Jon Stewart FTMFW

[jonks]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/vi...le=mike-huckabee-pt.-2

Huck gave it a shot, but was unable to come up with one reason why gay marriage should be illegal. Couldn't cite one negative effect, just stuck to assertions that "redefining" marriage to include gay marriage would be wrong.

- Huck claims marriage is an institution going back 5,000 years and shouldn't be redefined.
Counterpoint: Stewart points out 5,000 years ago, biblically speaking, polygamy was A-OK. That marriage used to be a property arrangement. That quite recently people of different races couldn't marry. "Marriage has evolved greatly, we've redefined it constantly." Huck then plays the slippery-slope card. Unfortunately for Huck, the same argument was made by those opposing mixed race marriages. "If we allow this, then we'll have to allow people to marry their dogs! It will be the downfall of society!" etc etc. Sorry, Huck, wrong then, wrong now.

-Huck: "There's a big difference between someone being black and someone practicing a lifestyle." Ouch Huck, bad argument and Jon nails you on it. "Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality," and yet religious practice is protected every which way as a fundamental right. How can you logically advocate a person's religious practice should enjoy utmost protection, when whether or not to practice a religion is entirely a matter of choice that every individual makes, and yet not support full equality for gays when there is no choosing that variable? Answer: you can't, and have to resort to illogical argument.

-Huck: "Those who support same-sex marriage have a lot of work to do to convince the rest of us." Nice Mike. Jon?: "It's a travesty that people have forced someone who is gay to have to 'make their case' that they deserve the same basic rights."

-Jon finally asks what I and several others have continued to ask in every thread on gay marriage and still have yet to get any logical, legally reasonable response: "Why?" What's the rational reason for opposition? Atreus admitted he thinks gay sex is icky. Huck won't say it, but that's really all his side has got. Huck again reverts back to "we can't redefine marriage." Sorry mike, that's not a reason. Jon: "Semantics is cold comfort when it comes to humanity."

So even likeable, knowledgeable, experienced Gov. Mike Huckabee cannot come up with any rational reason at all why gay marriage should be opposed. None, zip, zilch.

 

[StageLeft]

Huck was and remains a putz. It's a shame so many wanted him as president, literally some millions at one point.

 

[First]

Gay marriage will be legal. Whether some religious Americans accept that eventual reality or not, is up to them.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

 

[DealMonkey]

Huckabee's a raging bigot just like the rest of the homophobes in the Republican party. No surprise there. Stewart owned his ass last night.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

marriage is a civil contract that may or may not also be endorsed by a religion if the couple so chooses.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution

No, it is not, and tens of millions of Americans agree.

 

[OrByte]

Thanks for the link jonks I look forward to checking it out later.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

um, that perspective would sure make probate court really interesting.

"We lived together for 40 years, I'm 75 years old, what do you mean I can't stay in my house?"

"Sorry maam, it wasn't in your name, and this guy you lived with, your "husband" or something, the government doesn't recognize such a relationship. Now pack up your shit and get out."

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

um, that perspective would sure make probate court really interesting.

"We lived together for 40 years, I'm 75 years old, what do you mean I can't stay in my house?"

"Sorry maam, it wasn't in your name, and this guy you lived with, your "husband" or something, the government doesn't recognize such a relationship. Now pack up your shit and get out."

what is the problem? if she owns the house she should be on the deed.

 

[Throckmorton]

My question for Huck: What gives some Christians to define what marriage is for all others? What if a religion wants to marry gays?

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution

No, it is not, and tens of millions of Americans agree.

how is that relevant? marriage was created by religion, and thats where it should stay

 

[First]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution

No, it is not, and tens of millions of Americans agree.

how is that relevant? marriage was created by religion, and thats where it should stay

The last 50 years of redefining marriage says you're living in the previous 50.

 

[Dari]

Believe it or not but some people are extremely proud of their bigotry/ignorance. They call it "tradition".

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

um, that perspective would sure make probate court really interesting.

"We lived together for 40 years, I'm 75 years old, what do you mean I can't stay in my house?"

"Sorry maam, it wasn't in your name, and this guy you lived with, your "husband" or something, the government doesn't recognize such a relationship. Now pack up your shit and get out."

what is the problem? if she owns the house she should be on the deed.

Dude, there is no point in arguing this; your assertion that marriage is a religious institution is wrong.

It is both a religious institution and civil contract. It is BOTH.

Which is probably a mistake but that is the way things are...

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

This. Legal unions for all.

 

[halik]

There's no logical argument why equal protection isn't afforded under law. That being said, I see marriage as a religious institution, which is why it gets icky.

If anything, civil unions (whether homo or hetero) should be the definition under law. If you want to have it in church and call it a marriage, go for it. If not, just have a judge/magistrate do it for ya.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

marriage is a civil contract that may or may not also be endorsed by a religion if the couple so chooses.

this is how it exists in modern society, but underneath it all, it is foremost a religious institution. it never should have been considered into any of our laws in the first place.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Evan
Gay marriage will be legal. Whether some religious Americans accept that eventual reality or not, is up to them.

This. It's all about the the demographics. Once the fogies croak it's game over.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

This. Legal unions for all.

jesus, thank FSM at least one person in this thread can comprehend what i am saying

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

um, that perspective would sure make probate court really interesting.

"We lived together for 40 years, I'm 75 years old, what do you mean I can't stay in my house?"

"Sorry maam, it wasn't in your name, and this guy you lived with, your "husband" or something, the government doesn't recognize such a relationship. Now pack up your shit and get out."

what is the problem? if she owns the house she should be on the deed.

And if a man buys a house and then gets married but doesn't amend the deed, the wife should have no protection under the law? The "problem" is gov't recognized marriage immediately confers hundreds of rights upon the spouse without need for filling out 1,000 forms or dotting every i and you can't get kicked out of your home because you forgot to sign a piece of paper. This is the most blatant example I could think of but there's 1000's of subtler things that would screw over couples if gov't didn't recognize marriage.

If your point is that gov't should recognize the contract of marriage between two people but simply refer to it as a civil union instead, that's fine. Your initial post made it look like you didn't think the marriage contract itself was very useful from a bureaucracy standpoint. It actually is any extraordinarily efficient method for confering rights and directing property.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

um, that perspective would sure make probate court really interesting.

"We lived together for 40 years, I'm 75 years old, what do you mean I can't stay in my house?"

"Sorry maam, it wasn't in your name, and this guy you lived with, your "husband" or something, the government doesn't recognize such a relationship. Now pack up your shit and get out."

what is the problem? if she owns the house she should be on the deed.

And if a man buys a house and then gets married but doesn't amend the deed, the wife should have no protection under the law? The "problem" is gov't recognized marriage immediately confers hundreds of rights upon the spouse without need for filling out 1,000 forms or dotting every i and you can't get kicked out of your home because you forgot to sign a piece of paper. This is the most blatant example I could think of but there's 1000's of subtler things that would screw over couples if gov't didn't recognize marriage.

If your point is that gov't should recognize the contract of marriage between two people but simply refer to it as a civil union instead, that's fine. Your initial post made it look like you didn't think the marriage contract itself was very useful from a bureaucracy standpoint. It actually is any extraordinarily efficient method for confering rights and directing property.

I'm pretty sure that he's going with the civil union aspect. If someone died, the person that they were in a civil union with would be first in line as an heir, assuming that their name wasn't on joint property. It would function the same way that current marriage rights, except that homosexuals could share the same rights. People could still call it a marriage if they pleased, but on paper everyone would be the same and the religious aspect would be removed.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

This. Legal unions for all.

jesus, thank FSM at least one person in this thread can comprehend what i am saying

Do you realize the amount of work the government would have to do to change all the laws/documents/contracts to re-name marriage as a legal union. How many law documents in the private area would have to be re-worded to take into account the government no longer defines marriage but rather a civil union. Why does anyone care what the government calls something, I rather not risk onernous amounts of work and potential f*-ups because Joe the conservative-belief-man is upset that tim and bob are holding hands with wedding bands on their fingers.

Equal rights under government law w/out redifining all our laws imo, let whatever organizations think whatever they want of the legal binding contract I don't care if they don't recoginize the marriage I just want the government laws to be set fairly.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

This. Legal unions for all.

jesus, thank FSM at least one person in this thread can comprehend what i am saying

And what you're saying is utterly impractical and frankly naive.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
marriage is a religious institution and has no business being recognized or legislated upon by the government in any capacity

um, that perspective would sure make probate court really interesting.

"We lived together for 40 years, I'm 75 years old, what do you mean I can't stay in my house?"

"Sorry maam, it wasn't in your name, and this guy you lived with, your "husband" or something, the government doesn't recognize such a relationship. Now pack up your shit and get out."

what is the problem? if she owns the house she should be on the deed.

And if a man buys a house and then gets married but doesn't amend the deed, the wife should have no protection under the law? The "problem" is gov't recognized marriage immediately confers hundreds of rights upon the spouse without need for filling out 1,000 forms or dotting every i and you can't get kicked out of your home because you forgot to sign a piece of paper. This is the most blatant example I could think of but there's 1000's of subtler things that would screw over couples if gov't didn't recognize marriage.

If your point is that gov't should recognize the contract of marriage between two people but simply refer to it as a civil union instead, that's fine. Your initial post made it look like you didn't think the marriage contract itself was very useful from a bureaucracy standpoint. It actually is any extraordinarily efficient method for confering rights and directing property.

im not sure i understand why the government needs to be recognizing couples at all