Stewart v. Huckabee

Huckabee was on The Daily Show last night (December 9), there have been no postings on YouTube as of yet, so I'll have to direct anyone reading this to www.thedailyshow.com. The context that I'm creating is regarding Part 2 of the interview; involving gay rights which has sprung up fiercely in the news lately as a result of California's proposition 8 - banning gay marriage.

Though, there are certainly other things to discuss from Part 1 of the interview; such as Huckabee's wildly utopian beliefs that if we all did unto eachother as we would have done unto ourself, there would be no child abuse, murder, rape, robberies, and etc; which is typical of the Christian Conservative front to utterly dismiss the power of addiction and abusive compulsion as merely poor choices people make - For the sake of keeping this thread comprehensible, I'll try to keep this to the one subject of gay rights.

More specifically, how Stewart utterly slew Huckabee. It's an interesting juxtaposition of characters: the Christian Conservative politician, and the largely Liberal comedian. Enjoy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cais
More specifically, how Stewart utterly slew Huckabee.

---

I haven't seen the interview, but what you've described doesn't surprise me since no logical argument against gay marriage has ever been made, as far as I know.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eSS98hwqkg

"Religion is more of a lifestyle choice than homosexuality."

The entire interview was pretty brutal for Huckabee, but the above comment by Stewart was a rather resounding blow.

Quote:

---

Snrrub: I haven't seen the interview, but what you've described doesn't surprise me since no logical argument against gay marriage has ever been made, as far as I know.

---

Well, that's the rub, really. Here's a shining example:

Huckabee. "If we change the definition, then we really need to change it to accomodate all life styles. We would have to say to the guy in West-Texas who had 27 wives that that's okay..."

This is non sequitur bullshit. It simply does not follow, there is no logic there period. I have not met a single person who supports gay rights, and according to Huckabee, subsequently supports polygamy or ANY marital arrangement. I, for example, like the concept of monogamy.

What continues to astonish me is the inability for some people to recognize their own prejudice. If a Christian told me they could not support gay marriage because of their religion; so be it. Instead, they create innane arguments that do not hold up, and inevitably they are forced to give the same cheap cop out that Huckabee gave, "Frankly, we won't come to terms with this."

Here's another gem for you:

Huckabee. "Definitions matter, and we have to be very thoughtful and careful before we undue a social structure. Let's face it, the basic purpose of a marriage is not just to create the next generation but to train our replacements. And it is in the context of 23 male and 23 female chromosomes coming together to create the next life."

Stewart. "I think you're looking at sexuality and not attributes, and it's odd because I think the conservative matra is a meritocracy and I think what you're suggesting is the fact that being gay parents makes you not as good as others. And I would suggest that a loving, gay family with a financially secure background beats the hell out of Britney Spears and Kevin Federline (sp?)."

Scathing. I don't care what anyone says about Jon Stewart, I respect the guy.

Quote:

---

"Definitions matter, and we have to be very thoughtful and careful before we undue a social structure. Let's face it, the basic purpose of a marriage is not just to create the next generation but to train our replacements. And it is in the context of 23 male and 23 female chromosomes coming together to create the next life."

---

John Stewart blew Huckabee away with his lifestyle choice statement, and I absolutely loved it.

This is ONE potential reason, but not the basic reason. This is a traditionalist viewpoint on marriage and IMO not in step with many millions of people who are married. I would argue that companionship and security would be the basic reasons for marriage.

Mr. Pewtershmidt: What's love got to do with it? We're talking about Marriage!

Lois: So you're telling me that two straight people who hate each other have more right to get married than two gay people who love each other?

Barbara: That's what we've raised you to believe.

I love family guy. :D

Hey, let's combine his two arguements, and see where they lead:

Since I can tell you who you cannot marry, you can tell me who I cannot marry.

Can I be the one to tell him his marriage is now annulled?

Quote:

---

Kestra: I would argue that companionship and security would be the basic reasons for marriage.

---

I think you're dead accurate there.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cais

Huckabee. "If we change the definition, then we really need to change it to accomodate all life styles. We would have to say to the guy in West-Texas who had 27 wives that that's okay..."

This is non sequitur bullshit. It simply does not follow, there is no logic there period. I have not met a single person who supports gay rights, and according to Huckabee, subsequently supports polygamy or ANY marital arrangement.

---

Actually, I've always thought that logic makes complete sense if you use the right arguments. In the following example, let's assume that gay marriage is legalized, as it eventually will be.

Huckabee's example of the guy with 27 wives is a bit extreme, so I'll simplify it to 3 people. Let's say you have 3 people who all love each other. 3 girls, 3 guys, or any combination of them. Whatever. They're all in love, and they all want to marry each other.

Who are we to tell them they can't? How can we tell them that it's wrong to love/marry more than one person? Why can marriage only be between 2 people (notice "people", not "man and woman"). Almost any argument you can make in support of gay marriage can also be used (and does so inherently) to support legalizing multiple spouses.

You're saying that there is no logical connection between legalizing gay marriage and the subsequent necessity of legalizing 3+ person marriages? So you think it's NOT okay to tell people who they can and can't marry, but that it IS okay to tell them how many people can be married? Philosophy, by definition, needs to be consistent.

Funnily enough, Huckabee doesn't realize what he really said when he made the comment quoted above. Instead of an argument against gay marriage, this really should be viewed as an argument for multiple-person marriages.

I think both should be legalized.

The reason there is no logic behind Huckabee's madness is that no one is arguing that the institution of marriage is altered from "one man, one woman" to "As many men as applicable, as many women as applicable."

The argument is, simply, altering the institution of marriage from "One man, one woman." to something along the lines of, "Two people, regardless of sexual orientation."

Polygamy is really a whole other chestnut, and is probably more taboo and more widely accepted as immoral than homosexuality nowadays. Huckabee's attempt to relate the subject only indicates his thinking that homosexuality is akin to polygamy: immoral.

The supreme difference is that homosexuality is not a choice, whereas polygamy is, indeed, a lifestyle choice. The two subjects are not related in any way whatsoever, period. This is why we have "protected classes," people are born with some element that distinguishes them in some way from the "majority."

You're mistaken in saying that any argument to support gay marriage can be used to support polygamy: the subjects are not the same in any way.