Mike Huckabee and Jon Stewart talk Gay Marriage 12.9.08 Daily Show

That was good stuff, thanks!

 

I may not agree with Huck, but I think he has great conversations and interviews that are enjoyable.

 

That seemed like 80% Stewart speaking to me. Not sure that's much of a conversation...

 

Jon Stewert is right on point there, thanks for posting.

DD

 

Jon Stewart has no clue what he is talking about in the discussion.

Homosexual marriage is often disguised as a human rights issue or about equality when in fact there is no such issue. People are free to marry and live with whomever they want to and no one can stop you from doing such a thing. The only issue here is, should this marriage of two people by recognized by the State if the purpose of such union is not procreation and thus not in the benefit of the State? The argument to grant these couple the same privileges and benefits as heterosexual one, whether its tax deduction or deceased benefits or any other form of advantage gained through marriage, is only based on love between two people then there is now incentive for State to provide this privilege.

 

you must not have watched it, then. Huck got plenty of talking time, and does as good a job as someone can trying to defend that position without coming out and saying "I still don't think they should have equal rights", which is what that position is...

disagree. the conservative movement against homosexual marriage seems to be as much about the social aspect of it as the political aspect. I agree at the end of the day it shouldn't be, but you didn't hear Huck saying what you noted above. Conservatives against gay marriage, in the majority, would likely not be happy if gay marriage was allowed, yet some of the political rights did not come with it...just as gay rights activists probably wouldn't like that position, either.

moreover, even from a political viewpoint, gay rights activists would point out that homosexual marriages, while obviously physically incapable of procreation, can be as beneficial to the State as heterosexual marriages.

 

"All men are created equal"

ring a bell?

DD

 

Pot? Kettle?

Do you honestly think any conservative christian agrees with this? If so - you're nuts.

The issue is whether the state should give a **** about the definition of a religious function. The answer is no, it should not.

The argument to grant these couples the privelege is based on the foundation of equal rights, not state advantage. If the state is going to offer a program to aid people, it must do it without prejudice. That is the american way, despite over 200 years of violent resistance from religion and racism inspired douchebags that continually demand the opposite.

 

don't we already have a 20 page thread discussing this?

 

Not really. We give aid all the time based on how it helps the people. Why should someone not going to school get a student loan.

 

Heterosexual people can marry the person they love and receive all the benefits from this. Heterosexuals who can not procreate can still marry the person they love and be legally recognized by the state.

As I said in another thread it is fine the state to only recognize civil unions and make all marriages a function of the church. However, that isn't the system, and until they strip away the marriage function away from states in regard to heterosexual couples, then it is an equal rights issue to do so with homosexual couples.

You keep mentioning procreation as a reason for marriage or against marriage. Yet there is no procreation requirement to be recognized by the state. There is a sexual orientation requirement though.

 

That's a bad analogy, but a good point. "Aid" was a bad word choice. I should have used the word "privelege" or "right".

You have a right to get a civil union from the state. That right should not be limited to certain portions of the populace.

 

The benefit of the state? What are you talking about, COMRADE? Plenty of straight people have been married who didn't or couldn't have kids, so your lame ass argument was DOA.

 

OK but that right comes along with $$$ benefits. Tax increases or decreases etc. The reason for this $$$$ is the crux of ghettocheeze's discussion.

 

Stewart interrupted him almost every time he spoke. I don't think his intention was to have a real discussion; just let Huck get out a couple of preliminary lines without letting him expand, and then pound him and spew a bunch of his own opinions.

 

whatever...i don't know exactly where you're going with this, but the video in this thread is a discussion....it is not a talking head throwing out questions, letting the guest answer for five seconds and interrupting (as you see on many other channels). if you insist otherwise, go to town...

 

i think the reason you have a hard time seeing it is because you probably agree with Stewart. Granted, I did too, on some things, but I guess I just didn't like his condescending tone - his 'gotcha' lines, which Huck did a poor job responding to, IMO.

 

i agree, and although i'm on JS' side here, i really wanted to hear what Huck had to say (and i think he's right about the pro-abortion movement). what i think he tried to say at one point, before stewart cut him off, is that there's a big difference between bebeing black, and actions you might take by choice because of your sexuality (or any other attribute). stewart tried to turn it into an argument about sexuality as a choice, but what i think huck meant to say is that race or sexuality is a state of being. marriage is a privilege.

the argument has some merit, but i think in this case marriage is one privilege that should be extended to all.

 

i agree with john stewart, but that clip was basically just one guy feeding off a friendly audience and interrupting another guy. not really a fair discussion.