Hugbees

I have actually never watched this program, but the idea that it’s okay to outlaw civil marriages for gay folk because a) the bible says you can’t or b) the purpose of civil marriage is to breed is pretty much just laughable.

“At what age did you choose to not be gay?” That’s gold.

  17 comments for “Hugbees

  1. Silent Winged Coyote
    2 February 2010 at 1:26 pm

    I watched this when it first aired, and couldn’t stop laughing. I love it whenever a ‘social conservative’ tries to justify bigotry. ‘No no, it’s ok to discriminate against them because that’s what the majority of people want.’ That was my favorite line.

  2. Smarty Pants
    2 February 2010 at 1:26 pm

    And I think you’re on the right track with laughter. You laugh at Nazis? They diminish in “stature”. You laugh at the intolerant? Same thing.It’s a better retaliation than firebombs and threats.

  3. Amy
    2 February 2010 at 1:26 pm

    We watched that just last night. If there was anything needed to cement my adoration of Mr. Stewart (and frankly, not much was) that was it.My only regret is that Stewart didn’t pursue Huckabee’s statement that marriage is a zero-sum game… that if <>you<> get married, <>my<> marriage is somehow diminished or tarnished. The only way that makes sense is if you think gay people are inferior. There’s just no way to make it not homophobic.

  4. Silent Winged Coyote
    2 February 2010 at 1:26 pm

    His statement is also turning marriage from something that we’ve now defined as a loving union (Which would include homosexuals) into purely a biological function. It is there merely to produce children. So all those heteros who get married and don’t have children suddenly are also of a lesser stature than married people who do have children. I don’t recall any part of the marriage cerimony that goes ‘And do you (male) promise to knock (female) up as soon as you get the chance?’Although there is some funny parts of the marriage laws that would have to change in regards to consummation of the marriage. I could be wrong but I think that’s still defined in terms of entirely heterosexual sex. And Smarty Pants, I laugh at everything! The Coyote find all things equally eligible for mockery, including the Coyote himself. :)

  5. xenophile
    2 February 2010 at 1:26 pm

    And, of course, the stance that marriage is necessary to protect our biological need to procreate is total garbage, because as primates we SHOULD be living as extended tribes, in which only the strongest handful of males get to procreate with ALL females (total polygamy), and the task of raising the children falls entirely to the mothers, with little or no male input at all.Or, you could update your views by a couple million years and accept that times have changed.

  6. the-iron-troll
    2 February 2010 at 1:26 pm

    I admire Huckabee for his attempt to reasonably defend a conservative logic that, to me, seems completely unfounded. In his mouth, the argument almost made sense – if I wasn’t actually thinking and agreed with him to begin with, I would have still thought he was right. He makes a very good point about the American people; unfortunately, it seems that Americans, even those in California, are unwilling to give homosexuals the right to marry. Huckabee is not some nutjob; most Americans agree with him. The fact that I think they’re wrong doesn’t really impact them in the slightest, because these are the sorts of people who don’t respond well to logic. They try, like Huckabee did, to make it a case of “let’s agree to disagree” because they know that, as the US is a Democracy, currently they are winning.A low point for Democracy, when gays have to change the tone of the culture just to get the right to marry.

  7. Terry
    2 February 2010 at 1:26 pm

    Jen and I recently celebrated our 8th wedding anniversary. She is easily the greatest thing in my life. We do not have children. We are not intending to have children. Therefore according to Huckabee, what we have should not be called a marriage? I feel I should be punching Huckabee in the face…My personal feelings were summed up when Stewart compared a loving, gay couple vs. Britney Spears & Kevin Federline. How can the former not be better than the latter? And if it can be better, why oppose it?

  8. Parmeisan
    2 February 2010 at 1:26 pm

    I may have been thinking of either this:“O MERCIFUL Lord, and heavenly Father, by whose gracious gift mankind is increased: We beseech thee, assist with thy blessing these two persons, that they may both be fruitful in procreation of children, and also live together so long in godly love and honesty, that they may see their children Christianly and virtuously brought up, to thy praise and honour; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”(From: http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/occasion/marriage.html)Or this:“Bestow on them, if it is your will, the gift and heritage of children, and the grace to bring them up to know you, to love you, and to serve you. Amen.”(From: http://vidicon.dandello.net/bocp/bocp4.htm)Both of which seem to be optional, and both said by the minister, not by us, but nobody told us that that part was optional.

  9. cenobyte
    2 February 2010 at 1:26 pm

    Parmeisan: Yes, if you get married in the church, part of the vows include a promise to breed. Or to do your Very Best to breed. Because one of the main purposes of marriage **in the church** is to sanctify the “sin” of Fornication for the express purpose of having children. That’s why gay marriage is not okay when it’s done in the church (I’ve blathered on about this before). According to the current (and historic) view of the sacrament of matrimony.It still is very important in the church, if you believe what you’re saying when you’re taking vows of holy matrimony. And if you believe the liturgy of the church. And if you don’t, you shouldn’t be getting married in the church. That’s what civil unions are for.

  10. Parmeisan
    2 February 2010 at 1:26 pm

    “I don’t recall any part of the marriage cerimony that goes ‘And do you (male) promise to knock (female) up as soon as you get the chance?'”I distinctly recall having to say something to that effect. I can’t find the words on the internet (internets, you have failed me!) but there was something about children. Not promising to have them, but enough that you might feel guilty saying it if you don’t intend to (which we don’t, really).Also, the original intent of marriage by the Catholic church *was* procreation. I’d have to ask Paul for the details, but it was very important back in the day.

  11. Amy
    2 February 2010 at 1:26 pm

    “And if you don’t, you shouldn’t be getting married in the church. That’s what civil unions are for.”You can perfectly well get married (not civil-unionized) outside of a religious institution. We did.

  12. cenobyte
    2 February 2010 at 1:26 pm

    No, really. The main purpose of marriage in the church is to sanctify the union by which children are created. It doesn’t matter if *you* say the words or if the *priest* says the words; this is a part of the sacrament of holy matrimony. It’s not optional in church marriages. At least, not in Christian marriage ceremonies. Er. traditional Christian or catholic marriage ceremonies. When you get married in the church, you should be told by your priest that procreation is one of the two or three reasons the sacrament of holy matrimony is performed in the church.In Christian churches.

  13. cenobyte
    2 February 2010 at 1:26 pm

    Amy: Yes. That was my point.Perhaps I should have made the “That’s what civil unions are for.” a separate paragraph.

  14. Parmeisan
    2 February 2010 at 1:26 pm

    “It doesn’t matter if *you* say the words or if the *priest* says the words”That was simply an update to my previous post, in which I had stated that I recalled having to say something to that effect. I hadn’t noticed your reply when I posted it, and wasn’t trying to deny anything. :)“When you get married in the church, you should be told by your priest that procreation is one of the two or three reasons the sacrament of holy matrimony is performed in the church.”Hm, ’cause he never said anything about that, although, y’know, reading through the ceremony I did see the bit about kids, so I can’t claim to be surprised.

  15. Silent Winged Coyote
    2 February 2010 at 1:26 pm

    My little trip into Marriage-land was in a civil cerimony. There was no mention of makin’ babies. Maybe because my ex-wife was knocked up at the time.Anyhow, from what I have seen of other civil cerimonies, there is no procreation aspect to marriage outside of a church. You see I think we need to seperate a few things.Marriage, as a societal contractual fuction is essentially a civil matter. It is the joining of two people in a legal manner that offers certain protections and benefits.Marriage, as a religious cerimony, is loaded with the concepts that marriage is the union of two people into one, the sanctifying of the two so they can fuck and have kids without sin, and furthering the plan of God, as the union of man and woman in marriage is a fairly big deal. (If I got any of these wrong correct me Ceno)What the vast majority of folks who support gay marriage do so outside of religious context. No one expects the Pope or the evangelical masses to stand up and say ‘Homosexuality isn’t a sin!’ so there is no push in that direction. Instead it is so that homosexuals can be recognized in the legal status of marriage.However even in the legal status of marriage there is the consumation component that is still defined in terms of penis penetrating vagina.Anyways, that was the distinction I was trying to make, and hope this clears up any confusion.

  16. cenobyte
    2 February 2010 at 1:26 pm

    Coyote: In fact, many churches (the Church of England/Anglican church for example, which is the one I’m most familiar with) has actually said that homosexuality isn’t “wrong” in and of itself. There’s nothing wrong with being gay. I can’t speak for the Roman Catholic church, but openly gay homosexuals in the Anglican Church are in full communion with the church body. That sounds naughty, but it isn’t. The problem arises with gay marriage specifically in the church. Because, as I’ve said, the main purpose of the sacrament of holy matrimony is to have children and raise them in the church. It’s the ‘bums in seats’ philosophy. In fact, there are gay priests and bishops in the church (the only corollary here is that because homosexual marriage is not condoned in the church, the gay priests and bishops are expected to be celibate, which is utterly discouraged. And fornication *is* a sin, so…well…you get the point). So, yeah. The Archbishop of Canterbury (the head of the Anglican Church) has basically said there’s nothing <>wrong<> with being gay. You just can’t get married in the church. Most folks who understand this also agree that gay marriage *outside* the church is fine.

  17. Silent Winged Coyote
    2 February 2010 at 1:26 pm

    Actually I think the Anglicans are the only Christian church to say with a unified voice that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.The Catholics had that wonderful moment of Pope John saying ‘Gays are still sinning but it’s a sin to be mean to them cuz they’re gay so love them anyways.’And need I hold up the example of the multitude of black churches in the south who are holding huge organized protests against gay marriage. Civil rights are ok if based on race, but sexuality is still a hot button. :)And my wv is chais. Wheeee!

i make squee noises when you tell me stuff.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE
%d bloggers like this: