I think John there missed a few really good opportunities to really explain how stupid it is, relying on "I just think it's evil" near the end, but he nailed him right on the money with calling him out on the idiotic "but it redefines a word" argument the anti-gay marriage have adopted as of late.
Semantics is no reason to take away someone's rights. If that is the argument they are going to use, it's pretty easy to tear it to shreds. Call me a treasure hunter indeed.
I love how his followup was "but definitions ARE important" and he seemed to be heading into some rant about how words can change society, which as John Stewert has said seems to be the standard Republican tactic these days, of going on and on with these wishy washy mystical evidence-less slippery slope scenarios whereas people like us are far more concerned with problems that ACTUALLY exist RIGHT NOW.
Oh, and personally? I don't think that a semantics issue is the reason they don't want gay marriage. I'm pretty sure that's the only cover story that hasn't been totally destroyed by popular opinion yet and their real opinion is entirely based in the biblical "it's an abomination" reason. It's likely no different than the creationist's true motivations for sneaking in stuff like that.
What strikes me most about it, if my hunch is true, is just how dishonest it is. They can't even face up to their own motivations so they make up these excuses. I've heard it before. "It's not JUST that it's wrong, there's plenty of reasons to make it illegal otherwise." That's the basic speech, but the reality all those other reasons usually hinge on that initial presumption of homosexuality being wrong.
At the very least, they seem to be stearing away from "if no one breeds humanity will die away" argument. Ugh, now there was a stupid one. Apparently the idea was, what, EVERYONE would turn homosexual and no one would have kids if given half a chance? Never mind that a reduction in human reproduction might actually be a good thing for humanity in general...
Anyway, yeah it's rather depressing to thing I actually numbered among these people, but even as a Christian the removal of gay rights never sat well with me. I rationalized it at the time as "just a test of obedience", but now I realize that blind obedience is itself pretty stupid.
It's likely no different than the creationist's true motivations for sneaking in stuff like that.
I've been saying something similar these last few weeks as I've heard the "It's not about bigotry; it's about defining marriage!" line over and over again. I struck me that I had never heard that one before, and that they were retreating from their previous stance. It's their version of "Teach the controversy."
What I still don't buy at all is the "Just because I don't want gays to marry doesn't mean I'm a bigot." That's complete and total bullshit. If someone said "Just because I don't want blacks to marry whites doesn't mean I'm a bigot," we'd say "No, buddy, you're a fucking racist."
It's overwhelmingly clear that the basis for denying gays rights is homophobia and bigotry. Dancing around the issue will not change that. If you favor banning gay marriage, you are a bigot, full stop. You may be less of a bigot than the guy who favors stoning gays to death, you may have a gay friend or two with whom you get along, but you're still in favor of denying basic rights to an entire category of people because you don't approve of that category on some level.
Versus Mike Huckabee:
4 comments:
Yes, yes he is.
Good clip.
I think John there missed a few really good opportunities to really explain how stupid it is, relying on "I just think it's evil" near the end, but he nailed him right on the money with calling him out on the idiotic "but it redefines a word" argument the anti-gay marriage have adopted as of late.
Semantics is no reason to take away someone's rights. If that is the argument they are going to use, it's pretty easy to tear it to shreds. Call me a treasure hunter indeed.
I love how his followup was "but definitions ARE important" and he seemed to be heading into some rant about how words can change society, which as John Stewert has said seems to be the standard Republican tactic these days, of going on and on with these wishy washy mystical evidence-less slippery slope scenarios whereas people like us are far more concerned with problems that ACTUALLY exist RIGHT NOW.
Oh, and personally? I don't think that a semantics issue is the reason they don't want gay marriage. I'm pretty sure that's the only cover story that hasn't been totally destroyed by popular opinion yet and their real opinion is entirely based in the biblical "it's an abomination" reason. It's likely no different than the creationist's true motivations for sneaking in stuff like that.
What strikes me most about it, if my hunch is true, is just how dishonest it is. They can't even face up to their own motivations so they make up these excuses. I've heard it before. "It's not JUST that it's wrong, there's plenty of reasons to make it illegal otherwise." That's the basic speech, but the reality all those other reasons usually hinge on that initial presumption of homosexuality being wrong.
At the very least, they seem to be stearing away from "if no one breeds humanity will die away" argument. Ugh, now there was a stupid one. Apparently the idea was, what, EVERYONE would turn homosexual and no one would have kids if given half a chance? Never mind that a reduction in human reproduction might actually be a good thing for humanity in general...
Anyway, yeah it's rather depressing to thing I actually numbered among these people, but even as a Christian the removal of gay rights never sat well with me. I rationalized it at the time as "just a test of obedience", but now I realize that blind obedience is itself pretty stupid.
It's likely no different than the creationist's true motivations for sneaking in stuff like that.
I've been saying something similar these last few weeks as I've heard the "It's not about bigotry; it's about defining marriage!" line over and over again. I struck me that I had never heard that one before, and that they were retreating from their previous stance. It's their version of "Teach the controversy."
What I still don't buy at all is the "Just because I don't want gays to marry doesn't mean I'm a bigot." That's complete and total bullshit. If someone said "Just because I don't want blacks to marry whites doesn't mean I'm a bigot," we'd say "No, buddy, you're a fucking racist."
It's overwhelmingly clear that the basis for denying gays rights is homophobia and bigotry. Dancing around the issue will not change that. If you favor banning gay marriage, you are a bigot, full stop. You may be less of a bigot than the guy who favors stoning gays to death, you may have a gay friend or two with whom you get along, but you're still in favor of denying basic rights to an entire category of people because you don't approve of that category on some level.
Post a Comment