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.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cais
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."

---

Actually, a whole lot of people do indeed argue this. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands people in the US actively working to have polygamy legalized.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cais

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."

---

That's SOME people's argument. That's not everyone's argument. You are arbitrarily saying the only part of the marriage equation that can be argued is the sex of the participants. There are other parts of the institution that could also be debated by the same logic, including the number of the participants, the age, the relation status, etc.

If the argument is let people who love each other be married, that can be used to justify a lot of different types of marital arrangements.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cais

Polygamy is really a whole other chestnut, and is probably more taboo and more widely accepted as immoral than homosexuality nowadays.

---

How do you figure? There are entire cultures where polygamy is not only socially acceptable, but considered a social good. 1st wife, 2nd wife, 3rd wife, etc. and they all work to provide a common household that efficiently utilizes resources. I am not saying that is my preference, but there are cultures where that system is used and it works for them.

The idea exists for the future as well. A year or so ago I read Friday, by Robert Heinlein. On one planet, marriages are like miniature corporations that include any number of individuals (mostly couples but not just couples). The idea is kinda out there, but I can see how it might make sense and might work pretty effectively.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cais
The supreme difference is that homosexuality is not a choice, whereas polygamy is, indeed, a lifestyle choice.

---

Being homosexual may not be a lifestyle choice, but being married to someone of the same sex is definitely a lifestyle choice.

The fact that I am married to a woman is a lifestyle choice. The fact that we have kids is a lifestyle choice.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cais

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.

---

Only because you are arbitrarily choosing to declare them not the same. We have a current legal definition of marriage. A group of people want to change that definition so people of the same sex can marry. Fine. I happen to support this movement. I should also note, Threshold has supported same sex marriage since 1996. :)

The main rules for legal marriage in our country involve:

1) Age of the participants.
2) Relation status of the participants (must be no closer than 2nd cousins in most states).
3) Number of participants (2).
4) Sex of the participants - one man, one woman.

The argument for same sex marriage seeks to change #4. But why can only rule #4 be changed? Why not #3, or #2, or #1? You cannot say efforts to change one of those rules is "not the same in any way" as an effort to change another rule. Such efforts would be VERY similar, and likely involve very similar arguments.

Quote:

---

Aristotle: You are arbitrarily saying the only part of the marriage equation that can be argued is the sex of the participants.

---

The scope is specifically gay marriage. People DO argue for polygamy, I would never deny that, and there are cultures where polygamy is the norm (duh). I assumed I could speak using generalities to some degree, to avoid enormously long posts, and it would be acceptable.

I've never, and will never argue in absolutes, I just don't operate that way. So, SOME people do use these arguments in favor of polygamy, I'm sorry if it sounded as though I was denying that.

What I'm saying is that there are other parts of the marriage equation, and they're not intrinsicly connected.

Quote:

---

Aristotle: There are entire cultures where polygamy is not only socially acceptable, but considered a social good.

---

You are 100 percent correct. But, we're talking about American politics (again, not dealing in absolutes, there are pockets in America that WANT polygamy.) where polygamy, is by and large, not socially acceptable.

Quote:

---

Aristotle: Being homosexual may not be a lifestyle choice, but being married to someone of the same sex is definitely a lifestyle choice.

---

Well, this sounds like the school of thinking where marriage is a privilege. And, it is. However, EVERYONE should be able to enjoy the right to obtain this particular privilege, regardless of who their biology tells them the sex of their partner should be.

Quote:

---

Aristotle: Only because you are arbitrarily choosing to declare them not the same.

---

Homosexuality is not a choice, and if everyone should be able to obtain the privilege of marriage by right: it's not arbitrary in any way at all to include the fact that homosexuality has biological roots whereas polygamy does not as the crux of my argument.

To be married is, indeed, a lifestyle. But, according to the constitution, we have the right to pursue our particular lifestyles: now there's an argument for polygamy. However, I was drawing a very stark distinction in that homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, but a biological occurence, and should then have protection under law on that very basis.

I hate it when I agree with Aristotle.

Your argument about denying the right of consenting adults to get married is really convoluted and hard to follow, Cais.

I never said consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to wed, I'm drawing a distinction between two seperate and specific elements. Try to keep up.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cais
The scope is specifically gay marriage.

---

No, the scope is marriage and changing the laws regarding who can marry. You are arbitrarily trying to frame the argument as only about same sex marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cais
People DO argue for polygamy, I would never deny that, and there are cultures where polygamy is the norm (duh).

---

Don't get flippant with me (using "duh") when you are the one who said:

"Polygamy is really a whole other chestnut, and is probably more taboo and more widely accepted as immoral than homosexuality nowadays. "

You said it, not me, and it happens to be incorrect. Historically, polygamy has been far more accepted than same sex marriage (or homosexuality) ever have been.

And I am not certain it is widely believed today that polygamy is "immoral." Most people seem to object to it for reasons other than morality. Fairness and women's rights tend to be larger issues when the topic of polygamy is discussed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cais
You are 100 percent correct. But, we're talking about American politics (again, not dealing in absolutes, there are pockets in America that WANT polygamy.) where polygamy, is by and large, not socially acceptable.

---

When the issue is liberty, what people "by and large" believe is not the important factor. For me, what people believe "by and large" is irrelevant when I feel personal liberties are being abridged. That is why I support same sex marriage, the right to burn the flag, and a large number of other unpopular things.

"By and large" the American people are against same sex marriage. That is why Proposition 8 passed in California. There are more ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage right now than there are for polygamy. So the appropriate test for whether something is good and right is not whether the public "by and large" supports it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cais
Homosexuality is not a choice, and if everyone should be able to obtain the privilege of marriage by right: it's not arbitrary in any way at all to include the fact that homosexuality has biological roots whereas polygamy does not as the crux of my argument.

---

First, you cannot just declare that homosexuality is not a choice. We really do not know one way or another. Most responsible science I have read on the matter concludes that some people are homosexual by choice, some because of social factors, and some because of biology. But we do not know this for scientific fact, so you cannot just declare this in absolute terms. And since you "never, and will never argue in absolutes", you shouldn't state it this way.

Second, you keep comparing apples and oranges. Homosexuality and polygamy are not congruent. Same sex marriage and polygamy are the concepts associated with each other.

Third, homosexuality may not be a lifestyle choice, but same sex marriage - for that matter ANY type of marriage - is definitely a lifestyle choice.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cais
To be married is, indeed, a lifestyle. But, according to the constitution, we have the right to pursue our particular lifestyles: now there's an argument for polygamy.

---

What part of the Constitution are you referring to that gives us the right to "pursue our particular lifestyles"? I am not aware of that section. Is it in the penumbras?.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cais
However, I was drawing a very stark distinction in that homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, but a biological occurence, and should then have protection under law on that very basis.

---

That's nice, but homosexuality is not the issue here: the issue is marriage. Now that most sodomy laws have been stricken from the books, I do not believe the legality of homosexuality itself is a major issue in the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
I hate it when I agree with Aristotle.

---

Don't be coy. You know we agree on TONS of social issues. Economics is where we butt heads.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cais
I never said consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to wed, I'm drawing a distinction between two seperate and specific elements. Try to keep up.

---

I am quite certain that Malacasta is keeping up just fine, and I have a feeling you misunderstood her post.

But more importantly, if you are just going to be snarky and rude to people (using "duh", telling people to "keep up") then please don't waste your time participating with us mental midgets. We clearly are not worth your time.

Quote:

---

No, the scope is marriage and changing the laws regarding who can marry. You are arbitrarily trying to frame the argument as only about same sex marriage.

---

I'm pretty sure the scope of this thread is gay marriage as I indicated when I started it.

Quote:

---

Don't get flippant with me (using "duh") when you are the one who said:

---

Flippant? I'm not sure why you constantly presume I'm being rude. Sometimes I throw in stupid words to avoid being droll. Utter failure on my part.

Quote:

---

You said it, not me, and it happens to be incorrect. Historically, polygamy has been far more accepted than same sex marriage (or homosexuality) ever have been.

---

You are absolutely correct: but the context here is the current American culture.

Quote:

---

And I am not certain it is widely believed today that polygamy is "immoral." Most people seem to object to it for reasons other than morality. Fairness and women's rights tend to be larger issues when the topic of polygamy is discussed.

---

In my experience, people have been less accepting of polygamy than gay marriage: in most cases, if I were to boil down the slew of reasons, it comes down to an issue of morality, roughly.

Quote:

---

When the issue is liberty, what people "by and large" believe is not the important factor. For me, what people believe "by and large" is irrelevant when I feel personal liberties are being abridged. That is why I support same sex marriage, the right to burn the flag, and a large number of other unpopular things.

---

I couldn't agree more. This is one of the core reasons that I support gay rights. This isn't argue for why polygamy shouldn't be allowed, it's more a reason for why polygamy would likely not pass muster in the near future.

Quote:

---

"By and large" the American people are against same sex marriage. That is why Proposition 8 passed in California. There are more ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage right now than there are for polygamy. So the appropriate test for whether something is good and right is not whether the public "by and large" supports it.

---

When was the last time polygamy was up for referendum?

Quote:

---

First, you cannot just declare that homosexuality is not a choice. We really do not know one way or another. Most responsible science I have read on the matter concludes that some people are homosexual by choice, some because of social factors, and some because of biology. But we do not know this for scientific fact, so you cannot just declare this in absolute terms. And since you "never, and will never argue in absolutes", you shouldn't state it this way.

---

Again, my fault for dealing in generalities: while I believe the majority of homosexuals are biologically prone, there are ALWAYS exceptions and there are, quite naturally, people who CHOOSE to be gay. I've drawn this conclusion from this responsible science that you speak of, and the gay individuals I've spoken with.

Quote:

---

Third, homosexuality may not be a lifestyle choice, but same sex marriage - for that matter ANY type of marriage - is definitely a lifestyle choice.

---

Here goes again: I said that marriage is a lifestyle choice - the difference is that homosexuals (for the most part, in my opinion) are biologically prone and compelled to choose this lifestyle. It should then have protection under law.

Quote:

---

What part of the Constitution are you referring to that gives us the right to "pursue our particular lifestyles"? I am not aware of that section. Is it in the penumbras?.

---

Rough reference to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." and that is actually a reference to the Declaration of Independence (Whoops, I should slow down.)

Quote:

---

That's nice, but homosexuality is not the issue here: the issue is marriage. Now that most sodomy laws have been stricken from the books, I do not believe the legality of homosexuality itself is a major issue in the USA.

---

Well, you missed the part that followed. Again, I'm drawing a direct correlation in the right to choose a same-sex lifestyle, and being homosexual as a matter of biology (and subsequently, social factors etc etc.) It's not the legality of homosexuality that's in question.

Quote:

---

I am quite certain that Malacasta is keeping up just fine, and I have a feeling you misunderstood her post.

But more importantly, if you are just going to be snarky and rude to people (using "duh", telling people to "keep up") then please don't waste your time participating with us mental midgets. We clearly are not worth your time.

---

Again, this is me sucking at not being banal. And that last bit is not called for, period.