Something has gone awry with this page....

The menu bar is all askew up by the right side of the video.

To0 late huckabee I already thought you where a homophobe... and a bible nut.

^"Too"

I was impressed at least with how Huckabee handled himself. He was respectful and polite, and really seemed to keep his composure, even in front of an unsympathetic audience. Kudos for that.

As for the actual argument, I really don't see how a rational person could disagree with the points that Stewart made, but then again, I suppose that's the heart of the problem.

^Down with the grammar Nazi!

I was watching this episode earlier today and I was really impressed with how John Stewart handled the interview. I'd vote for John if he ever ran for anything.

*blocked

This video has been flagged as having an embed that is Region Blocked to not function in certain geographical locations - declared blocked by Zifnab.

"...then why don't we go back to the Bible's stance on slavery?"

Well put, sir.

>> ^UsesProzac:
^Down with the grammar Nazi!


Down with lackadaisical grammar

^ Up with down!

Stewart just has such a way with words, hes so adroit and poignant with his remarks that he just cuts straight to the bone.

You could see Huckabee agrees with him, but its political suicide to say that out loud when the people keeping you in power dont agree.

misterwright hit it head on. A lot of political debates these days in the US seems to stem from an irrational thinking process, be it by religious influence, or just plane ignorance to begin with.

Id say that the education system has failed, but thats too close to a godwin invocation, this is much deeper than that, it just seems the south / bible-belt have made no attempts to actually better understand these issues outside of their gut reactions to it based on upbrining.

Its quite sad.

So the last defense they have is, "You can't change the meaning of a word." Which is utter BS. Words change meaning all the time, especially when it is to add a meaning or to be more inclusive.

If you look at the way the voters have shifted, they're getting closer to having a majority supporting gay marriage anyway. Within the next decade there will be many more states allowing gay marriage, and at the end of the century people will laugh at those who opposed it, just as we laugh at those who opposed women's suffrage or interracial marriage.

I foresee a day when the Dictionary of the English Language defines marriage as a union between two or more individuals.

This notion that the marriage of a man and a woman being the bedrock of society is utter nonsense. It is the family unit, whatever form that may take, that might be foundational. But even then, there are orphans who grow up to become wonderful people, and children of a stable family that grow up to become awful.

It's almost utterly useless to try and argue with people like this because logic doesn't come into it. You can through everything at them...:
* the definition of 'marriage' as they say it is not some set in stone thing.
* How does a couple of gay people getting married affect them AT ALL?
* How can you try and suggest that male/female marriage is any sort of bedrock with the current levels of divorce

And as MaxWilder says, it's not the man/woman marriage that forms good, well rounded offspring, it's a stable, loving family of any description. As long as there are parents (or one) who give the children love, respect, support, guidance, an open ear, a stable, known home base to feel secure in... then you're going to end up with good kids. Raise them in a male/female family that either breaks up or daily demonstrates lack of respect or time or love and you're going to get shit kids.

Same can go with a gay family too... not trying to suggest that all gay families are instantly perfect, but it's not some defining thing: mother/father = good family.

I think there's a lot more to do with people, of any type of coupling, not taking marriage seriously enough, not actually thinking whether they really do want to spend the rest of their life with this person, and many times (seen it myself with friends), the belief that being marriage will change things for the better. Plus, back in the day there were probably just as many, if not more, bad marriages, but people stuck with them due to the shame of divorce... so instead of breaking up and being happier, you had a couple who hated each other staying together 'for appearances'... which leads to kids getting the wrong idea of how people should treat each other.

Unblocked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWlxwO36Ztc

Thank God this man didn't get a better shot at the presidency. What complete and utter bullshit.

DOWN WITH THE LACK OF PUNCTUATION.

UP WITH THE CAPS!

>> ^thain:
>> ^UsesProzac:
^Down with the grammar Nazi!

Down with lackadaisical grammar

In order to believe that gay 'marriage' is equal to heterosexual marriage, one must believe that there are no differences between men and women and that the two sexes are interchangeable.

It just ain't so.

>> ^quantumushroom:
In order to believe that gay 'marriage' is equal to heterosexual marriage, one must believe that there are no differences between men and women and that the two sexes are interchangeable.
It just ain't so.


I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that one must believe that both sexes are exactly the same.

I have to agree with misterwight. As much as I disagree with Huckabee, it's very refreshing to see someone debate something as volatile as gay marriage with a calm and composed mien.

And of course, as usual, Jon is spot on.

Marriage is about unity. And in that sense, the two sexes are interchangeable. That's the whole point of this argument.

>> ^quantumushroom:
In order to believe that gay 'marriage' is equal to heterosexual marriage, one must believe that there are no differences between men and women and that the two sexes are interchangeable.
It just ain't so.

I hate when someone brings up procreation in relation to marriage. The two are not mutually exclusive.

And it all boils down to the greatest question Stewart could have asked: "So, at what age did you choose to not be gay?"

If you are certain that gay people choose that lifestyle, then you should either assume a) that straight people also choose their lifestyle or b) that God makes everyone straight and monogamous, and any deviation from that is sinful and a choice. Both assumptions are invalid, and the latter is just ridiculous.

Religious fundamentalists seem to think that they own the definition of marriage for everybody else. Marriage is not exclusively religious.

>> ^castles:
I have to agree with misterwight. As much as I disagree with Huckabee, it's very refreshing to see someone debate something as volatile as gay marriage with a calm and composed mien.
And of course, as usual, Jon is spot on.


pretty much what i was gonna say. This is why I like Huckabee. I dont agree with most of his views but I can respect the guy that can ........... what castles said

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Jon was on fire in this interview - made all the salient points. It's only a matter of time.

>> ^Geo321:
Religious fundamentalists seem to think that they own the definition of marriage for everybody else. Marriage is not exclusively religious.

Oh but you know if they could make it so, they would. The bible bashers in the US would do their damnedest to make it illegal for Atheists to get married if they thought it would work.

Rights and privileges for all (who believe like we do)!

I'm a little disappointed that John didn't attack the open goal that was the statement "undo an entire social structure". You wouldn't be undoing anything, would you? You'd be adding to the existing one.

I'm an open-minded guy, and non-religious, and I've been doubtful of my own position based on who else has the same position I do. I agree with Huckabee, but for none of the reasons he gave.

I look at the argument differently than both Stewart and Huckabee. We have to examine what the purpose of our government recognizing marriages and unions is in the first place. I think its purpose was to help couples procreate by giving them the money to support children. We still have positive population growth in the US, but all the countries that have or are moving towards negative population growth have a real need to grant incentives for couples to procreate.

With that in mind, why should the government grant the same financial incentives to same-sex couples?

Lodurr I understand your argument, and it is a logical argument. But governments don't grant marriage benefits solely for the purpose of procreation. Being in a marriage provides stability which can be beneficial when it comes to the benefit an individual can bring society, be it through work or community involvement or simply using less land by sharing a living space.

The marriage industry is a huge market. It doesn't seem logical for the government to be denying this opportunity.

I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that one must believe that both sexes are exactly the same.

The moral relativists reached this erroneous conclusion, not I.

To believe men and women are interchangeable in relationships, that is, two men or two women are = to one man/one woman, requires serious denial of biology and sociology.

A gay woman is still a woman and thinks like a woman, not a man. The differences in the brain of a gay man are not so drastic that he is considered a woman with a male body and vice versa.

No one is questioning the reality love or commitment between gay people, myself included. I just think putting it on the same pedestal as "the norm" is bad for society.

In a similar vein, the rising acceptance of bastardhood isn't good either. The argument against the value of marriage between STRAIGHT people has been under assault: Men and women are still having children without 'the piece of paper.' What's the difference?

It turns out the difference is 'plenty'. What incentive does an unmarried couple have to stay together? How is government taxation and welfare destroying (or feebly attempting to keep together) the institution of marriage? Why are sperm donor-non-fathers and breeder-non-mothers not shunned by society anymore as being irresponsible? Is there a war against fatherhood, all the way to some kooks declaring the role of the father as unnecessary?

The claim that there would be "no adverse effects" from legalizing gay marriage is as intellectually dishonest as stating that gay couples are interchangeable with straights.

The argument for gay 'marriage' really fell apart when civil unions, which held the exact same rights as legal marriage, were eschewed in favor of forcing society to accept an inferior relationship as equal to the norm, at metaphorical gunpoint.

Canada, never a bastion of freedom to begin with, has moved from "gay acceptance" to putting people in jail for speaking out against homosexuality as immoral or otherwise wrong. That's where America is headed with this nonsense. And it IS nonsense.

>> ^Lodurr:
I'm an open-minded guy, and non-religious, and I've been doubtful of my own position based on who else has the same position I do. I agree with Huckabee, but for none of the reasons he gave.
I look at the argument differently than both Stewart and Huckabee. We have to examine what the purpose of our government recognizing marriages and unions is in the first place. I think its purpose was to help couples procreate by giving them the money to support children. We still have positive population growth in the US, but all the countries that have or are moving towards negative population growth have a real need to grant incentives for couples to procreate.
With that in mind, why should the government grant the same financial incentives to same-sex couples?


Last I checked you
1) didn't have to be married (or smart, wealthy, black/white/whatever) to make babies
2) can be married and make babies with people other than your husband/wife.

The government still supports those babies, so how does marriage make making babies any more or less of a convenience for the government? As long as people have sex organs there will be people who make babies.

Oh, and there will be gay and lesbian couples out there who can adopt all those poor poor bastard children out there, if only we'd let them.

Quantum, what exactly ARE the benefits of marriage?

Many homosexual couples do have kids.

(I have two friends who I watched grow up with gay parents, and they're of course normal, smart, nice people.)

I'd still love it if someone could just lay out for me a good reason why marriage is or ever should be the government's business. I'm not about to get into an argument of what the government should define as marriage until i'm convinced that the government should be defining marriage. I see all these people getting pissy (and often downright immature) about what the government's definition of marriage is, as if everyone assumes it is a natural function of government. I don't share that assumption, sorry.

For us Bible-believing folks, God set up marriage long before any government was around, why do we tolerate the government claiming any authority over it? I have a friend whose pastor refused to marry them until they got their legal papers in order. WTF? Who was that guy really worshipping when he did that?

For those who don't dig the Bible, why do you care what the government calls this or that relationship? Why get pissy about the word "marriage"? Fight for your civil liberties. Fight for tax equality and visitation rights and all those practical deals. Aren't those what really matters? Why create so much heat and noise about a freaking religious label? Are you just trying to get a rise out of the people like my friend's pastor? What's the point?

Seriously, i'm all for kicking the government's ass out of the marriage business. If they want to recognize/register/whatever domestic partnerships for financial/legal purposes, then that's all they should do. It is not "the man's" business to assign the label marriage, and it never was.

An interesting comment was made by the last episode of Boston Legal in which James Spader and William Shatner got married.

William's Character (Denny Crane) is rich and joins into marriage with his best friend. He has Alzheimer's Disease and wants to transfer his wealth over to Alan Shore (James Spader's Character) and doesn't want the government taking their share in the way of taxes.

Now I couldn't care less what two other people do with their personal lives, and I hate giving money to the government too, in fact I though it was a great idea, but, This could be a HUGE deterrent for the government to allow same sex marriages.

-Just putting it out there...

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008/12/boston-legal--1.html
Someone needs to put up some clips from the final show!

>> ^nadabu:
I'd still love it if someone could just lay out for me a good reason why marriage is or ever should be the government's business.


I agree with you on this point....but can you also lay out for me a good reason why the word marriage should be exclusively defined for all people by religion?

It just seems silly that it has all come down to an argument of semantics. The gays can have the same rights as a married couple just as long as they don't use the word "married". That by letting them use the same word it somehow gives them power over others and their own beliefs of what marriage is.

So it's a choice between equal rights and changing the meaning of a word. Hmm, equal rights vs a word... hmmm... yea, that's a tough one...

To QM and others who seem to think it is all about biology and procreating...if that is your argument then the same can be said about people who don't want children or can't have children. But I have a feeling that your not for banning them from getting married are you?

And if getting married and procreating go hand in hand shouldn't we ban divorce for people who are married and have children? If we can band marriage based on procreating can't we also ban divorce on the same premise?

>> ^Psychologic:
So it's a choice between equal rights and changing the meaning of a word. Hmm, equal rights vs a word... hmmm... yea, that's a tough one...


Your talking about separate but equal...the supreme court has already decided that by definition separate is not equal. We change the meanings of words all the time. The word "marriage" itself does not even hold the same meaning to all people in all religions (and non-religions) around the world today and has changed itself even within those cultures over time.

It's times like this that I wish I could vote twice. Or ten times.

good for jon sticking to the polygamy thing.

btw we should redefine marriage (again) but qm and huckabee are right in that it would be a redefinition.

Personally, I think that we should open up the legal rights and privileges associated with marriage to anyone, regardless of if they have a romantic relationship. Here in Salt Lake City, the city government started a domestic partner registry a few years ago, which permits employers to open up benefits such as insurance to people who live together and designate each other as domestic partners, the only requirement is that you're adults that live together. The intent at first was to help gay couples who can't legally marry, but it quickly grew into something more then that. Now most of the people who sign up are family members, such as people taking care of their elderly parents, or siblings that live as roommates, who are helped tremendously by being able to share their insurance.

Unfortunately domestic partner registries as they currently exist don't go far enough. There are still other rights that you can only get through marriage, such as tax benefits, hospital visitation, and inheritance issues.I'd love to see domestic partnership laws strengthened and given all of the privileges currently given by marriage.

Marriage would remain essentially as it is, domestic partnership would be granted along with it. Churches would be free to marry whoever they want, or deny marriage to whoever they want. For secular people who want a marriage ceremony to demonstrate their commitment and love they could go about that the same as ever.

It's impractical for the government to determine if someone desires children, or to punish them for not having kids. Marriage tax breaks are a blanket incentive that I think works most of the time.

There's benefit in people sharing resources, but marriage isn't a prerequisite to living together. I'm married, and I don't live with my wife. We haven't had children, but if I had the income to support one, we would definitely be working on it. I've had to put off having kids until I get a steady income. The tax breaks we get being married aren't huge, but they're definitely a help towards our goal in the long run.

Post-birth incentives to have children don't really work, because it enables people to raise kids in bad conditions while living off of government assistance.

These are all interesting ideas. I agree more or less with Nadabu, I think the first step is to take marriage out of government's hands and think of tangible reasons why marriage needs to be the government's business in the first place.

>> ^Grimm:
>> ^nadabu:
I'd still love it if someone could just lay out for me a good reason why marriage is or ever should be the government's business.

I agree with you on this point....but can you also lay out for me a good reason why the word marriage should be exclusively defined for all people by religion?
It just seems silly that it has all come down to an argument of semantics. The gays can have the same rights as a married couple just as long as they don't use the word "married". That by letting them use the same word it somehow gives them power over others and their own beliefs of what marriage is.


You didn't quite get it. Definitions can only be "exclusive" when they are laid down by an authority over people being included and excluded. Again, this only matters because the government is defining this. Otherwise, we can all just keep our own definitions.

>> ^Psychologic:
So it's a choice between equal rights and changing the meaning of a word. Hmm, equal rights vs a word... hmmm... yea, that's a tough one...


Uh... you don't get it either. It's also a violation of rights to go around forcing religious people to change their definition of marriage, which is sacred to them. This is why the government has no right and no business defining or officiating marriage in the first place.

@entr0py
What Salt Lake City is doing sounds like the perfect start! That's the way it should be done. Leave marriage to those who care about the word, and have the government focus on the *practical* aspects.

To QM and others who seem to think it is all about biology and procreating...if that is your argument then the same can be said about people who don't want children or can't have children. But I have a feeling that your not for banning them from getting married are you?

The pro-gay-marriage side keeps trying to make this into a civil rights/equality issue. It is not. Blacks fought for the SAME rights that Whites have; gays are fighting for a redefinition of the linchpin of society itself to suit their needs.

With the arrival of civil unions, the acceptance by the free market of gays as a marketing bloc and government as a voting bloc, most of the steam in the argument for gay equality is gone in the best way: it's been achieved! Even Elton John can't figure out what American gays are upset about; he has a British civil union and doesn't care what it's called.

Quantum, what exactly ARE the benefits of marriage?

The institution itself provides legal protections and advantages that live-ins don't have, to the point that in some states live-ins are considered married by "common law".

Marriage promotes order and discourages random sexual encounters which may spread disease or create offspring without parents to care for them.

Marriage provides a measure financial stability and a structured family unit extra-protected by laws in which children are better off.

>> ^nadabu:
You didn't quite get it. Definitions can only be "exclusive" when they are laid down by an authority over people being included and excluded. Again, this only matters because the government is defining this. Otherwise, we can all just keep our own definitions.

You're right...I didn't get that from what you said. You said "For those who don't dig the Bible, why do you care what the government calls this or that relationship?".

I guess for the same reason people who do dig the Bible care what the government calls this or that relationship. It's not good enough to say "I don't think the govt should have anything to do with marriage...but as long as they do it will be enforced the way my religion sees it and you people should leave it alone".

You then said..."Why get pissy about the word "marriage"? Fight for your civil liberties. Fight for tax equality and visitation rights and all those practical deals. Aren't those what really matters? Why create so much heat and noise about a freaking religious label?"

Here you are implying religious ownership to the word marriage as a "religious label" that none religious people shouldn't care about. You also seem to turn a blind eye to the opposition to gay marriage. You refer to the people who support it as being "pissy about the word" is that not also true to those who oppose gay marriage? You wonder "why do you care what the government calls this or that relationship?" but don't wonder why those who oppose gay marriage care what the govt calls it.

I get the feeling you are like many people who oppose gay marriage. As long as the govt defined it and enforced it the way you agree with you didn't have a problem with it. But your starting to see the writing on the wall. That it's a matter of time before things get reversed and the govt defines it and enforces it in a way you do not agree with. So now is the time to get govt out of the "marriage" business...you'll even say "it never should have been involved in it" yet people like you never really had a problem with the way it used to be...it's only what you see coming that truly bothers you.

So now you want to dump over the game board and go home. Let's get govt out of it and leave "marriage" to it's rightful owner...religion.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Marriage promotes order and discourages random sexual encounters which may spread disease or create offspring without parents to care for them.
Marriage provides a measure financial stability and a structured family unit extra-protected by laws in which children are better off.


Seems to me that by your description of what a marriage is supposed to do, there's ample reason to allow homosexuals to marry.

Huckabee is such a shill.

His morals are a weathervane in a Wizard of Oz scene.

Procreation has nothing to do with marriage; if it did, old flaccid pricks would not be allowed to marry young nubile airheads.

This is just another example of the "haves" (those who have the right to marry) prohibiting the "have nots" (those who don't have the right) from being equal.

It's petty and snobbish and crass.

Huckabee is a craven little man, as are most people like him.

They are correct. You can't change the meaning of words. Gay used to mean happy.


... ummm... waitaminute...





*if this was brought up on the show, forgive me, I'm region blocked

>> ^quantumushroom:
To QM and others who seem to think it is all about biology and procreating...if that is your argument then the same can be said about people who don't want children or can't have children. But I have a feeling that your not for banning them from getting married are you?
The pro-gay-marriage side keeps trying to make this into a civil rights/equality issue. It is not. Blacks fought for the SAME rights that Whites have; gays are fighting for a redefinition of the linchpin of society itself to suit their needs.
With the arrival of civil unions, the acceptance by the free market of gays as a marketing bloc and government as a voting bloc, most of the steam in the argument for gay equality is gone in the best way: it's been achieved! Even Elton John can't figure out what American gays are upset about; he has a British civil union and doesn't care what it's called.
Quantum, what exactly ARE the benefits of marriage?
The institution itself provides legal protections and advantages that live-ins don't have, to the point that in some states live-ins are considered married by "common law".
Marriage promotes order and discourages random sexual encounters which may spread disease or create offspring without parents to care for them.
Marriage provides a measure financial stability and a structured family unit extra-protected by laws in which children are better off.


Heavens no! Not rules and structure! Liberals will have strict rules for my taxes, guns, and health care...but this morality...it must be done away with.

The concern over "changing the definition of marriage" is just a smokescreen for bigotry from Leviticus 20. The bible is a load of shit.

Any argument from biology here is moot since there is no shortage of reproduction. Basically the same principle applies as before: http://www.videosift.com/video/Barney-Frank-defends-individual-freedom

Old people don't change their minds much. Progress occurs by replacement.

>> ^jwray:
Any argument from biology here is moot since there is no shortage of reproduction. Basically the same principle applies as before: http://www.videosift.com/video/Barney-Frank-defends-individual-freedom


I don't think that warranted a post on either side. Who assured people that buying stocks was safe, when they proceeded to tank pathetically? Who operated a veritable homosexual brothel out of his own apartment? DING DING DING IT'S BAWNEY FWANK!

>> ^jwray:
Any argument from biology here is moot since there is no shortage of reproduction.


That's not true, in Russia and Japan for example, the population growth is negative. It's a real problem that governments try to address, one region in Russia even made a national holiday for everyone to go home and procreate.

It's not just a matter of survival of the species. Governments want more citizens in order to be stronger societies, and grow their economies.

The linked video has a good point, but it doesn't address gay marriage because it's not just a matter of permission, it's a matter of government incentivizing and subsidizing gay marriage along with heterosexual marriage.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
>> ^jwray:
Any argument from biology here is moot since there is no shortage of reproduction. Basically the same principle applies as before: http://www.videosift.com/video/Barney-Frank-defends-individual-freedom

I don't think that warranted a post on either side. Who assured people that buying stocks was safe, when they proceeded to tank pathetically? Who operated a veritable homosexual brothel out of his own apartment? DING DING DING IT'S BAWNEY FWANK!


Only if you believe everything Bill Oh'Really and Faux News tell you.

A country's power relative to other countries may be correlated with population, but the quality of life of the individuals in that country tends to increase dramatically when the fertility rate drops.

Lack of reproduction is not a problem in California

"In 1990, the House voted to reprimand Frank when it was revealed that Steve Gobie, a male escort whom Frank had befriended after hiring him through a personal advertisement, claimed to have conducted an escort service from Frank's apartment when he was not at home.[9] Frank fired Gobie earlier in 1990 and reported the incident to the House Ethics Committee after learning of Gobie's activities. After an investigation, the Ethics Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity and dismissed all of Gobie's more scandalous claims. [10][11] The committee recommended that Frank receive a formal reprimand for his relationship with a prostitute.[12] Attempts to expel or censure Frank, led by Republican member Larry Craig (who himself was later embroiled in his own gay sexual scandal), failed.[13][14] Rather, the House voted 408-18 to reprimand Frank who later won re-election in 1990 with 66 percent of the vote, and has won by larger margins ever since.[15]"

>> ^Lodurr:
I'm an open-minded guy, and non-religious, and I've been doubtful of my own position based on who else has the same position I do. I agree with Huckabee, but for none of the reasons he gave.
I look at the argument differently than both Stewart and Huckabee. We have to examine what the purpose of our government recognizing marriages and unions is in the first place. I think its purpose was to help couples procreate by giving them the money to support children. We still have positive population growth in the US, but all the countries that have or are moving towards negative population growth have a real need to grant incentives for couples to procreate.
With that in mind, why should the government grant the same financial incentives to same-sex couples?


What does marriage, in it's current context as a figurative and binding resolution of love and commitment have to do with procreation though? If you want to promote population growth then by all means provide tax credits to responsible child bearing couples. Not to mention birth rates have far less to do with whether couples tie the knot or not (ahaha), as negatively in relation with affluence and living standards, and cultural influences among many others factors.

>> ^Grimm:
>> ^nadabu:
You didn't quite get it. Definitions can only be "exclusive" when they are laid down by an authority over people being included and excluded. Again, this only matters because the government is defining this. Otherwise, we can all just keep our own definitions.


...
I get the feeling you are like many people who oppose gay marriage. As long as the govt defined it and enforced it the way you agree with you didn't have a problem with it. But your starting to see the writing on the wall. That it's a matter of time before things get reversed and the govt defines it and enforces it in a way you do not agree with. So now is the time to get govt out of the "marriage" business...you'll even say "it never should have been involved in it" yet people like you never really had a problem with the way it used to be...it's only what you see coming that truly bothers you.
So now you want to dump over the game board and go home. Let's get govt out of it and leave "marriage" to it's rightful owner...religion.


Wrong. I started getting pissy about the government's involvement in defining marriage and Christian capitulation to that when my friend's pastor wouldn't marry him until he got the legal papers in order. That was the year 2000. Long before Prop 8 or even Oregon's version of it 4 years ago. I was 20 then, and only just beginning to have friends get married at all and learn about such things. Pretty damn unlikely that i'd have gotten pissy about it any earlier. So, no, gay marriage was not at all what prompted this thinking.

And even if you were right about the cause of this thinking, i still don't feel you're acknowledging the core of it. It is that the government doesn't have any business defining or officiating marriage. So long as the government does, then people are not really free to define it themselves, religious or otherwise. And no, religion does not own the word "marriage". Don't be stupid.

>> ^RedSky:
What does marriage, in it's current context as a figurative and binding resolution of love and commitment have to do with procreation though? If you want to promote population growth then by all means provide tax credits to responsible child bearing couples.


I agree with you, the exclusivity of the concept of marriage to hetero couples doesn't affect reproduction rates. It's the financial incentives associated with it that affect responsible couples' ability to have kids, and increase the chance of kids being raised responsibly in general.

Not to mention birth rates have far less to do with whether couples tie the knot or not (ahaha), as negatively in relation with affluence and living standards, and cultural influences among many others factors.

>> ^jwray:
A country's power relative to other countries may be correlated with population, but the quality of life of the individuals in that country tends to increase dramatically when the fertility rate drops.


As RedSky was saying, affluent people or people with high living standards tend to procreate less than those living in poor conditions. Which comes first, increase in quality of life or decline in birth rate? I think quality of life increase comes first, because the more affluent societies seem to be the ones that start seeing negative growth rates.

Marriage = a private ceremony that government has no business defining or regulating

Civil Union = legal status influencing property, inheritance, visitation in hospital/prison, carrying over of "family insurance" plans from employers, life insurance, etc.

A marriage should have no influence whatsoever on legal rights. Civil unions should provide all such legal rights instead. That is how you keep church and state separate. If people want to get married they get married by whichever dude will agree to marry them, but that should not be recognized or even recorded by the government. If people want to get the legal status of a civil union, they get that separately (in addition to whatever private ceremony).

There should be no tax break for being in a civil union. The savings of sharing a residence is enough in itself, and the population is more than adequate.

^ There's a lot of us that think that's the best solution. Just get rid of marriage as a legal construct, and you solve the "problem". Oh except for that pesky little fact that semantics are just a smokescreen for the underlying bigotry that is the root of the entire debate.

I d>> ^HollywoodBob:
^ There's a lot of us that think that's the best solution. Just get rid of marriage as a legal construct, and you solve the "problem". Oh except for that pesky little fact that semantics are just a smokescreen for the underlying bigotry that is the root of the entire debate.


True, but arguing about how the government should define marriage seems unlikely to root out the bigotry or speed the process of getting homosexual couples the civil rights afforded by civil unions. In fact, it feels to me like it's slowing that process down and wasting a lot of energy.

I am a man, therefore I cannot fondle my own breasts. I have come to terms with this devastating inequality. I just try to keep living, taking each day one step at a time. I don't lobby government for the redefinition of the word "fondle" because that wouldn't really solve my problem.

Ok I had to create a user account and logic just to respond to this statement, as a Canadian:

******Canada, never a bastion of freedom to begin with, has moved from "gay acceptance" to putting people in jail for speaking out against homosexuality as immoral or otherwise wrong. That's where America is headed with this nonsense. And it IS nonsense.******

This is biggest outright lie I have ever read. I follow the news in Canada religiously (pun intended, because I think if people followed what was going on in the world more than what was in some old book they'd be better people). Not once in Canada has anyone ever even been CHARGED with speaking out against homosexuality, never mind put in jail. Not once. This is a complete fabrication by someone who thinks that, because Americans know nothing about Canada, he can make something up and no one can contest it. This is exactly the type of BS the Yes on 8 campaign engaged in (and the Bush admin) where you spout so many lies your opponents can't debunk them fast enough and eventually some of them stick in the minds of voters.

Canada, btw, is an incredibly free country. I KNOW it to be much more so than the United States. That Americans still think they live in the freest country in the world is pure blind patriotic arrogance. In Canada, we don't have presidentally authorized illegal wiretaps on our phones. We don't have an illegal 'enemy combatant' offshore holding facility where we torture prisoners because we claim the Geneva conventions don't apply. Canada was the place African Americans fled to to escape slavery. It was and IS the place American soldiers come to to escape conscription into wars they believed were wrong. In Canada, we don't have 40 million of our citizens w/o any health care coverage.

We may not be the biggest player on the world stage, but I'd much rather be a wise advisor on the sidelines than the biggest bully in the room who got caught with their pants down.

And Canada, like Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands, has the RIGHT position on gay marriage. It's been legal here as early as 2003, and nothing bad at all has happened to straight marriage. More kids who need loving homes are being adopted by gay couples. Our society isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than the bigotry-masquerading-as-religon I see pervading yours. My apologies to all the intelligent, fair-minded Americans out there who can see through this nonsense, realize that gays deserve to marry (and that it won't lead to hell on earth) and that both Canada and the US have bigger concerns than to dwell on this issue.

Invocations (canada) cannot be called by stewnwt because stewnwt is not privileged - sorry.

Stew,

You have to consider the source.

Quantummushroom is a conservative asshole to the bone.

He's the worst example of the hateful, ignorant little pigs who pollute my country and give it a bad name.

My sincerist apologies for that dickhead's behavior.