Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee - Thursday | Main | Holiday Wrap-Up »

Huckabee on the Daily Show

Jon doing his journalist bit.





 

Comments

Jon puts up great arguments, and Huckabee keeps pushing the anatomical side to marriage: how elee to create new generations?

News flash: allowing gay couples the privilege of marriage doesn't stop the rest of us from having sex. We have succeeded in populating the earth all these years while homosexuality has been present. That can continue as long as we do not otherwise self-destruct.

Huckabee at one point seems to be making the argument that marriage has to be kept "sacred" because gay people can't procreate. So is he trying to say that if gay people are allowed to marry, that would so damage hetero people that they would stop reproducing?

By the way, in case Huckabee hadn't noticed, we already have more people on this little blue rock than we need right now. We could actually benefit from lowering our population numbers.

Chris: I don't think "gay sex as population control" is a winner...

Was it just me, or did Huckabee seem to be hedging in that interview? Instead of "sodomy is a mortal sin," his argument was "gay marriage advocates have to spend some time convincing skeptics." I don't agree with him -- it's pretty straightforward to say that churches can define marriage however they want, but states will let any two people marry -- but it seems like he's not that hard-core.

The argument being made by Huckabee is essentially this: the individual rights of gays are less important than the comfort of society. And in this case, most of us here on OGM agree that this is asinine and dangerous thinking.

But here's what always confuses me about progressives: when it comes to gay rights, or drug use, the individual trumps "social norm". When it comes to gun rights, or economic liberty, the opposite is true- progressives argue that- in those cases- individual < society.

I understand that there will always be limits to individualism, but this all seems very subjective to me. IMO, a free society begin with free individuals- empowered to make their own mistakes.

Huckabee's procreation argument is extraordinarily weak. Not only do I see little need to worry about the country becoming underpopulated, even if there were such a concern why is denying the right to marry to homosexuals going relevant - it isn't as if gays will be procreating if they're just cohabitating outside of marriage. Does Huckabee seriously think a horny 16-year old heterosexual will suddenly decide to give gay marriage a go because s/he can?

But here's what always confuses me about progressives: when it comes to gay rights, or drug use, the individual trumps "social norm". When it comes to gun rights, or economic liberty, the opposite is true- progressives argue that- in those cases- individual

I don't see gun rights as comparable, Zap. Most debate on gun rights centers on whether some kind of regulation of gun ownership is permissible, i.e., whether guns can be registered or licensed - though there are places that seek outright bans. Where the former kind of restriction is the issue, I don't see the situation all that different from marriage - which usually requires a license and which is also restricted in the case of polygamy, to name just one limitation. Regulating your right to gun ownership - whether I'm actually correct in thinking so - at least has some motivation on my part concerning my safety. I don't see any convincing liberty issue connected with gay marriage - my liberty is not enhanced by restricting gays' right to marry. Why the hell do I care?

"Economic liberty" is such a broad, vague term that I don't see it as comparable to much narrower issues like gay marriage or gun rights.

What do you mean by "economic liberty"? That's such a scary loaded term, which in the current crisis has become anathema for the good of society.

In terms of negative liberty, progressives aren't truly that hypocritical when it comes to "economic liberty" and gun rights. If you want to evade your civic duty of paying estate and income taxes to scaffold your children into the aristocracy, and if you want to hoard an arsenal of weaponry to arm the vanguard of the white supremacist movement, you are in fact exercising an infringement of other citizens' liberty. Those guns are meant to kill other people, not yourself, hoarding your wealth can be interpreted as stealing from the government when by rights, your engagement in the social contract obligates you to pay taxes. If you want to hoard your wealth, you shouldn't be privy to the rights and protections of the society to which you refuse to contribute.

If you want to get high and sodomize someone, the only adverse effect you are having on society is if you don't lube up. That can hurt.

I would say that there is a more fundamental difference between "drug use/marriage" and "gun/economic rights" [lets say you mean something like land use rights for discussions sake]: the public good. When I say "public good", I'm not talking about majority opinion. I'm talking about things like providing for environmental protection, education, health care and transportation.

Cannabis users and gays getting married may bother people, but they do not create a demonstrable societal harm (despite what pro-Prop8 propaganda claimed). Guns kill people. Land use rights get trumped, for example, by transit needs or species protections. That's the difference as I see it, and that's the difference between what you call a 'progressive' and a 'libertarian.'

"Cannabis users and gays getting married may bother people, but they do not create a demonstrable societal harm"

Agreed.

"Guns kill people."

They also prevent crime.

More important: do they create a demonstrable societal harm? If so, by what metric do you support that claim?

"Land use rights get trumped, for example, by transit needs or species protections."

Do extinct species create a demonstrable societal harm? Again, which metric(s) is being used?

As far as eminent domain goes, I interpret your statement as follows: society's right to public transport trumps a land-owners right to refuse a highway being built through their property.

Is that a fair understanding of your position?

I don't wish to argue; I'm just trying to understand this point of view better.

Well, the minute bullets start not harming anyone who doesn't believe in gun rights, I'll be all for more people having guns.

And when gays stop having homosexual sex, the religious right will welcome them with open arms.

The operative word was "harm".

@bugjah:

"Land use rights get trumped, for example, by transit needs"

Economic Liberty is a broad term, so I'm glad you used the specific example of eminent domain.

If the government wishes to build a highway through my backyard, they may claim my property at any time. I, the individual, strongly oppose this, but the majority of people disagree with me, and so I lose.

However, if the issue is my sexual preference, my individuality trumps the will of the majority.

It can be argued that building the highway will benefit society, and so, sacrifice from the individual is expected.

Opponents of gay marriage argue the same point.

@Tim:

"Regulating your right to gun ownership...has some motivation on my part concerning my safety"

Opponents of gay marriage would argue that if their children are exposed to gays, they are more likely to become gay (or more accurately, admit/accept that they are gay). As a result, they will go to hell. Therefore, in the perverted logic of a bible-thumpin mama, regulating gays is motivated by the safety and/or salvation of her children.

Of course, we both reject this, as there is clearly no threat here.

Ditto my gun. It lives in a safe in my house in Florida. Unless you decided to commit a violent crime against me, it poses no threat to you whatsoever.

Of course, you aren't worried about MY right to own a gun, you're worried about some wacko living down the street who is going to come rob you.

Herein lies the fallacy: if the wacko is willing to ignore the laws regarding robbery, why hold himself to gun laws? Doubt the power of the free market? Try to score weed on any campus in America. It is just as easy to buy a black market gun, and in both instances, dealers don't check ID.

I argue that limiting my gun rights threatens MY safety, as it limits my ability to protect my family from the wacko.

You would argue (I assume) that, since I pass all regulation standards, there is no threat to my ownership, and by extension, related safety.

I then toss out the old straw man: what if I am wrongly convicted of a felony, and thus lose my gun rights through no fault of my own?

For added measure, I point out the crime statistics of gun states v. non-gun states, and you respond with statistics showing gun owners are more likely to injure themselves than a criminal. We both question the integrity of the other's statistics, and I threaten I would blow your head off, if only the state would allow me to (joking).

I don't expect to change anyone's mind, just some food for thought.

"It can be argued that building the highway will benefit society, and so, sacrifice from the individual is expected.

Opponents of gay marriage argue the same point."

Incorrect, opponents of gay marriage argue, comparatively, that NOT building the highway will benefit society, because the roads we traditionally use are straight. We don't want no crooked roads now do we?

Margaret Somerville wrote a brief on The Case Against "Same-Sex Marriage" using secular arugments. While I find them to be highly weak or just plain inconsequential, she elaborates the point further. If anyone wants to understand where conservatives are coming from with respect to the procreation argument, the answer is found in there.

Is it worth the read? From skimming the first page already, I fell I'll be inundated with stupid.

"Semantics is cold comfort when it comes to humanity"

I didn't know Jon was a poet as well.

If the first page is representative, sounds like she wants to shut the barn door long after the horses have gone, the farm has been sold, and a superhighway with billboards has been built over the fields.

Protecting the procreative relationship? Has she noticed what has happened to the institution of heterosexual marriage?

Holy smokes. I have totally ruined this comment thread. Sorry- the comment system isn't working right.

I was going to say.

But you all are missing the point. They think if you legitimize homosexuality with Marriage, their recruitment would go up.

Soon we would all be gay married and population growth would hit -100%.(Actually I don't know if you missed this point because I couldn't read the thread with all Zap's double long comments)

I think there are a couple of things Huckabee says and doesn't say that are interesting:

  1. His comment that marriage is a tradition, as shown by "5,000 years of recorded history": he means the Bible, he means Adam and Eve, and he is a creationist. The fact that the Bible as a written text isn't 5,000 years old doesn't matter to him.

  2. He bails on Jon's point that religion is more of a choice than homosexuality.

The problem with Huckabee's argument is that he does not understand Homosexuality. He really does think it is a 'lifestyle choice'.

From my experience, it is not. I'd say 98% of gay folk are born that way. In Huckabee's world, God made them that way.

But even so, demonstrate for me that it is a BAD lifestyle choice.

Compare and contrast with alcohol and greed, and see which has a more devastating effect on our society.

I haven't seen this listed, but it should be remembered how recently his Ilk kept whites from marrying other races (like me and half my company).

In 1968, the Supreme Court finally made that illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovingv.Virginia back then the argument was:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

And yes, if you don't think gay folk should have the same rights you do, you are a bigot.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives