Mike Huckabee and Jon Stewart talk Gay Marriage 12.9.08 Daily Show

agreed. i found that a bit tasteless, especially considering it was on his turf. while i'm completely on the opposite side of the spectrum to Huck on social issues, he seems like a classy guy, and i would have liked to hear his thoughts.

 

Discrimination will lose in the end, it always does.

 

and moral corruption always wins. whats your point?

 

so two people who love each other who just happen to be of the same sex are morally corrupt?

 

You claim that marriage should be extended to all, except that you don't see a difference between one politician who wants a constitutional amendment to keep that from happening and another politician who is opposed to amendment.

Please! With friends like you, the same sex marriage movement doesn't need enemies.

 

not by my moral code, but discrimination does not always lose.

 

I still disagree. I do happen to agree with Stewart, but think his interview style was perfectly normal. I've seen much worse from moderators of plenty of shows, including stalwarts like Meet the Press, Face the Nation, etc.

I think the reason you may have a hard time seeing it is because what seems like a condescending tone to you is Stewart playing to his audience and tv viewers - people watch his show to laugh...Stewart occasionally will get into more spirited discussions that end up going nowhere funny and stray from the point of his show, but he knows its not wise when he does.

so yes, Huck was interrupted once or twice, but not only at the end of what he was saying anyway, interruptions are part of the discussion, which this truly was. And I happen to think Huck did a good job defending his position.

 

I think people should have the freedom to arm bears but I voted for Gore because I thought he would be a good president. There is more than one issue at hand.

 

I understand. I believe one could vote for Bush and still be in favor of same sex marriage.

basso, however, flatly stated that there was no difference in the position of Bush who championed an amendment to ban same sex marriage, and Obama who opposes such an amendment.

If support was related to one issue taking precedence over another, it would be a different story. But, basso speaking only to the issue of same sex marriage, claimed there was no difference.

 

OK let me make it the same argument in arming bears. McCain has long been a complete crapper of a politician for bear arming, as was Obama. I might be inclined to tell my bear friends that there is "no difference they both suck".

Frankly when it comes to rights, people are kinda in the all or nothing crowd.

 

I'm pretty sure that the Constitution is silent on the question of arming bears.



Personally, I'm opposed.

 

That would be the case if he was interrupting with humorous zingers for comic relief. But he wasn't. He was basically just making condescending loaded statements knowing full well he had the audience. Not that I really care one way or another - it's his show and he is free to do whatever he wants. Just not sure how anyone can call that an actual fair and mature discussion.

 

But in the first sentence you said... and then in the second sentence you said, but how could it be a question if people are free to... *sigh*

 

well if one of the candidates supported repealing the 2nd amendment, and the other one who may have also been crappy opposed repealing the 2nd amendment, there's still a huge difference.

I think anyone who said there was no difference between one candidate who wanted to repeal the 2nd amendment, and another who wanted to make sure it stayed in the bill of rights would have a tough time being taken seriously as a supporter of gun owner's rights.

 

well there is no black and white differences in any politicians on the national stage today. BO says he is opposed to gay marriage, Bush says he would support an impossible to pass amendment to oppose gay marriage.

 

Bush = Supports amendment to ban gay marriage

Obama = Against an amendment to ban gay marriage

That is a huge difference. Even if both politicians are on record as being personally against it, there is still a difference. basso claimed there isn't a difference.

If someone wanted to support an impossible to pass amendment to bring back slavery, but another politician like John McCain who was against MLK day as a national holiday was against the amendment there would still be a difference.

Anyone who claimed to be a long time advocate for civil rights but said there wasn't a difference between those two politicians wouldn't and shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

I think it was Refman who attempted to mention in the other gay thread that marriage should be considered a religious covenant rather than a government sponsored civil union. Huckabee was constrained by not referring to the Bible to explain this rationale, but given the audience, he knew he'd have to use a different line of reasoning.

So I think Huckabee or some social conservatives have the intent of separating that quality "sacredness" of what marriage is defined by the Christians who feel strongly about it apart from the government benefits of a contract bound union. *That they use gay marriage instead of high divorce rates to come to that conclusion seems like bad taste and it stacks the odds against a convincing appeal.

While it sounds like an extreme point, with couples of any type divorcing left and right, maybe heterosexual civil unions should be encouraged (through the benefits it offers). I doubt it would be practiced or widely adopted (girls don't fantasize about their court sponsored civil union...parents wouldn't like describing to their friends why their children picked one over the other), but it would bring some focus to the fuss behind some Christians' rigid views.

 

Either you are being obtuse or you are just seeing a huge difference where there is none.

If you were a prisoner of war and one guy said "hey lets cut his head off" and another guy said "hey lets go get a dragon and have the dragon burn him to death while we steal its gold" they are both trying to kill you, one way is impossible but it still ends in your death.

The bottom line to me is they all want to take away my bear arms.

 

Was that just a really unflattering angle for Huck, or has he gained back a good chunk of that weight since the primary?