be less of a chance of people breaking the vows of "'til death do us part". No one takes these vows seriously anymore. These words are tossed around. If these vows were only spoken by couples that were religious and cared about what they said the integrity of marriage may be renewed. It would give a better name to marriage and it would give no fuel for the social conservatives to hate on gays.
Score = 2
"Hmmm... I thought that gay marriage is an equal rights issue? So how can you think he supports equal rights without supporting gay marriage?"
The two aren't mutually exclusive. His understanding of his religion states that he shouldn't be for Gay Marriage... but he isn't opposed to giving Gay couples all rights and privileges that straight people have regarding marriage.
Score = 1
Alright, this seems to be going somewhere. In the video Jon Stewart is making an argument for Gay Marriage. But the Obama view would appose that of Stewart's in favor of an "equal in privilege" civil union. To me this seems like separate but equal.
Score = 1
Not particularly. Jesse Ventura said it best...
Government should not tell 2 consenting, tax-paying adults whom they can or cannot love. He states that Government should call ALL couples (Gay or Straight) Civil Unions and give everyone the same benefits under the law. Now, if a Religious organization wishes to call a particular Civil Union a "Marriage" to quantify their religious beliefs.... under the constitution they are legally able to do so.
This way if a religious organization wishes to "Bless" a union, they can do so... and the Gay Rights Advocates will be happy because it won't be separate but equal.
There are plenty of Churches out there that do marriages right now for Same Sex couples... it's the government that doesn't recognize them because of how the laws are written.
What I find funny is that Huckabee states that Marriage is a privilege and not a right.... the messed up part about that statement is it smacks a little Elitist if you ask me. I mean Joe Redneck can get married in Arkansas by walking into a Justice of the Peace... or hell... they can take a quick trip to Las Vegas and get married ASAP... I mean look at what Brittany did with her old boyfriend... and then had it annulled.
Score = 4
To me, this whole era is just a revolution. The gays are discriminated on a daily bases and they're being denied common civil rights that everyone else has. Sound familiar? The more people bitch and moan about the whole situation, the better, because a revolution can't be successful until it gets stronger and stronger so all of the celebrity endorsements, protests, and street marching are a great thing. The government shouldn't be allowed to tell people who they can marry.
The menendez brothers are infamous for killing their parents so they could inherit their money...
They're both now sentenced to life in prison. One of them just got married IN JAIL. Are we seriously denying two men who have never commited a crime in their lives to get married but allowing a psychopath murderer who killed his own parents to. We have to put religious bull shit aside and just think about freedom.
Score = 3
What I was most impressed with is the fact that two grown-ups had a serious adult conversation without escalating into emotional outbursts and the usual rhetoric. I wish more conversations on serious subjects could be held like this. We would all benefit from at least getting the other side of the argument and maybe gaining a little understanding even if it doesn't change our minds.
Score = 2
It is even more hilarious considering that there is a spell checker for your comments. Anyway, having gay friends (not to be the white guy who counts his minority friends) I know that they would be just as capable to provide a loving, stable marriage as any of my straight friends. Jon would have been remiss to not compare gay people to any other minority which has struggled to achieve the same rights, so I am happy he did mention that. It is really the civil rights issue of our generation, and there is really no way to get to the end of a conversation in which a person argues that gay people should not be allowed to marry without saying that they are less than straight people--no matter how much they might want to in order to duck the tag of being homophobic.
Score = 2
A while back, some commenters were wondering whether incest, beastiality, or pedophilia should be compared to homosexuality, and whether they could also be considered healthy relationships.
I shall argue that homosexuality has more in common with heterosexuality, than with incest,bestiality, or pedophilia. The defining difference to me is whether one of the partners can be exploited, coerced, or cannot contribute in a team as an equal.
Now aside from the obvious abusive relationships found in hetersexual relationships, most couples, hetero and homo, usually consist of two adullt, mature individuals who mutually respect eachother, and can contribute equally into a relationship.
With beastiality and pedophilia, one partner always dominates the other. There is an inherent exploitative element to these elements. The beast can't say no, or help you make important relationship decisions, like where to live, finance decisioins, etc. A child would lack the maturity to also make those decisions, and wouldn't be considered an equal by the other partner. The child might also be literally dependant on the other partner, and therefore easily coerced into behavior they otherwise would not be mature enough to participate in. Incest may be similar to pedophilia depending on age differences and dependency, but if the individuals are consenting mature adults, then it's possible to have a healthy relationship.
Therefore, if one of the partners is exploited, coerced, or harmed, it is an unhealthy relationship and should be discouraged.
If the partners respect, admire, and help eachother, and behave as a team to overcome life's problems, it is healthy and should be encouraged.
Score = 2