Jon Stewart pwns Huckabee. Hard.

Ha ha. I watched this last night. I have to admit I felt a little sorry for the Chuck Norris candidate. One thing I like about him in this interview is that he is open (naive?) enough to allow Stewart to really get to the core of his argument (it's always been that way *no it hasn't* well for a while a least *so what?* uhh....). I mean yes it is a bad argument but at least it's openly bad. He could have said the-bible-says-so or it's-a-choice or gays-will-make-their-children-gay (he may have insinuated that last one though). So he didn't deploy the common weasel out strategies.

Monday's show making jokes about Canada's parliamentary 'crisis' was much more interesting to me though (OMG! John F-ing Stewart mentioned us! For like 10 minutes! He thinks we're pathetic doormats to the monarchy! *actually we're doormats to USandA* He mentioned us! OMFG!)

I really appreciated how Stewart continued to get back to the core issues of the anti-gay crowd: they are being hypocritical.

They cry "equal rights" on one hand, but take them away on another...

Huckabee just doesn't seem to get it. Maybe he is unable to understand.

I wonder why he supports the contemporary definition of marriage if he is a conservative? Shouldn't he support some more archaic tradition instead?

Also, what does it matter to him? How can he be affected by other people's marriage arrangements? He doesn't care that some people are on their third or fourth husband/wife, or that some people live in unhappy or arranged marriages, or that the most horrible serial killer can get married to a women if he wants to. So why does he even give a shit about same sex couples?

"Homosexuality is a choice! It's a choice to...engage in this...deliciously decadent...lifestyle!"

-David Cross, in his faux preacher voice

And whenever you're feeling sorry for Gov. Huckabee, just remember this quote of his:

"But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do - to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

And whenever you're feeling sorry for Gov. Huckabee, just remember this quote of his:

ha ha, ok. I'm cured!

How could the definition of a word be so important? It's like he's idolizing a fucking dictionary.

I saw this last night - Jon Stewart was awesome!! :-)

" Religion is more of a choice than homosexuality"

"How could the definition of a word be so important? It's like he's idolizing a fucking dictionary."

Speaking as someone who, generally, hates it when words are redefined to meet some specific end (usually by marketing stooges) I can see how this bothers some people. Words are supposed to mean something. Often, changing the definition of a word is a means to circumvent opposing arguments. For example, calling 'aboriginal traditional knowledge' 'aboriginal science'. Getting this term accepted would change the meaning of the word 'science'. It is intended to sway people to the idea that aboriginal traditional knowledge, as valuable as it often is, is as good as science without having to debate, well..., whether it is as good as science. Plus, I imagine it pisses off aboriginals who are doing science sensu stricto.

Anyway, if the definition didn't matter, why would the gay community not just accept 'civil unions' that are made to be equal to marriage? It would certainly be an easier sell, but it just doesn't mean the same thing.

I think the debate is about redefining a social/legal institution rather than a word per se. I don't think that there is anything wrong with that (the redefining bit).

The argument from religion is a very strong one. As would be the argument for gun ownership. Both are choices that the right will never negotiate. However, this is still flawed. It is as close to indisputable as evidence comes that sexual preference is not a choice due to various social and biological constraints that are determinative, not simply conditioned. Huckabee clearly believes that it is a choice, hence the bit about race.

The entire definitional bit is rooted in a flawed non-negotiable assumption about a so-called "natural law". The bible is just a screen for that assumption. Sure we need male and female chomosomes, but if a small percentage of the population can adopt, and a smaller portion of them use IFV, it blows out the premise that two people therefore need to have intercourse and marriage for that to occur.

It's all arbitrary and only harmful in the end.

It was truly fun to watch. I love Stewart's ability to tear into an argument without making it an overly heated screaming match. . . though sometimes those screaming matches feel necessary. o.O

I watched last night and I was envious of Stewarts balls...he so eloquently called out Huck on his bigotry and showed how false his "compassion" is.

Oops...i have to repost just to correct my vanity link!

@Blake

Something I have noticed with evangelical types - they tend to give words and phrases (eg demon , blood , sin, word, "I am" etc) a life of thier own beyond being just a symbol.

Words have real power as far as they are concerned - as ridiculous as this is it's no surprise given their beliefs and practices (prayer , incantations and declarations- the having a hotline to god thing, intercession , possession etc) . Something that is straightforward to us can have all sorts of significance to them.

It's like almost like magic/shamanism. Probably springs from the same roots as well.

Words are not just communication - they have a life of their own aside from language - a life that can actually hurt you or open you up to undue influences.

This make all sorts of concepts sinister - and its largely the reason they get hung up on this sort of bullshit

It's quite frightening - and no way to live you life. It's no wonder they are so fucked up.

It was nice to see that Stewart supports pro-life arguments. As for the gay marriage, did they talk about civil unions?

Pwned? Some of you are just deluded.

Again, Limp Willy would rather move the goalposts than discuss the actual matter at hand. Just another Liar for Jebus.

Find a man to beat you yet, Limp Willy? Or do you still have to beat your wife to get it up?

@WW

"It was nice to see that Stewart supports pro-life arguments"

Well not really. He appreciates the sentiment but he doesn't feel that pro-life policies are workable or moral. At least that's what I get.

"Pwned? Some of you are just deluded."

It was pretty serious pwnage dude. Congenial perhaps, but pwnage all the same. Basically three major arguments re. gay marriage were touched on: 1) religious arguments - Huck had no answer to the Stewart's critiques, 2) it's always been that way - ditto, 3) gay parents will beget gay children - Huckabee didn't/wouldn't really go into that. So 3-0 for Stewart, seems like pwnage to me. And that is not even going into the whole if-only-people-behaved-better-then-we-wouldn't-need-so-many-police bit which is true but facile. I mean I appreciate the sentiment, apparently so does Stewart, but let's not kid ourselves, it's laughably naive.

Anyway, who cares? It's a comedy show. I'm sure there's a more comprehensive review or interview out there, so if you're really interested, go find it.

Prolife is a word with little meaning. Obviously abortion should be allowed within limits, so there's no question there. What really is interesting though is that how many of those prolifers I have met who seem to support war, state-sanctioned terrorism, torture, death penalty and almost always are against universal healthcare. Pro-life indeed. Compassion indeed.

How could the definition of a word be so important? It's like he's idolizing a fucking dictionary.

Creationists tend to prefer dictionaries over data.

I'm a big ol' liberal homo and I don't think Stewart pwned Huckabee - he didn't exactly break any new ground cause any shame. That said, Stewart did do well to say that the crux of the matter is understanding what homosexuality is: part of the human condition. If you admit to "getting" this, it throws up a shit ton of inconveniences if you're an evangelical.

Most of us don't give a flying fuck what 'marriage' is called. I just want my relationship to have the same rights as anyone else's - hospital visitation, immigration rights, inheritance rights, whatever. Evangelicals can keep marriage if they want it; the word doesn't have much power to me.

Well not really. He appreciates the sentiment but he doesn't feel that pro-life policies are workable or moral. At least that's what I get.

Precisely. He's said as much before.

I loved Stewart's question "At what age did you decide to become heterosexual?"

Someone forgot to tell Stewart that he's, well, Jon Stewart.
The arguments from him aren't very good. Huckabee did OK, but not great.

Liberal Atheist, you seem to be restricting your comparisons without taking other factors into account, such as:

1. Ability to defend oneself.
2. The scope of the problem (how many innocent people are executed pursuant to the criminal justice system in all of the history of the United States, and how does this compare to the number of innocents aborted every single day in the United States?
3. Some conservatives sadly support pre-ventative war (such as with Iraq) while other conservatives only support just war (such as with Afganistan). But in war, the other side at least has an opportunity to speak, pick up weapons, cry for help, attempt to form allies, etc. Unborn children have no such power.

So, Wally, what you're really saying is,

1. You're for the death penalty if the prisoner is given the chance to defend himself (ie, give both him and the executioner a gun and let it settle among themselves);

2. You're for the death penalty as long as there are more abortions, but the instant there are fewer abortions than 'innocent executions', you'll oppose it;

3. Killing's okay if they can kill you back! (see #1)

So aside from validating the completely arbitrary, nonsensical nature of Wally's/conservatives' morals, Wally's religion turns out to be not much more than the law of the jungle, which should surprise no-one.

It's okay, though; Jesus' love gives him understanding (of why we should kill the ragheads and beat homosexuals within an inch of their lives)

1. You're for the death penalty if the prisoner is given the chance to defend himself (ie, give both him and the executioner a gun and let it settle among themselves);

MORTAL KOMBAT!!!!!!!!

lol, John Stewart suppots pro-life arguments? God you're stupid, Willy. How is it that you still surprise me? ;) He was 'pwned' indeed - Huckabee could only repeat himself and ignore Stewart's points. Classic creationist method of overt ignorance and feigned interest.

Sheesh there's a lot of stupidity on Huckabee's part. The purpose of marriage is procreation? Maybe instead of worrying so much about gays, he should be going after heterosexuals who are married and don't fulfill their obligation of having children, or the heterosexuals who have children without first being married. Does this mean people who physically can't have children shouldn't get married, Huck? Because that sure sounds like what you're saying.

Oh, and marriage is a privilege? So Huckabee wants to set himself up as the final arbiter of who gets to be married and who doesn't? He'd probably love to go back to the days when marriage was a financial arrangement between the groom and the bride's father.

He'd probably love to go back to the days when marriage was a financial arrangement between the groom and the bride's father.

He would.

He says he thinks that anyone can live as they want, but he really doesn't. Many people cohabit without marriage in America. He doesn't really think people should live that way, either. He just knows there no point in fighting against it, but he can't get it into his head that there's no point in fighting gay marriage, either.

His next generation "replacements" aren't buying the party line on gays - and I'm talking about the evangelicals, let alone the liberals that the conservative are screaming have "taken over." The gay marriage ban is doomed. It's only a matter of time.

I'm a straight man who's been married to the same woman for 18 years. For a wide variety of reasons, we've chosen not to have children, and are quite happy that way.

I have yet to see an argument put forth against gay marriage that does not also apply to my marriage.

Fuck off, Evangelical nutjobs. Just fuck, the, right, off.

Huckabee forgot another argument: it's "icky."

MORTAL KOMBAT!!!!!!!!

Dear dog, that's ridiculously funny. The "Alvin and the Chipmunks" version is great, too.

I am for the death penalty in certain instances. Pre-meditated lying in wait type murders with uncoerced confessions are a no-brainer, for example.

But, considering the ACLU, the right to an attorney, and the very few innocent prisoners executed, I choose to be concerned about the bigger problem.

Libturds choose to cry hypocrisy at the silliest comparisons, but only when convenient.

You want to be devil's advocate. I choose to be an advocate of the truly innocent. Even unborn children whose fathers are rapists do not deserve the death penalty simply because their fathers were criminals.

But I suppose you'd rather fight for a cop killer on death row than an innocent unborn child.

To each his own.

Ty,

Here's an argument: Marriage is a legal term. Rather than change it, argue for civil unions. If the homosexual agenda is not really out to diminish the family, it shouldn't be a problem. Heterosexuals can also get civil unions in solidarity with homosexuals if that trips their trigger.

Not that you'll actually consider it, Ty, as you've heard it before. You just choose to say "it's my way, or I'll curse at you."

BTW, I am so glad you didn't have kids. Let those genes die out a Darwinian death.

The epidsode of Boston legal that tried to prevent two heterosexual men from getting married was hillarious, and illustrates the goofy thinking of those in the homosexual agenda.

No person is ever aborted. Surely one must be said to possess personhood first.

William Wallace:

"If the homosexual agenda is not really out to diminish the family, it shouldn't be a problem"

What you don't seem to get here is that homosexuals HAVE families. They adopt and care for children, and they do so just as well as, if not better than heterosexuals. After all, gays can't have children by accident, unlike my parents, who made it a point to remind me that my birth was unintentional on a regular basis.

The fact is that same-sex marriage does not affect heterosexuals negatively in any way. Why is it that when a gay couple gets married it is harming the family, but when a rapist or murderer or tax evader gets married (which is legal in many, if not all states), no one tries to stop it? Its a ridiculous double-standard. In fact, it is worse because gays and lesbians are tax-paying citizens who are breaking no laws by being who they are.

"The epidsode of Boston legal that tried to prevent two heterosexual men from getting married was hillarious, and illustrates the goofy thinking of those in the homosexual agenda."

I've never seen Boston legal, but it's important to note that heterosexual marriages are exploited as well. Some gay couples marry lesbian couples so that they can call themselves married, and get all of the legal benefits of marriage, even if some of them are useless because they don't live with the person they are married to. Dan Savage is a good example of someone that.

Bah, left my last sentence incomplete.

Should say "someone who did that".

"Here's an argument: Marriage is a legal term. Rather than change it, argue for civil unions. If the homosexual agenda is not really out to diminish the family, it shouldn't be a problem. Heterosexuals can also get civil unions in solidarity with homosexuals if that trips their trigger."

I seem to remember something about separate but equal somewhere else...

http://blog.thehumanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/jimcrowpic3.jpg

ah... yes... now I remember...

@John -

What you don't seem to get here is that homosexuals HAVE families.

Oh, he gets that. But to Wally and the other lying, child-raping, America-hating shitheads like him, those families don't count. They aren't REAL families to him.

"Citizen is a legal term, instead of change it, why not argue for separate but equal?"

After all, for quite some time the word citizen meant white male land owner. The people who argued to change it were clearly libtards.

Your "Marriage is a legal term" argument is so stupid, and so historically false, that only you would think it makes any kind of sense.

"BTW, I am so glad you didn't have kids. Let those genes die out a Darwinian death."

Ooh! Good one! You totally got me!

At least in my case it's a conscious choice, as opposed to you where it will be an inability to attract anyone of the same species.

If by some chance you do wind up procreating (I assume through some form of purchased bride), I hope that you get to see your kids grow up to be atheists and secularists. Our numbers are growing, and most of our new recruits are driven to us by the idiocy they see in their parents bronze age belief systems.

By all means breed, and beat your kids with a bible every day. We could use the new recruits.

christoph, if you're male, go use a public restroom for females if you don't like seperate but equal.

I saw a toddler once who was being cared for by two flamers (meaning homosexuals who affected lisps and clearly wanted others to know they were a gay couple). I am not sure if they adopted, or if they were the uncle, or what.

So sad.

However, to be honest, it was the best dressed 2 and a half year old I have ever seen. Queer eye for the toddler guy I guess.

Willie, go suck a cock. It'll make you feel better.

Damn, Limp Willy. That's a new low, even for you. You really are a repulsive little slug, aren't you?

William Wallace:

"I saw a toddler once who was being cared for by two flamers (meaning homosexuals who affected lisps and clearly wanted others to know they were a gay couple). I am not sure if they adopted, or if they were the uncle, or what.

So sad.

However, to be honest, it was the best dressed 2 and a half year old I have ever seen. Queer eye for the toddler guy I guess."

Clearly you would rather demean and insult gays than seriously discuss issues involving the gay community. I must say I'm disappointed. You don't seem like an unintelligent person, you are just, like most conservatives, completely devoid of empathy or understanding.

You don't seem like an unintelligent person,

Maybe not, but there comes a point when deliberate, absolute, towering, flat-headed ignorance becomes outwardly indistinguishable from a genuine mental disability.

In other words, Wally is a self-made 'tard.

I saw a toddler once who was being cared for by two flamers (meaning homosexuals who affected lisps and clearly wanted others to know they were a gay couple). I am not sure if they adopted, or if they were the uncle, or what.

So sad.

Whats sad about it? Seriously. I dont get it.

John wrote, "You don't seem like an unintelligent person, [...]"

There are different types of intelligence. Willy here seems to have enough intelligence to rationalize the hell out of whatever idiotic things he believes, but not enough to possess the slightest bit of critical thinking, basic logic, and most importantly humility.

I agree with the consensus. Go suck something nice and turgid, Willy.

Did I hear that right? Huckabee came right out and said it;

"Religious people are not allowed to burn people at the stake. They are not allowed to do what they want to do".

I'm sorry but I forgot to mention how much I wanted to fuck that toddler up it's little pooper.

Okay, as little as I like Limp Willy, whoever is sockpuppeting him needs to stop. It's rude and obnoxious, and quite possibly the pinnacle of the ad hominem fallacy to put false words into his mouth. He's enough of an asshole without people adding to it.

If you can't make an argument, let the rest of us eviscerate discuss his arguments.

How about it, Limp Willy? Tired of playing with the big boys? Had to run home to mama?

The internet is serious business.

I agree with #51, except I'm content to insinuate he's a closeted homosexual.

Both of you doods are in some pretty big glass houses here.

Did I hear that right? Huckabee came right out and said it;

"Religious people are not allowed to burn people at the stake."

"Even...and I want to make this absolutely clear...even if they do say 'Jehovah!'"

Sorry, just go back, got stuck in a blizzard.

I would love to debate you guys and gals, but nobody has refuted the lack of a problem with seperate but equal when it comes to gender and bathrooms.

Keep patting yourselves on the back, though.

See, now *that's* the real Limp Willy! Reference a point so stupid that nobody bothered to rip apart discuss, and claim victory. Because bathrooms are so very important in the civil rights discussion. Gosh, next we'll be talking about haircuts, and whether women should wear pants!

Toddle off to mommy, Limp Willy. She wants to rub your tushie and make it all better.

"I would love to debate you guys and gals, but nobody has refuted the lack of a problem with seperate but equal when it comes to gender and bathrooms."

It would be entirely equalitarian and fair to, for instance, deny hot water to womens restrooms across the country.

And I notice that nobody even tried to tussle with the irrefutable logic of Wally's anecdote about the gay couple!

I mean, come on:

They were lisping!

And the child was well-dressed!

Therefore GAYZ=BAD!

That sort of logic is ironclad!

Ooh, I just found myself a new tasty blog, complete with great comments. I've read several entries and found that William Wallace is the class clown, is he not? Good little troll; calls himself 'skeptical' too...I love that. He does add a flavor.

"I would love to debate you guys and gals, but nobody has refuted the lack of a problem with seperate but equal when it comes to gender and bathrooms."

I think the obvious thing to point out is that nobody actually CARES that bathrooms are separate. And they actually ARE equal, unlike some other institutions...

You could spend days cataloguing the ways in which Wally's analogy* fails, but yeah, the inability to grasp the concept of "equal" likely tops the list.

"Separate" is another one (I think Wally is terrified that he will be forced to marry a gay man).

Or that he is, more accurately, arguing that women should not have bathrooms at all. They can crap discreetly, in wooded areas and alleyways, as long as the men don't have to know about it. If we allow "women's bathrooms", why, that will diminish the definition of the men's bathroom!

Oh, and unisex bathrooms apparently don't exist at all in the Wallyverse.

et cetera, etcetera

* Yes, I know it's not his analogy; he has never had anything even approaching an original thought and I've seen it before from other inbred anti-gay hillbillies. What's funny is how they pass it amongst themselves as this TOTALLY AWESOME ARGUMENT ENDER, but never even get a clue that it's a completely retarded, irrelevant analogy, and the arguments come to an end because their interlocutors are beginning to realize that they are dealing with someone with the intellect of a mollusk.

Sorry, that's being unfair to the mollusks.

Right on, Willy.

I say till this morons can provide you with a logical reason why there are gents and ladies bathrooms, blacks need to return to the back of the bus. If they try to do that whole civil rights thing again, we can just taunt them with iron-clad logic like yours.