The Daily Show

the characters have the rounded look of lowercase arial.

Gay marriage and government.

Stewart kept asking why the government should get involved in marriage. While personal relationships are private and they really aren't anyone's business, marriages are a LEGAL INSTITUTION and to wonder what business the government has in legal institutions is to wonder why the government even exists at all.

"Can you legislate ideals?": This question is so dumb it almost doesn't even deserve mentioning. How does Stewart think civilized societies even function if nobody is restricted from doing anything they want? Does Stewart think the government should fund schools on sex education that will teach kids how to go about with their sexuality? Would he have a problem with a government school program that endorsed and encouraged homosexuality? Does he have a problem with legislating ideals he agrees with like that? The double standard is quite large. Only when his own ox is gored (in this case the government not putting homosexuality on a bar with heterosexuality legally) does he take offense at "legislating morality".

Homosexuality and raising children: "Wouldn't it be better if two wonderfully educated homosexuals raised a kid than if a kid is raised in a broken heterosexual home filled with drug addiction and violence?"

http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000593.php

"How can we say our culture was better fifty years ago when we treated black Americans horribly?!"

http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000664.php

Stewart is much smoother and plays the verbal sleight-of-hand better than Santorum but his arguments and logic won't hold up upon closer examination.

WTF? how the fuck is this to be "endorsed?"

but conservative-libertarians-having-a-problem-with-Jon-Stewart shocker, etc.

Because...?

That was great. I have high hopes for The Colbert Report.

Because it's not in the fucking definition of "actor/comedian."

>Ultimately, they are amazed that they can get these big political guests<

They shouldn't be. JS was on the cover of a newsweekly, and I'm sure every pol who wants up the ass of under-35s was on the phone to Comedy Central pronto. Nixon saying "Sock it to me?" on Laugh-In, same shit.

thing is, the show _has_ changed from just a fake news thing in 1996.

thing is, the show _has_ changed from just a fake news thing in 1996.

ATTENTION AMERICA PLEASE DISTINGUISH BETWEEN YOUR ENTERTAINMENT AND YOUR FACTS OK BYE XOXOXOXO

Colbert and Corddry, tho talented, are one-note Johnnies.

No, I don't understand anything. Please keep explaining.

At its best the Daily Show somehow functions as comedy and journalism simultaneously so the distinction you ask for between entertainment and facts is kind of undone by the show's own moments of brilliance.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/07/26.html#a4152

Stewart wasn't completely off base here, I would imagine he just didn't articulate it well. Marriage is, in the law, a legal contract between a man and woman. Since you can't legislate sexual or romantic relations between consenting adults, you're basically putting into effect a contract that deals with property rights and custody of children, along with tax status. The entire "can gays raise our children" thing is a point of contention, but ignoring that, how the hell can the government discriminate who it grants a legal contract to on basis of gender?

Stewart needs to either dig at people a little more to actually make interviews funny, or at least get them in on some jokes. The idea of Santorum being interviewed isn't funny in itself, and Stewart's interviewing is sub-Letterman (and even sub-Leno!) part of the time.

They're not discriminating on gender but basing it on the relationship between two genders. They do this based on the fact that a heterosexual union produces the next generation of people (who are of importance to society naturally) and homosexual unions do not. It will also cause a certain chain reaction in both lives (especially the woman's) that make it so that certain checks and balances are needed throughout their union to make it work long-term. One of the reasons we even have marriage is to help protect and to give incentives to the partners to stay in the marriage. When a woman takes time off from working to give birth and to possibly raise a person for eighteen years she is making all kinds of sacrifices that could've gone to her continuing a career or down various other paths. Marriage gives a financial incentive for the husband to stay with his wife after she sacrificed many financial opportunities herself and for the wife to make them in the first place. Later on in life the fact the husband has worked non-stop means he will likely be of more financial importance and also opens the door for him to leave his wife for a tropy wife who is at this point better looking than his old wife. Marriage restricts his options so he'll think twice about it.

None of these things apply to homosexual couples. The simple fact that two heterosexuals in a union produce people (especially the fact that they are people who can't consent to anything on their own) means that certain events are gonna happen that naturally need certain restrictions from the government. Two homosexuals living together pose no such interest to society and even if they want to reach any agreements about anything they are free to make contracts with each other. To think that the laws of marriage, which have evolved over a ridiculous amount of time, will perfectly adapt to a totally different relationship is wrong.

BTW

You cannot call gay marriage a "right" of any sort because a) Equality in individual rights are already guaranteed in the 14th Amendment and by nature can't be pursued by groups for privileges b) Marriage is merely a reduction of rights that people normally have when they aren't married.

Stewart needs to either dig at people a little more to actually make interviews funny, or at least get them in on some jokes.

Exactly. The Santorum interview was awkward for that very reason. Stewart would try to engage in a debate, then plug the guy's book and then do some deadpan ironic stuff in a debate. I doubt Santorum knew which way was up.

When Stewart sits down and tries to have a little mini-debate with a Senator I think he leaves himself open to be scrutinized and for his arguments to be looked at. The fact that it's primarily a show mocking the news and airs on a network called Comedy Central is an escape hatch for when the show tries to get serious and is criticized. Jon Stewart seems very genuine about the opinions he has and the arguments he puts forward but when he is shown to be out of his leage the defense for him is "He's just a comedian, he's not a journalist, etc" as if that ever means you can't scrutinize somebody. Morrissey has openly advocated Stewart's presidency. If that doesn't make him a viable political candidate to be on the lookout for then I don't think they even exist.

!!!

Just because something doesn't apply 100% of the time doesn't mean it is tossed out or on equal grounds with something that works 0% of the time. Very few things in life apply 100% of the time. Heterosexual unions don't produce children 100%, therefore it is on the same grounds as a union that never produces children. 404 logic not found.

also maybe some research as to why we have a 14th amendment would be helpful.

What's in a Word? Plenty, if it's "Marriage"

would you read a post with this line in it:

You cannot call gay marriage a "right" of any sort because a) Equality in individual rights are already guaranteed in the 14th Amendment and by nature can't be pursued by groups for privileges b) Marriage is merely a reduction of rights that people normally have when they aren't married.

"Just because something doesn't apply 100% of the time doesn't mean it is tossed out or on equal grounds with something that works 0% of the time."

I think this applies to the "traditional" marriage, too. I mean, there have been a lot of changes in the westernized marriage system since it's largely decoupled from property acquisition and dowry, etc, but it's really just a way of doing things that fits in with other systems. There are people out there claiming arranged marriages still work great, if that's for them, go ahead. Heterosexual couples without kids. Stay at home dads. Remarriage with shared custody of kids. We've had to adapt the system a hell of a lot already, claiming that it's magically been intact throughout time and isn't going to roll with a few new punches isn't a very good argument.

All I know is that when a friend from work mentions his "ex-husband-in-law" (jokingly referring to his wife's ex-husband) is coming over to help work on his deck and everyone gets along reasonably well, then people are able to deal with reality fairly well.