Skip

Gay marriage
June 7, 2006 7:35 PM   Subscribe

Jon Steward v. Bill Bennett.
posted by semmi (74 comments total)

 
wonderful : >
posted by amberglow at 7:41 PM on June 7, 2006


Poor Bill, he didn't stand a chance. I'd almost feel sorry for him if he wasn't such a clueless bigot.
posted by Mr. Six at 7:42 PM on June 7, 2006


You know, he is indeed a clueless bigot. And I think that he is, without a doubt, in the wrong on this issue. But I actually think that he held his own pretty well against Jon Stewart. Or at the very least, did far better than the average idiot.
posted by macmac at 7:46 PM on June 7, 2006


enh, Stewart made a couple good points, but it was mostly a back-and-forth of "tolerating gay marriage is wrong!" "no, it's right!" "no, it's wrong!"
posted by rxrfrx at 7:48 PM on June 7, 2006


This was almost uncomfortable to watch, such was the level of smackdownedness. Stewart owned Bennett and didn't even break a sweat doing it.
posted by JWright at 7:48 PM on June 7, 2006


Bennett: Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.

Stewart: I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.


Well said.
posted by homunculus at 7:49 PM on June 7, 2006 [1 favorite]


StewarT?
posted by ghastlyfop at 7:49 PM on June 7, 2006


I mean, this is the most aggressive I've seen JS in a long time. Polite as always but way fewer jokes and more questions challenging Bennett's (and the right's) positions.

It was obvious that the only way Bennett could've walked off that stage with anything close to even a moral victory would've been to start singing How Great Thou Art while ILOVE and JESUS tattooed on his pavement-scarred knuckles. Which I think illustrated for JS' viewers (mostly the choir, I'll grant you, but not all) how irrational the gay marriage ban position is without recourse to the book of Leviticus or the Pauline Epistles. Which is to say, on its own (de)merits.

What, in the phrase of a great American, a maroon.
posted by the sobsister at 7:52 PM on June 7, 2006


Does Cheney really drink the blood of puppies?
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 7:54 PM on June 7, 2006


It was great to see Bennett's appearance preceded by Bush talking about freedom, and then Bill comes on talking about the wonderful freedom the US displays, but then changes to "but there should be limits to freedom".

I'll never understand why pro-gay marriage isn't called the fight for freedom of marriage. So many of these battles are staked in language and loaded terms that gay marriage might as well take part in.

If these people love america and freedom so much, they need to fight for and support marriage freedom as well.
posted by mathowie at 7:58 PM on June 7, 2006


"Divorce is not caused because 50% of marriages end in gayness."

Bwahaha! That, was fantastic.
posted by fusinski at 7:59 PM on June 7, 2006


It amazes me that the handlers of folks like Bennett book them on The Daily Show and worse yet, The Report. I suppose all publicity, including severe pwn4ge on national television, really is good publicity.
posted by kosem at 7:59 PM on June 7, 2006


just this second on the show tonight, Stewart said Bennett asked him out during the commercial!!!! hysterical!
posted by amberglow at 8:00 PM on June 7, 2006


that's "...while getting ILOVE and JESUS tattooed..."
posted by the sobsister at 8:04 PM on June 7, 2006


Is it just me or did this seem heavily edited? I mean, much more than usual?
posted by ColdChef at 8:16 PM on June 7, 2006


"Divorce is not caused because 50% of marriages end in gayness."

I really don't understand why the "well, why aren't you worried about divorce as well?" point doesn't get pushed harder. Yeah, I'm sure many politicians are married to shrill harpies that they'd gladly dump in the river if not for the sake of political expedience, and that many politicians are so lousy to their spouses that we probably wouldn't have a whole lot of river space left if only the lifestyle wasn't so comfy, but it's not like any laws outlawing or restricting divorce would ever really pass. It just serves to highlight the hypocrisy of the whole thing so much. And you don't even have to position yourself in support of such laws (and thus risk losing the divorced demo...) You just have to keep asking why the people crowing about the sanctity of marriage don't.
posted by Cyrano at 8:26 PM on June 7, 2006


Stewart was brilliant, and Bennett = pwned. I think even the conservatives know they've lost this one, which is why it's so important to fight the state-by-state initiatives, which is the right's attempt to invest their irrational hatred with the power of law before sanity takes over.
posted by digaman at 8:27 PM on June 7, 2006




Don't ever take on Stewart; he uses humor more effectively to debate than anyone since Ben Franklin, and I bet he could give Ben a run for his money.
posted by caddis at 8:33 PM on June 7, 2006


TV is a terrible medium to discuss this point. The audience is unfairly bias towards anything Stewart says and time constraints greatly reduces the richness of the argument. I hate when they dedicate a small segment of a short show to a serious and complex issue.
posted by JPowers at 8:34 PM on June 7, 2006



posted by Mr. Six at 8:35 PM on June 7, 2006


what is it with people misspelling the names of incredibly famous people on the front page today? it's like you're all a bunch of Yogi Bearas.

due to the anticipatory applause at the end there, i thought he said "divorce is not caused because 50% of marriages end in anus."

which, although it doesn't quite make sense, would have been fucking hilarious.

and i'm sorry, but are we really supposed to believe that there's a nation full of people champing at the bit to live in polygamous/polyandrous married relationships? if so, they must not have HBO and/or haven't watched "big love." also, it's not like people are prevented from multiple marriages. i cite colorado city, arizona as a particularly hideous example. juniper creek x11.
posted by Hat Maui at 8:46 PM on June 7, 2006


The worst part to me is how these nuts get away with rationalizing their position by saying its "about the kids", when in fact there are already gays and lesbians raising kids in stable homes. Why don't they just be honest, whip out their Leviticus garbage and be done with it?

I was listening to the radio this morning and someone was discussing the history of marriage, how in the United States it historically had been about treating women as chattel. Until the 1980s it was more or less okay for the man to make all the legal decisions in the relationship. I can't help but think straight people — straight women especially — who care about any aspect of their own freedoms, sexual and otherwise, should genuinely be up in arms about being considered property again, which is what this amendment really does, no matter how many gays and lesbians are affected.

In the larger picture of Bush being in power, with the NSA eavesdropping and the Patriot Act leading to all manners of abuses of privacy, put together it makes me think that a majority of people in this country just don't seem to care much about their civil liberties any more. The majority in this country seem to have no problem with the laws and wherefores of their personal and private lives being codified and structured and legislated on penalty of law.

I'm hopeful the tide will turn and that the astroturf campaign to carry state bills doesn't mutate into a Nurembergesque nightmare for gays and lesbians. Time will tell.
posted by Mr. Six at 8:56 PM on June 7, 2006


I don't understand why Bill Bennett and Jon Stewart don't see eye to eye on this. I mean, they're both good Christians, after all...
posted by soyjoy at 9:04 PM on June 7, 2006


Does Cheney really drink the blood of puppies?

Only after he boils them alive.
posted by Afroblanco at 9:07 PM on June 7, 2006


and i'm sorry, but are we really supposed to believe that there's a nation full of people champing at the bit to live in polygamous/polyandrous married relationships?

He is probably talking about Mormons, who largely vote republican, and have bigamist sympathies. They also have money, and are politically active.
posted by b1tr0t at 9:09 PM on June 7, 2006


Does Cheney really drink the blood of puppies?

Yes. But he doesn't share, which is probably the real reason Specter is mad at him.
posted by homunculus at 9:15 PM on June 7, 2006


Bleh, it was like the scream fests jon complained about except nicer.

No one learned anything, no one explained anything. A total waste of time.

I personally don't see what the problem is with bigamy, as long as you know you have one husband (or wife). Obviously we can't just let whole random groups get married, that would just be impractical.

If a person's religion says they should marry multiple people, I think it should be OK.
posted by delmoi at 9:16 PM on June 7, 2006


Why is Jon Stewart the only TV interviewer asking sharp, cogent questions? I mean, compare this brief performance to the vaunted Russert's flabby questioning.
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:17 PM on June 7, 2006


Is it just me or did this seem heavily edited? I mean, much more than usual?

Yeah, it was obviously edited, they totally ran out of time. I was hoping they would put the stuff they cut out on the web, but never bothered to check.
posted by delmoi at 9:19 PM on June 7, 2006


I personally don't see what the problem is with bigamy, as long as you know you have one husband (or wife). Obviously we can't just let whole random groups get married, that would just be impractical.

It might freak the hell out of the rest of the Republican party's religious base. So if you want to destroy the R's, push for gay marriage, then for multi-party marriage.
posted by b1tr0t at 9:23 PM on June 7, 2006


Why is Jon Stewart the only TV interviewer asking sharp, cogent questions? I mean, compare this brief performance to the vaunted Russert's flabby questioning.

A few months ago people were complaining about Jon not asking tough questions. Today he asked tough questions but never let the guest really answer. There was no time for anything, the entire interview was a waste.

Not that it matters, to the people who oppose gay marriage, homosexuality is axiomatically wrong. It's self evidently wrong because when they think about it, it grosses them out. No argument can change that, and no argument can ever convince anyone to accept that.

The constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is a joke. The senate didn't even vote to allow a vote. It's dead.
posted by delmoi at 9:23 PM on June 7, 2006 [1 favorite]


It might freak the hell out of the rest of the Republican party's religious base. So if you want to destroy the R's, push for gay marriage, then for multi-party marriage.

Eh, I think bigamy is less intrinsically gross then homosexuality, at least the one man, multiple woman arrangement.

But if you allowed multiple groups, well then you'd just have communism.
posted by delmoi at 9:26 PM on June 7, 2006


Bleh, it was like the scream fests jon complained about except nicer.

No one learned anything, no one explained anything. A total waste of time.


We learned of one "public moralist and values spokesman" and his utter hypocrisy, and that he believes in rights and freedoms -- except for us gays. We also learned that some people see others as human beings and as deserving of the same rights, while others (again, who make their living as moral pronouncers and experts on values) don't.
posted by amberglow at 9:29 PM on June 7, 2006


I'll never understand why pro-gay marriage isn't called the fight for freedom of marriage. So many of these battles are staked in language and loaded terms that gay marriage might as well take part in.

I think the Human Rights Campaign staked out a pretty good language framework a long time ago. On their marriage page, there's a lot of discussion of "recognition," which I think does a good job of encapsulating Stewart's entire "I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition" line into a single word.
posted by scottreynen at 9:33 PM on June 7, 2006


TV is a terrible medium to discuss this point. The audience is unfairly bias [sic] towards anything Stewart says and time constraints greatly reduces [sic] the richness of the argument. I hate when they dedicate a small segment of a short show to a serious and complex issue.

I'm sorry, I missed the memo wherein it was explained that equal rights was a complex issue. Perhaps you could elaborates [sic] on this point. Also, since when do you go to Comedy fucking Central for nuanced policy analysis? Oh wait, you don't because you're a troll.

Look out, dude, or I might just marry you and singlehandedly undermine the institution of marriage. You've been warned.
posted by joe lisboa at 10:25 PM on June 7, 2006


We learned of one "public moralist and values spokesman" and his utter hypocrisy, and that he believes in rights and freedoms -- except for us gays. We also learned that some people see others as human beings and as deserving of the same rights, while others (again, who make their living as moral pronouncers and experts on values) don't.

Yeah, pretty much (except for the "us gays" part. I like the vertical smiles.)

Sometimes you just have to build on small victories. Cognitive dissidence is like the energy shield on the second Death Star. You just have to find a way to work the Millennium Falcon of Fucking Common Sense down the reactor shaft and eventually the whole thing will blow up.
posted by Cyrano at 10:29 PM on June 7, 2006


I wonder why so many people do not respond to the polygamy canard by correctly stating that polygamy is not monogamy, therefore impossible to legalize plural marriage accidentally. Polygamy is only associated with gay marriage by both being illegal. Furthermore, gay marriage is demanded as an equal right for inheritance issues, benefits issues, and recognition of equal status in the partnership, while polygamy confuses all of those issues.
posted by Brian B. at 10:34 PM on June 7, 2006


Is it just me or did this seem heavily edited? I mean, much more than usual?

I believe that they blew past the traditional commercial break and then spliced it back in after the fact. At the end of the second segment, Stewert said something about "We'll split this into two parts," and coming back from the commercial, they clearly cut from a "here we are sitting, JS welcoming us back" scene directly to the middle of a Bill Bennett response.
posted by misterbrandt at 10:35 PM on June 7, 2006


I think Jon Stewart made an excellent point that bigamy is a choice and being gay is not. And as soon as he mentioned race, you could practically see Bennett trying to eat his own super-conservative ass to save himself.

If only the actual national debate could take place in human terms such as "This is about gay people wanting human rights as members of families" with some rational response from conservatives (other than saying "but then bigamy and man on donkey love will have to be sanctioned" - which is not rational). Instead we've just got the conservatives spewing "THIS IS ABOUT TEH GEYS AND HOW THEY DON'T LOVE TEH JESUS." which is really hard to argue with.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:50 PM on June 7, 2006


Yea, he said something about BB becoming the entire "back end" of the show, which I mean to take that someone else or something else was supposed to be aired as well, and the debate with Bill went long so they just kept talking and extended the segment.
posted by SirOmega at 10:54 PM on June 7, 2006


That really wasn't very special, either in terms of cogent arguments or insightfulness or even bloodsport jousting. The bar sure is low these days. I guess it's special in light of the fact that the discussion wasn't totally cretinous, which makes it stand out a bit from the pack.

I love Mr Stewart and all, and there were a coupla good jokes in there -- I gots ta get laid by three wimmin! -- but, as the kids are saying these days, meh.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:56 PM on June 7, 2006


TV is a terrible medium to discuss this point. The audience is unfairly bias towards anything Stewart says and time constraints greatly reduces the richness of the argument. I hate when they dedicate a small segment of a short show to a serious and complex issue.

Could you please enlighten me on the complexities involved here, because as far as I can tell, this is directly analagous to Jim Crow. I'm willing to entertain a lot of leeway for differing points and priorities on different issues, and the idea that most contentious legislation is multi-faceted, but this is simply about equal rights vs. i hat faggots. I wish that Stewart hadn't cut Bennet off during his "it's already done," bit, because I think Bennet was about to inadvertently reveal that this is nothing more than politics for the Republicans in power, and that the whole polygamy line of argument is simply to let hometown Limbaugh-fans keep debating after they've realized what jack-asses they were sounding like.

Grrrr... I'm an incredibly angry straight American right now.

I love that JS mentioned the point I've been drumming for years now. Every time leaders try to politically disenfranchise a particular group, they lose, and get proportionally set back for making the attempt. The GOP is not only being bigotted, but also very politically short-sighted, considering that their also gearing up for a loss in November.

One last thought: If I were a congressman, I'd draft up legislation to mandate nationwide adherence to Kosher laws. Then when the Republicans start trotting out Leviticus, at least the hypocrasy will be noted in Roll Call.
posted by Navelgazer at 10:59 PM on June 7, 2006


I gots ta get laid by three wimmin! -- but, as the kids are saying these days, meh.

Yeah, but only after they've nailed the three wimmin.
posted by Cyrano at 11:03 PM on June 7, 2006


BENNETT: It's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a woman....

STEWART: I disagree. It's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.


Thank you for finally coming out and saying it.

I'm around people on the anti-gay side of things all the time, and all of them will admit, in private, that Stewart's right.
posted by dw at 11:14 PM on June 7, 2006




Also, let me give props to Ron White, though I don't agree with him on everything by a long shot, for touring the red states with the "Blue Collar Comedy Tour." Every night he did a bit expressing astonishment that homophobes still exist in this day and age, and threw in a little thought experiment to prove that "everyone's a little gay" to boot. Often a Trojan Horse can do a lot more than an iconoclast outside the walls.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:25 PM on June 7, 2006


delmoi writes "Not that it matters, to the people who oppose gay marriage, homosexuality is axiomatically wrong. It's self evidently wrong because when they think about it, it grosses them out. No argument can change that, and no argument can ever convince anyone to accept that. "

I think you're wrong about this. If you look at the movement for equal rights in Canada and Europe, public opinion has moved incredibly fast on this issue. Massive social change within a generation. I think we can expect something similar here. I don't have time to look up exact numbers right now, but national polling in favor of equal rights has moved up 10-15% in the last decade. In Massachusetts, where there's been actual experience, it's closer to 20-25%. And the generation gap is huge. It won't take long for demographics, combined with a gradual shift in general public opinion, to shift support for equal rights into the majority. At which point a whole bunch of moderate Democrats are going to be feeling pretty stupid.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:33 PM on June 7, 2006


The USA isn't as tolerant as it's cracked up to be. There's more of a Taliban / Amsterdam spectrum, kept from total collapse by the federal empire government. Many people would merrily kill homosexuals (as is done frequently and legally in some parts of the world even in present times) while others see it (correctly) as an obvious civil rights issue.
posted by mullingitover at 11:35 PM on June 7, 2006


Oh, and in California specifically, I expect polling will go in favor of marriage equality within five years, and that, if Arnold isn't reelected (and possibly even if he is), the state will have equal marriage rights even sooner.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:40 PM on June 7, 2006


I've said it before and I'll say it again. How are those fish in that barrel doing, Jon?
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 12:06 AM on June 8, 2006


Anyone remember this 'skit' between Jon and Stephen from a few years back (when Stephen was still on TDS)? My favorite part (though I like it all) is;

SC: John, there's a simple fact here: marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. An often violated, easily broken, eminently disposable contract. Between a man and a woman. The minute we let gays and female gays...

JS: That's uh, that's lesbians.

SC: Them. The minute we let them get married, you're breaking down the last societal barrier between our world and their world.

JS: But, I think that's the point. I think the point is that when you break down those barriers, that's a metaphor for something positive.

SC: Look, Jon, he only reason my wife and I got married in the first place was because it was something gays couldn't do. Our wedding was conceived entirely as a giant homosexual taunt. But now, now the vows I made to my wife seem as shallow and empty as the vows I made to my three previous wives.
posted by Effigy2000 at 12:27 AM on June 8, 2006


The USA isn't as tolerant as it's cracked up to be.

With gays, yes. With race, we're doing a lot better than France, Germany, Italy, and the UK are. Last time I looked, we didn't have stadium crowds making monkey noises at black players.

Many people would merrily kill homosexuals

Many? You think that there's some thin line of humanity keeping the Klan from riding down Castro Street? Get real. Violent homophobia is as rare as violent racism. It's there, and there's no denying there's gay bashing, but a vast, vast majority of Americans aren't going to act out their homophobia in a violent manner.
posted by dw at 12:32 AM on June 8, 2006


The audience is unfairly bias

I don't know about that. The audience is obviously on Jon's side, they are after all in the audience of his show. As for whether it's fair or not, it is just possible that they're cheering him because he's making sense. Darn his hide for being logical!
posted by 1adam12 at 12:35 AM on June 8, 2006


Stewart missed a golden opportunity here. He let Bennett get away with conflating religious marriage with legal marriage. It really is too bad that we use the same word for both ideas, because it let's today's "social conservatives" (formerly bigots) play on the rubes fears that their church will be forced by the government to start marrying gays. I really do believe that fear is real in the minds of the anti-gay "values" voter. Opportunists like Bennett have willfully and purposely framed this as a moral issue (moreso, a revisionist Christian moral issue) rather than the pure civil rights issue it is, thereby enabling Joe and Jane Sanctimonious to conflate religion and law.

"How do you define marriage ... What do you say to the polygamist?"

Total red herring. In fact, a properly functioning liberal government must be disinterested in religious marriage. It should be concerned with contract law, of which traditional legal marriage is one application. Insofar as the US is not yet a theocracy, the federal government simply cannot "define marriage" as Bennett and his hyper-religious ilk so desperately want. It's just not the government's job.

Indeed, polygamists should have the same rights and protections afforded to monogamists. The law must not care whether there are 2, 4, 5, 16 or more people who want to jointly own property, or declare a will, or share legal guardianship of a child. Questions that arise regarding the morality of such arrangements must be outside the reach of government in a free society.
posted by oncogenesis at 1:22 AM on June 8, 2006


The USA isn't as tolerant as it's cracked up to be.

Don't beat yourself up. The change in attitudes to gay people has been principally driven by events and activism in the US, from Stonewall onwards. It's Americans who have framed the debate - even if those debates have been more lively and American Conservatives more stubborn than in other lands. Growing up with teh Gay in '70s England, the USA represented freedom and progress, something not quickly forgotten.

And you have the Daily Show. Things could be worse.
posted by grahamwell at 1:30 AM on June 8, 2006


"How do you define marriage ... What do you say to the polygamist?"

"How's the family doing?" of course.

The only real problem with polygamous marriages is that, currently, the law has no way to cope with them. Tax code and divorce precedents are all based on two-party marriage, and it will cause some not inconsiderable grief until the law and courts catch up.

But hey, we went through much the same process with electricity.
posted by eriko at 4:27 AM on June 8, 2006


My only criticism of the interview was that Stewart failed to press why this issue has only come up before the major elections in 2004 and 2006.
posted by foodeater at 5:12 AM on June 8, 2006


I though Jon Stewart made some great points and with a lot of gusto at that. Bennett didn't really seem to have any decent arguments on the topic in him, as if it's just enough to say it's wrong to make it so. If he believes it's wrong because of his faith, then I wish he'd just say so, as it would've spared him a lot of grief.

I must say that I really hate The Daily Show audience though. It seems to be on the level of the Price is Right, full of frat boys and sorority girls. While the Price is Right benefits from people whooping and cheering over that NEW BUMPER POOL TABLE, The Daily Show's noisy crowd makes the serious interviews seem like the lefty echo box the show is accused of being by its critics. It doesn't help Stewart's points to have his opponents drowned out by the audience that's completely on the host's side.
posted by picea at 5:22 AM on June 8, 2006


The thing that makes Bennett so weird is not that he was a compulsive gambler -- it's the he was gambling compulsively on high stakes slot machines.

Anyway, what Bennett was making reference to with the "it's already coming" thing was this: the Defense of Marriage Act will probably be found unconstitutional, as it smacks squarely against the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. That is to say, states have to recognize each other's laws and whatnot and a legally binding agreement made in Boston has to be recognized in Salt Lake City.

A constitutional ammendment really is the only long term option if you're opposed to gay marriage, for whatever reason.
posted by ph00dz at 5:58 AM on June 8, 2006


My only criticism of the interview was that Stewart failed to press why this issue has only come up before the major elections in 2004 and 2006.

He did that plenty in the first part of the show when he was airing Bush's speech expressing support for the amendment. It would have been redundant.
posted by digaman at 6:43 AM on June 8, 2006


With race, we're doing a lot better than France, Germany, Italy, and the UK are. Last time I looked, we didn't have stadium crowds making monkey noises at black players.

That's a joke right? Because if you're saying that racist football chants (vile as they are) indicate that the situation regarding racial inequality worse in Europe than the US, then... actually, I don't know what to say, it's so ridiculous.
posted by jack_mo at 6:56 AM on June 8, 2006


this is simply about equal rights vs. i hat faggots

According to Tony Snow, banning gay marriage is civil rights.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:02 AM on June 8, 2006


I personally don't see what the problem is with bigamy

Simple. If you have one guy with two wives, you have some guy, somewhere, who has none. This is one reason why I think there are so many young Islamic men are willing to blow themselves up over stuff.

Massive social change within a generation. I think we can expect something similar here

True that. All it takes is for people to see one country where it's okay, and think, "Well, it's legal in Denmark, and Copenhagen hasn't exploded yet or anything, so I guess we can do it here, too."
posted by Afroblanco at 7:22 AM on June 8, 2006


I've said it before and I'll say it again. How are those fish in that barrel doing, Jon?

Um, William Bennet didn't have to be on that show, he accepted the invitation. In other words, if he doesn't want to get shot, he should really stay out of that particular barrel.
posted by lilboo at 7:32 AM on June 8, 2006


He let Bennett get away with conflating religious marriage with legal marriage. It really is too bad that we use the same word for both ideas, because it let's today's "social conservatives" (formerly bigots) play on the rubes fears that their church will be forced by the government to start marrying gays. I really do believe that fear is real in the minds of the anti-gay "values" voter. Opportunists like Bennett have willfully and purposely framed this as a moral issue (moreso, a revisionist Christian moral issue) rather than the pure civil rights issue it is, thereby enabling Joe and Jane Sanctimonious to conflate religion and law.

Exactly--they all do that each time they talk about it, and it's not countered often or strongly enough at all. But then again, anyone who would truly believe that their church would be forced to marry gay people is a hopelessly lost cause--and a shrinking segment of the population.
posted by amberglow at 8:19 AM on June 8, 2006


> I personally don't see what the problem is with bigamy

Simple. If you have one guy with two wives, you have some guy, somewhere, who has none.


Conversely, gay marriage (and gayness in men, period, for that matter) effectively removes not one, but TWO males from the competing dating pool. It is in any straight man's best interest to encourage homosexuality, because, hey more wimmens for us! And lesbians, well that's just teh hawt! "so how could you have a problem with that??"

...Or at least that's the line of reasoning I use on straight men here in South Carolina. Selfish instinct trumps political doctrine.

...Because, no -- nobody around here actually cares about civil rights. Around here, "freedom" means "the freedom to make money and promote my religion by political means". Seriously, a lot of people around here think organizations such as the ACLU, Amnesty International, and the American RED CROSS (!) are EVIL. Blows my mind.
posted by LordSludge at 8:29 AM on June 8, 2006


a hopelessly lost cause--and a shrinking segment of the population.

Encouragingly, these two clauses are contradictory.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:31 AM on June 8, 2006


But you can't have polygamy without polyandry...
posted by lilboo at 8:52 AM on June 8, 2006


SirOmega writes "Yea, he said something about BB becoming the entire 'back end' of the show, which I mean to take that someone else or something else was supposed to be aired as well, "

They also missed the multi minute ad for the Cobert Report which was nice.
posted by Mitheral at 8:58 AM on June 8, 2006


Gay-Ban™ and Rid-Mex™
posted by amberglow at 10:00 AM on June 8, 2006


JPowers

Serious and complex issue?
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:12 PM on June 8, 2006


delmoi -

"No one learned anything, no one explained anything. A total waste of time."

Sorry, gotta disagree. This line was shared with millions of people, and it bears repeating:

Bennett Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.

Stewart: I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.


People need to hear stuff like that. It gives us ammo.
posted by rougy at 12:46 PM on June 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


Bennett is disgusting, mocking his CNN coworkers now--he's such a paragon of morals: On radio show, Bennett mocked CNN colleague Amanpour, misrepresented report by Nasr
posted by amberglow at 1:43 PM on June 11, 2006


« Older Supporting our (non-combatant) troops   |   "A Classic Psy-Ops Campaign" Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post