It’s so telling that Huckabee tries to swing it around- “well, the people who are against gay marriage aren’t homophobes, people want to sling those words at them”- as if it’s the anti-gay bigots who are actually the ones being persecuted, and not the people they’re denying basic rights. That is so central to the fundamentalist mindset.

So much love for Stewart right now.

If you think homosexuality is wrong, immoral, or evil, you are, by definition, anti-gay, Mr. Fuckabee.

Yeah, it takes real talent to lay a complete smack-down on someone with a smile on your face the whole time. Still, I say give Maddow a year. As effortless as Stewart made that seem, it’s not.

Oh, and according to the Huck’s logic, straight couples who can’t or choose not to have children shouldn’t be allowed to marry either.

I wish Jon Stewart would have rattled off a few of the ways that same-sex couples can “create the next generation.” Let’s see: There’s using donor sperm to get pregnant if the couple lacks sperm. There’s using a gestational surrogate if the couple lacks eggs. And there’s adoption for both—well, unless you’re in Huckabee’s Arkansas.

We had tuned in last night just to see what The Daily Show would say about Blago. I was surprised by just how long Stewart kept questioning Huckabee about the antigay thing.

Being a fundamentalist is a lifestyle choice—so I guess that we could legitimately ban fundies from marriage, according to this Huckleberry Hound guy.  Why not?—they only get divorced, anyway.

I think Huckabee is gaining weight.  He looks really broad sitting there.  Wasn’t his weight loss one of his signature accomplishments?

I can’t stand Huckabee. I’m tired of so many people—so many people of a more liberal stripe—saying “Aw, he seems nice and friendly.”

It’s quite fortuitous that Stewart grilled Huckabee at this time because a couple of weeks ago I put up a post, ”Rachel Maddow goes soft on anti-gay Huckabee,” that generated a lot of discussion here at the Blend and at Pandagon.

You know, if I were a young idealistic person just starting out in my media career in 2009 instead of 1989, I would not have chosen journalism but comedy writing.

Maddow has potential, but the MSM places so many limitations on “serious” journalists that only place one can ask truly hard-hitting questions is a place like The Daily Show

Even though I believe her motivations are to keep her baby show on the air and that there were producers and editors pushing her, it is choosing practicality over human rights.

Maddow in her interview on Signorile said she makes all the editorial calls and that no one upstairs at MSNBC tells her what she can and cannot say. She reiterated that she doesn’t find this issue newsworthy or interesting. Based on that, it apparently means that a year from now, Rachel will still find the subject of confronting homophobic public figures uninteresting, so we shouldn’t look to her show for journalism regarding this particular issue.

I may not agree with that, but people should take her at her word and draw your own conclusions as to why she has no interest in a topic that Jon Stewart understood the importance of addressing with the former governor of Arkansas.

I also remember watching Maddow within the past couple weeks saying something like “Gay rights movement, you’ve got your work cut out for you.” 

She’s a lesbian but not part of gay politics.  Olbermann, like Steward, has become a more direct advocate.

Jon Stewart is one of the best interviewers on television.  He seems to always ask the questions other journalists are afraid to, and he makes the interviewee squirm until he/she answers the question.

I wish Jon Stewart would have rattled off a few of the ways that same-sex couples can “create the next generation.”

Such as, you know, *raising* them.

Procreating is (for most straight couples) so easy that elaborate precautions have to be taken to prevent it. With due respect to the sadly infertile, creating a fetus is easy - *raising* a baby is the difficult bit. (*)

And, strangely enough, gay couples don’t seem to do any worse a job at that than anyone else.

(*) Okay, the bit in between the fetus and the baby ain’t much fun either.  But by the time labour starts, you’re pretty much committed to the process.

Since some of you love to throw science around when it fits your needs, let me point out that science has never proven that people are born gay. There is no gay gene and it has not been shown to be hereditary. The only thing floating around are unproven theories.

Another point: Yes, there are heterosexual couple who cannot have children or choose not to have children. That, however, is either due to a health issue or a choice.  With gays and lesbians the problem is you simply cannot have children through gay sex. Whether you believe in God or nature, it has been decreed, that human life is made through the union between a man and a woman. It is a special relationship and one that does not exist between two men or two women.

Now that said, I really don’t care if the States legalize gay marriages and I am fine with gays adopting children, serving in the military etc. I agree that gays and lesbians should have equal rights. The only real area where I disagree with some of you is over accusing people of faith of being bigots. People can disapprove of what a person does and not be a bigot.  Do you accuse people of being bigots because they disapprove of sex outside of marriage? To me this accusing people of being bigots is nothing more than a political tactic by some on the left.

What had me damn near swallow my teeth was Huckabee’s argument that marriage was a privilege.
I do not think he realizes the consequences of what he’s arguing, there.

Again this whole “being called a bigot is worse than actually being a bigot” thing from the right.

And it’s in the context of 23 male and 23 female chromosomes coming together to form a conception to create the next human life.

I was expecting to be offended in the obvious sense by whatever Huckabee said, but I was surprised to see bad genetics here as well. The most charitable explanation is that he meant 23 chromosomes from a male and 23 from a female, but that’s a really strange way of putting it. It looks like he has some oddly essentialist ideas about where maleness comes from.

Genes for male features don’t even reside on the Y chromosome; they’re—with very few exceptions—spread out among the autosomes like any other genes, but are activated or deactivated by the presence of the SRY gene, which is on the Y chromosome, and is the master switch for gender differentiation. (The dunnart, for instance, has a Y chromosome which contains only four genes, among them SRY.)

There are a few genes which reside only on the Y chromosome, but it’s a very, very small number—less than half a percent of the total exons in the human genome. You don’t get “23 male and 23 female chromosomes”, you get either 22 autosomes from each parent, plus either two copies of an X or one copy of an X plus a tiny shred of a chromosome carrying SRY.

Or maybe I’m just taking this too seriously, and I should simply be pleased that Huck said “chromosomes” and not “souls”.

this accusing people of being bigots is nothing more than a political tactic by some on the left.

Could someone call 911? We need a wuaaaaaaaaaaaahbulance, quick.

DWill…if you consider homosexuality to be wrong, you are anti-gay. It really is that simple.

The only real area where I disagree with some of you is over accusing people of faith of being bigots. People can disapprove of what a person does and not be a bigot.  Do you accuse people of being bigots because they disapprove of sex outside of marriage?

Is there like, a “Bigotry 101” we can send this troll to? I could get carpal tunnel trying to explain all the fail in that statement and I’d rather keep my hands intact, thanks.

And it’s in the context of 23 male and 23 female chromosomes coming together to form a conception to create the next human life.

Why doesn’t Huckabee tell the truth? A man simply implants the tiny baby-seed or “homunculus” (fully-formed and completely human but very small, natch) into the passive female receptacle, where it grows into a child with no input from the mother at all? Psh, I didn’t expect to see this liberal feminist “genetics” hogwash from an upstanding man of the Lord like him! :D

annejumps: Again this whole “being called a bigot is worse than actually being a bigot” thing from the right.

I’ve seen this meme in other forms; the most memorable, I think, was “I am very, very offended that you would dare to point out the torture, way more offended than I actually am about the torture itself”. It’s a craven move to avoid criticism, and it only works so well because of a stupid Broderian enshrinement of the idea of civility.

Also, I’m pretty sure I was *born* loving John Stewart. It wasn’t a choice, it was just something I realized over a period of time as a teenager… luckily my family is very supportive. ^^

One more admittedly off-topic note about genetics: creating females with parthenogenesis and males in the same way with the addition of an SRY gene spliced onto one of the X chromosomes (the result is an infertile male; this happens every so often in nature) is a relatively straightforward method of retaining the presence of both males and females, but still building a reproductive utopia.

Of course, if you already have parthenogenesis, there’s no particularly compelling reason to make males out of it, but I think the prospect of all males being converted into infertile drones would do better at freaking out Huckabee.

I can’t stand Huckabee. I’m tired of so many people—so many people of a more liberal stripe—saying “Aw, he seems nice and friendly.”
~ ~ annejumps

See Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone article (from 11.29.2007) for more on that:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/17324246/matt_taibbi_on_mike_huckabee_our_favorite_rightwing_nut_job

I really did enjoy watching that last night. Huckabee has been given such a pass (even on The Daily Show) that I really think Huckabee kind of became complacent, as if he thought he’d never be asked to defend his positions (although I guarantee he lives in constant fear of this happening). It didn’t seem like he’s been practicing his talking-points or responses to follow up questions (follow up questions? I nearly forgot what those were! It’s been sooo long). Rattling off the talking-points doesn’t cut it on The Daily Show, and the result was Huckabee not being able to articulate his position on the marriage issue at all. The one question that the journalists of the MSM never ask of its guests is “What does that mean?” And while Stewart didn’t ask that question directly, he still asked Huckabee to better explain his positions over and over again, and Huckabee couldn’t do it. “What does that mean?” and “Convince me” are never said to guests on most political talk shows. And if political talk show guests were asked to elaborate and convince opposers to switch sides, those guests would probably melt, because they never got that far in formulating their argument. Stewart does, and that’s what really makes him different from other political talk show hosts.

Maddow in her interview on Signorile said she makes all the editorial calls and that no one upstairs at MSNBC tells her what she can and cannot say.

Right there is where I call BS on her. I worked in that business, and unless an on-air person is anchor talent in the truest sense of the term (I’m talking about the face of the news operation’s brand), he’s in no way making “all the editorial calls.” There are news directors, managing editors, assignment editors, guest bookers, and her own show’s producers making editorial calls, and I highly doubt that a relative newcomer to a news organisation has veto power.

She reiterated that she doesn’t find this issue newsworthy or interesting.

No, she just finds it less newsworthy or interesting than it was in the days when she wasn’t focused on building her Q-rating. She may not have ever been an advocacy journalist, but for a journalist who’s an out lesbian and a self-identified liberal to make that claim—especially in regard to Huckabee—is absurd.

I’m sure Maddow rationalises these compromises with the thought of “someday I’ll be able to address these issues like Olbermann or Stewart,” but very often those compromises are self-destructive. So I’m guessing the following will be absolutely correct, a year from now or a decade from now.

Based on that, it apparently means that a year from now, Rachel will still find the subject of confronting homophobic public figures uninteresting, so we shouldn’t look to her show for journalism regarding this particular issue.

I may not agree with that, but people should take her at her word and draw your own conclusions as to why she has no interest in a topic that Jon Stewart understood the importance of addressing with the former governor of Arkansas. </blockquote>

The most horrific part of the interview was when Stewart said that religion is more of a choice than homosexuality—Huckabee seemed off his game for a moment and then countered with, I shit you not, ‘religions can’t burn people at the stake, we can’t do anything we’d like’ as if that settled the matter.  And then he went off about how words matter. Riiiight.  Burn at stake = marry your love. Good god.

Sorry, strike the following:

<strike>I may not agree with that, but people should take her at her word and draw your own conclusions as to why she has no interest in a topic that Jon Stewart understood the importance of addressing with the former governor of Arkansas.</strike>

Preview is my friend…

Stewart is at his best in interviews when he engages his guests rather that asking questions in a way that says you’re a bigot.  It’s a good example for those of us on Stewart’s side of this and many other issues.  It’s an appeal to reason and fact rather than an appeal to feelings and emotions.

Since some of you love to throw science around when it fits your needs, let me point out that science has never proven that people are born gay. There is no gay gene and it has not been shown to be hereditary. The only thing floating around are unproven theories.

“Unproven theories”—sort of like evolution, hmmm Dwill?

Learn the difference between a theory and a premise. Then get back to us.

Yes, there are heterosexual couple who cannot have children or choose not to have children. That, however, is either due to a health issue or a choice.  With gays and lesbians the problem is you simply cannot have children through gay sex.

Funny, I know a lesbian couple who are having children via in vitro, using the sperm of a gay male friend. I also know a heterosexual couple who are having children via in vitro. Will the child of the former couple not exist while the child of the latter does?

Whether you believe in God or nature, it has been decreed, that human life is made through the union between a man and a woman.

In other words, the kind of science that produces reproductive technologies exists in opposition to both the Invisible Bearded Sky Man™ and mother nature.

The only real area where I disagree with some of you is over accusing people of faith of being bigots.

Not all people of faith, DWill—only Know-Nothings who seem to think that science is the tool of Satan.

Oh, and DWill, the physicist husband of our commenter Ranylt has something to say to you:

“You don’t ‘believe’ in science? Fine.  Give me back your car, your computer, your TV, your cell phone, your medications and pacemakers, and your structurally-engineered suburban home, you fuck-addled hypocrite.”

Whether you believe in God or nature, it has been decreed, ...

Nature does not decree. That’s a good thing. My eyes are long. Nature doesn’t give a toss that I compensate by wearing glasses. Sexual infidelity among monogamous species is common. Science may explain why this is so, but nature does not decree cheating.

Gracchus: You know, if I were a young idealistic person just starting out in my media career in 2009 instead of 1989, I would not have chosen journalism but comedy writing.

Seconded, indeed. I remember being particularly impressed with the piece they did on Network Neutrality. It’s under five minutes, it’s a fair and complete summary of the issue at hand, and it’s hilarious. Someone like Ted Stevens surely had at least five minutes to spend understanding the issue it was his job to understand… but then again, perhaps a more salient point was that his income depended on his not understanding it.

Maddow has potential, but the MSM places so many limitations on “serious” journalists that only place one can ask truly hard-hitting questions is a place like The Daily Show.

And The View.

But yeah, because Jon Stewart runs a comedy show, he ultimately doesn’t care whether politicians won’t come onto the show with him. If Rachel Maddow can’t get the guests that “everyone” (read: her bosses) want to see, “no one will watch” (read: her bosses will cancel her).

Maddow in her interview on Signorile said she makes all the editorial calls and that no one upstairs at MSNBC tells her what she can and cannot say.

Right there is where I call BS on her. I worked in that business, and unless an on-air person is anchor talent in the truest sense of the term (I’m talking about the face of the news operation’s brand), he’s in no way making “all the editorial calls.” There are news directors, managing editors, assignment editors, guest bookers, and her own show’s producers making editorial calls, and I highly doubt that a relative newcomer to a news organisation has veto power.

Besides, what’s she going to say? “Yeah, I’ve got a tight leash on me”?

It’s amazing how much ignorance of biology seems to drive so many of these retrofuck movements. I mean, it’s been well charted how complete and specific drives to keep people ignorant of the basic mechanics of sex and sexual reproduction have been used to great effect in the anti-women and anti-sex retrofuck movements and psuedoscience like The Bell Curve has been used as the latest apologetic for racial inequality, but it’s more and more seeming like basic ignorance to biology seems to be behind so many movements.

Huckabee’s comment on 23 male and 23 female chromosomes was laughable and let’s not be charitable, obviously meant literally. There is little chance he actually understands the tiny bit of difference between men and women at that developmental level, and even if he did, he obviously wants people to believe that there is some epic battle of maleness and femaleness in creating a child (thus manly men will be more likely to have sons). Combine that with DWill’s lovely attempt to say that the monolithic entity known as science has no evidence of genetic homosexuality as if the huge evolution sized body of research shows homosexuality or bisexuality appearing in nearly every mammal and many avians and is likely as old as sexuality itself. Penguins don’t have gay pride parades and Queer as Folk. That plus the incidence of homosexuality in every culture no matter how intolerant pretty much proves that it’s at least partially genetic.

The whole thing is so obviously ignorant and it makes me think that the campaign against evolution and any direct focus on good honest biology teaching is not just pig ignorant, but shrewd. If biological ignorance keeps showing up in every one of these anti-equality arguments, then for many of these people, is ignorance of biology the means by which they retain these inane beliefs? Does Huckabee require thinking his man-sperm is totally putting in a full-day’s unique work in order to retain his hierarchal views of women? Is DWill’s ignorance of genetics beyond the simplistic level of “gay gene” required to believe that gays have somehow chosen their second-class lifestyle and enjoy it? Do racists who will never be smarter than their own dogs require a belief that the well-dressed white men are slightly more intelligent than well-dressed black men in order to believe that black people are taking things away from them personally?

Actually, scratch that, I think it’s really clear. Biology is many things, but it is most of all humbling. And that’s what they’re afraid of. If they aren’t uberspecial snowflakes and totally the best, then they are just retrofuck whiny bastards preventing human development and improvement and who wants that accurate portrayal of one’s life?

With gays and lesbians the problem is you simply cannot have children through gay sex. Whether you believe in God or nature, it has been decreed, that human life is made through the union between a man and a woman. It is a special relationship and one that does not exist between two men or two women.

But gays and lesbians can have children, provided they’re not infertile. They just can’t have them by their partners. It’s true that human life is made through the union of a man and a woman, but this “special relationship” you refer to (which I prefer to call “biology”) doesn’t actually require a relationship (special or otherwise) to successfully create a new life. In some circumstances the two people involved don’t even need to have met each other.

As someone else said, creating a life is easy. A little too easy at times. And with the exception of those with health or fertility issues, virtually everyone’s capable of doing it, regardless of their sexual orientation. So your whole “gays can’t have kids” argument really doesn’t hold water at all. Care to try again?

“There’s a big difference between being black and a person practicing a lifestyle”

Black men and women are in positions of power in this country.  Openly gay people are in positions of power in this country.  I’m an atheist.  What kind of a chance do you think I have due to “practicing a lifestyle”.  Huckabee is a moron.  I wonder if he would be so genial with a bible shoved up his arse.

But yeah, because Jon Stewart runs a comedy show, he ultimately doesn’t care whether politicians won’t come onto the show with him.

Well, he cares. He (and his production team, booker include) just doesn’t care enough to accede to Huckabee’s publisher’s “off limits” demands regarding Teh Gay. If Huckabee wouldn’t come on because of that to “punish” The Daily Show by denying them a “get,” I guarantee you that Stewart would have demolished the choice passages anyhow, followed by the usual disclaimer (“We invited Gov. Huckabee to discuss these issues, but he never returned our calls”) that indicates the person is a coward.

As it happens, I suspect Huckabee’s publisher knew better than to pull that conditional crap with Stewart’s people—they can’t get away with it like the apparently can with Maddow’s team. It’s a testament to The Daily Show‘s popularity that, when it comes to flogging your new book, it’s a must-appear outlet right along side Larry “Softball” King and the cable news shows.

Besides, what’s she going to say? “Yeah, I’ve got a tight leash on me”?

That would indeed be absurd—almost as absurd as claiming she has no interest in the nonsense spouted by people like Huckabee. She should have kept it simple with Signorile: “There are obvious limitations at a general interest network like MSNBC than on a radio show like yours.” If Signorile was willing to accept the absurd answer she gave, he surely would have let her get away with that one, too—especially because it has the benefit of being true.

I can’t listen to that.  It’s just an ignorant preacher spewing bulls**t.  “Duh, marriage has always been one way, so we should keep it that way!”  Yeah, right, marriage hasn’t changed a bit in the last 5000 years.

I’m sure Maddow rationalises these compromises with the thought of “someday I’ll be able to address these issues like Olbermann or Stewart,” but very often those compromises are self-destructive.

So true.  Olbermann didn’t get to where he is today by playing it safe and avoiding strong positions until somehow, through passage of time alone, he had the ratings and the reputation to come out forcefully for or against something.

Pam -

Stand corrected. Does seem very odd that she just wouldn’t want to ever touch the issue, and I agree with you that we should take her word for it.

Do you have any guesses as to why this is her attitude?

So true.  Olbermann didn’t get to where he is today by playing it safe and avoiding strong positions until somehow, through passage of time alone, he had the ratings and the reputation to come out forcefully for or against something.

As I said in the earlier thread on the topic, Olbermann comes from a sports news culture, which is just about the only remaining journalism culture that, in general, is happy to bite the hand that feeds it. With a few prominent exceptions, “straight news” has strayed more and more toward the path of what’s laughingly known as entertainment “journalism”.

I also read unconfirmed reports that K-O has mild Asperger’s Syndrome or autist tendencies, which would also make him less tolerant of BS than your average on-air talent. I’d take those reports with a grain of salt, though—the sports journalism thing explains it a lot better from my POV.

Finally, in Maddow’s defense, Olbermann did come into the business with a certain amount of white straight male privilege. But considering how many others with that privilege spend their entire careers caving into that kind of corporate BS, it doesn’t seem to be a very strong one.

A full transcript is up:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8568

Ever since who knows when I first heard the bickering about whether or not people are born gay, and how it should relate to gay-rights, I have always said that it really doesn’t matter, and that gay-rights should deserve no less of rights that are given under freedom of religion. After all, vast majority of people opposed to gay-rights do it from a religiously based reasoning.

This was so great to watch on my Tivo after a pretty shitty shift at work last night where one of my coworkers spewed some pretty vile anti-Obama racism.  I love when Jon has an interview like this, though I still generally enjoy Colbert’s show more.

”The basic purpose of a marriage is not just to create the next generation but to train our replacements.”

Huh.  And here I though the basic purpose of a marriage was partnership, a formal longtime commitment, two becoming one and all that.  Never realized it was intended to be some kind of vocational program. 

Huckabee is an utter ass.  ‘Nuff said.

Eh? When will someone point out that the “traditional marriage” folks are wrong? Polygamy is far more “traditional” than “one man, one woman”!

So, DWill, if DEM FAGZ shouldn’t have sex ‘cuz it won’t make TEH BAYBEEZ, then are you going to tell infertile couples they can’t?  Are you going to tell people not to use birth control?  Fucking bigot.  Go cry about how us mean, mean people don’t let you hateful pricks be hateful pricks without calling you on it, you fucking baby.

Again this whole “being called a bigot is worse than actually being a bigot” thing from the right.
I’ve seen this meme in other forms; the most memorable, I think, was “I am very, very offended that you would dare to point out the torture, way more offended than I actually am about the torture itself”.It’s a craven move to avoid criticism, and it only works so well because of a stupid Broderian enshrinement of the idea of civility.

I’ve seen this bullshit in other forms, too, but I’d say the one that sticks in my craw is the “How DARE you call someone a racist, even though they’re saying racist things!  You’re a horrible person!” form of it.  I’ve nearly punched people in the throat over that one, it pisses me off so.  And the only reason it flies as an argument is because 1) Idiots are allowed to control conversation by declaring anyone who doesn’t think bigotry is okay “PC”, and 2) The warped notions of civility that these knuckle-draggers hold to.

Polygamy is far more “traditional” than “one man, one woman”

And increases reproductive success for parents and offspring than monogamy does, on the lower end of the income spectrum.

(Shrugs.)

I have never yet heard an argument from the “traditional marriage” crowd that (a) distinguishes between civil and religious marriage, which is a huge point, and (b) gives a coherent reason for depriving people of a civil liberty, and, no, I don’t count faith and dislike of different kinds of people as “coherent reasons”.  When the argument veers off into science, change, preference, comparisons and the like we pile up enough red herrings to keep Billingsgate profitable for years. 

The issue is really shockingly simple: civil marriage is a civil right.  Absent criminal sanction or being underage there is no reason to deprive someone of a civil right.  The religious right is invested so much in this fight for all the obvious reasons, and for one that isn’t obvious: the re-integration into our society that universal rights can be withdrawn on religious whim.  It has less to do with Teh Queerz than we think.

The religious right is invested so much in this fight for all the obvious reasons, and for one that isn’t obvious: the re-integration into our society that universal rights can be withdrawn on religious whim.  It has less to do with Teh Queerz than we think.

Quite so. Re-defining the term “marriage” in state constitutions and laws is the run-up to the Xtian fantasists’ main event: re-defining the term “life” (as in “beginning of” and “taking of”; as in many ob-gyns being classified as serial killers, and condoms being classified as deadly weapons).

So, y’know, let’s get ready to rrrrumbbblllle!

It’s not so much that I’m against gay marriage as I regard homosexualists as an abomination, as my Christianianity demands.  If you object to that, you are anti-J*sus and therefore a bigot, so shut up, loser DEMONcraps!

Gracchus:

The scary part? It doesn’t sound too far-fetched!

With gays and lesbians the problem is you simply cannot have children through gay sex.

You can’t have children via titty-fucking either, but I’m sure that hasn’t stopped you.

It’s not so much that I’m against gay marriage as I regard homosexualists as an abomination, as my Christianianity demands.

Then, for the love of God, tap the five mana and play the card already instead of talking about it. God doesn’t care - he’s playing a yellow, not a green or a blue deck.

Eh? When will someone point out that the “traditional marriage” folks are wrong? Polygamy is far more “traditional” than “one man, one woman”!

Actually, that was one of the many excellent arguments that Jon Stewart made.

I was especially pleased that he made a point that is too often overlooked—social conservatives (and even some none-too-bright “liberals,” like that idiot Lionel on Air America) try to make it an argument about whether sexuality is a “choice,” claiming that the areas we disallow discrimination are the ones that “aren’t a choice,” like race or gender. But it’s completely false argument—we don’t use that as the boundary for discrimination, as shown by the fact that whatever you believe about sexuality, religion is obviously a choice, and we don’t allow discrimination on that basis.

And I’ll tell you this. Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality. And the protections that we have, for religion- we protect religion- and talk about a lifestyle choice! That is absolutely a choice.

Yay! Go, Jon!

I do wish Stewart had called him out on his lie about him believing you have a right to live as you wish.

Exactly. He was blatantly lying at that point.

It’s bad enough that the religious right conflates civil and religious marriage. But that they continue to conflate marriage and procreation is just absurd. Sorry to bring up teh scary sex, but SEX is for procreation. Marriage is for many things, one of which MAY be procreation. Not “only,” not even primarily, but one of the many things that may come about as part of marriage.

Guess what? If no one ever got married ever again, there would still be procreation because people would continue to have sex.

I don’t know why this never occurred to me until someone brought it up at Washington Monthly, but I notice that the people who are all up in arms about the “immorality” of gay marriage don’t take any steps to prevent serial killers like Richard Rodriguez or Kenneth Bianchi from getting married.

Apparently being gay is a worse crime than torturing and murdering innocent people for fun.

I almost wanted to yell my happiness at the TV, but didn’t want to wake up the family. I already love the Daily Show and watch it almost every day, but last night was a total surprise, and it made me admire Jon even more. He didn’t have to stand up for gay rights like that, but his interview with Huckabee was much more serious than usual even from the beginning. He gave logical, valid points to counter every one of Huckabee’s arguments, in a respectful manner. I don’t think I know many people who could give a better debate.

This video is spreading like crazy. The Daily Show forums already have a ton of messages of people showing their gratitude. I wonder if they’ve ever gotten that much response from an episode before.

Mr. Stewart (and Pandagon in general) has provided me with some talking points for my upcoming hearing - I have to appear in court (pro se) to try to convince a judge that one “dr” p cam eron is not qualified to appear as an “expert witness”, let alone examine my child for “damage” from my gayness. That “premise” thing, vs objectivity, will come in handy. I might have to work in the religion-choice thing at trial…

If marriage only exists to produce the next generation, does that mean I don’t have the right to get married because I don’t want children? Does it mean my mother and step-father had no right to get married because they’d passed their child-bearing years? What about gay couples who want to adopt or use surrogates to have children, do they get a special dispensation?

In short: Shut up, Mike Huckabee.

temporarily anonymous,

Cameron?  If you’re looking for rebuttals of Paul Cameron’s work, go to Greg Herek’s site:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html

In short, Cameron is not credible, and has been thrown out of the APA, the ASA, and the Nebraska Psych. Assn.

MAJeff,

Thank you - I’ve actually been in touch with Dr. Herek. And anyone else I could find, from Lambda Legal (very helpful) to the ACLU (less so), SPLC, etc. I managed to find a local forensic psychologist who has testified against cameron in the past, so I think I have as much as I can get under the circumstances; but the judge is an unknown, I’m in the south, though at least a metro area, and I’m pro se. Oh, yeah, and my family is on the line. Still, my expert witness thinks that their expert witness - due to his lack of credibility - is mostly a scare tactic. If it is, it’s working against them. But The Other Side is represented by a law firm of True Believers, gah. ... ok I’m getting carried away… sigh… it’s good to get it off my chest though

I call on Christian churches to recognize that anyone saying that the only way a child can be created is through a man and a woman having sex…

does not believe in the Virgin Birth. Christ, according to this dictum CANNOT have been half-divine.

Strangely enough, while I don’t believe in a divine birth, I’m not sure why human women, unlike lizards cannot under any circumstances self-fertilize (could a chimera, who had absorbed her twin brother in utero, have the ability to self-fertilize)? Which means I’m still more open-minded about virgin births than these supposed Christians.

temporarily anonymous,

If you’re in a metro area with a university, it might also be worthwhile to contact folks in the departments of psychology, sociology, and/or social work.  The professional organizations for these fields have all probably all issued reports and/or statements on gay and lesbian parenting, and those associations are all supportive of lesbian and gay parents.

MAJeff,

Thanks for the tip… I’ll look into that.

Good luck…I hope you’re able to keep your family together.

And I hope you kick Cameron’s ass so hard he never recovers. That man is a worthless piece of shit.

It’s bad enough that the religious right conflates civil and religious marriage. But that they continue to conflate marriage and procreation is just absurd.

As a matter of law, it is completely absurd.  The MA Supreme Court rejected all such arguments because elders and infertile partners are allowed to marry, and have been for a very long time.

Homobigot Extraordinaire and Stewart Lampoonee Brian “I’m not a gay bar frequenter” Camenker was on a local NPR talk show shortly after May 17.  After he went into a long drawn out blather about “children about the children children blah blah children”, the cued up a caller who sent him into recursive loops of nonsense.  She said, simply, “So ... my 73 year old father just remarried.  His bride is 69.  I think they are going to be rather shocked that the state expects them to procreate!”

Temporarily anonymous, is there any way you can imply or even press the notion that having this sick pervert come near your kids is child sexual abuse, because they will most certainly ask age-inappropriate questions of the sort that you, as a good parent, prevent your child from being exposed to?

“science has never proven that people are born gay. There is no gay gene and it has not been shown to be hereditary.”

More biology; there are congenital conditions (you’re born with them) that aren’t genetic.

I think people forget this for subtle anti-feminist reasons; where a few hundred years ago we believed sperm contained complete little homunculi, now we think the DNA is `the complete code for a human being’, but it isn’t… a human womb, placenta, and mother are also needed, and do a lot of things that the DNA can’t do for itself.

One of the correlations that does seem to hold for male homosexuality, IIRC, is having a lot of older brothers—the Just-So explanation is that a woman with a lot of sons has probably invested in all the progeny-making that het sons can bring her, and a gay son is likely to cooperate with his sibs and increase the survival rate of that progeny. (Oo! Ev psych that isn’t an excuse for someone to act like a selfish twerp! It’s possible!)

There are no gay sex acts.

There is one single heterosexual sex act - penis in vagina intercourse.  Everything else is pretty much open to both genders in one form or another.

There is nothing that gay couples do - except, perhaps, docking - that straight couples cannot and do not also enjoy.

I think it telling that Social Conservatives, (Man that label is terrible)  are more inclined to protect a poor defenseless word like “Marriage” then to protect the human rights of a whole segment of society.

Seeing as how LGBT couples aren’t afforded the all the rights that Heterosexual couples in society, Maybe they should pay less Taxes, We could call it the LGBT Marriage TAX rebate, I would wonder if the SC’s would still complain about the use of the word then? Somehow I doubt it.

You know, I hope this doesn’t come across as a criticism of Jon Stewart, because he did a great job and I only thought of this after thinking for a while and watching the clip again, but I REALLY want someone to ask the Mike Huckabees of the world four questions:

“Can you stop using fuzzy, indistinct words like ‘protect’ and ‘defend’ and ‘destroy’ and tell me, using actual nouns and verbs, what you are afraid will happen to marriage?”

“Will you get divorced if gays can marry? No? Then can you tell me who will? their actual names?”

“Do you think you will turn gay if gays can marry? I know I won’t; do you think you will? Do youthink other people will? Like who?”

And finally:

“Being gay isn’t a choice. But so what if it is? What’s wrong with it?”

As with all conservatives on almost all issues, they never have to say what they actually mean. And here’s one disadvantage that Jon Stewart has over a news reporter, especially a good print reporter: Jon Stewart is obligated to keep the conversation going. And rather than actually answer any of these questions, Huckabee would end the conversation immediately.

Samantha Vines,  you might find this interesting:

There is some evidence, however, that natural parthenogenesis does occasionally occur in humans. There are many instances in which impregnation has allegedly taken place in women without there being any possibility of the semen entering the female genital passage [2]. In some cases it was found either in the course of pregnancy or at the time of childbirth that the female passages were obstructed. <u>In 1956 the medical journal Lancet published a report concerning 19 alleged cases of virgin birth among women in England, who were studied by members of the British Medical Association. The six-month study convinced the investigators that human parthenogenesis was physiologically possible and had actually occurred in some of the women studied</u> [3].

Some of the other stuff they’ve found is weird with a capital W:

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:6fE4Kw7-QkQJ:www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1796921+Jesus+Teratoma&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=23&gl=us&client=mozilla

the problem is you simply cannot have children through gay sex.

Not true.  I have a good friend who was born as a result of anal sex.

Ms Kate: he did write a book, back in the 70s I believe, advocating straight sexual play for teenagers as an alternative to “falling prey” to the “greater pleasures” of homo-sex. Thanks for reminding me, I’ll have to bring that up in court… that should fly well with the judge…

i totally remember this surreal conversation i had with my dad when i was 17ish, i had the WORST luck with guys my step sister had just come out, and he said, essentialy, that while he didn’t CARE, he would sorta feel relieved (not to mention it would explain my prefferrd tolls like GI Joes) if i were also to be a lesbian… in his opinion/experience, lesbians suffered fewer STDs, pregnancies and broken hearts….............

“What is docking…?”

I refuse (Urban Dictionary) to answer this question (urbandictionary.com) at all.

Mark Foxwell: But this illustrates my point—homophobia is not really about an attempt to “protect” people from allegedly dangerous practices and/or mental or moral illness; rather it is a strategy to legitimize general social terror, to enforce norms that have nothing to do with what consenting adults like to do in bed but rather how we present, and function, in public. That’s the sort of homophobia we all encounter in our lives, and once we realize there is no good reason for it it becomes clear it is a dangerous weapon that can be, and often has been, turned on any of us.

That’s absolutely brilliant. And perhaps might be a good way in to try and convince people to stop using “fag” as a generic insult, or “that’s so gay”.

Ms Kate: There is nothing that gay couples do - except, perhaps, docking - that straight couples cannot and do not also enjoy.

Tribadism and swordfights?