The Daily Show

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.

altho, things are complicated when a 22-year-old guy gets arrested for pedophilia for sleeping with his 14-year-old wife

Kansas law, however, sets no minimum marriage age, although case law sets the minimum age at 14 for boys and 12 for girls. The marriage must be approved by both parents or guardian, or by a district court judge, said Whitney Watson, spokesman for Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline. A judge also must approve if only one parent approves.

thing is, some of the REAL scary fucks are all about this kinda thing. Slacktivist posts excerpts of an interview some months back ago where an ultraconservative guy talked about how bad "deliberate childlessness" was

Deliberate Childlessness: Moral Rebellion With a New Face

Christians must recognize that this rebellion against parenthood represents nothing less than an absolute revolt against God's design. The Scripture points to barrenness as a great curse and children as a divine gift. The Psalmist declared: "Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; they will not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate." [Psalm 127: 3-5]...

...The church must help this society regain its sanity on the gift of children. Willful barrenness and chosen childlessness must be named as moral rebellion. To demand that marriage means sex--but not children--is to defraud the creator of His joy and pleasure in seeing the saints raising His children. That is just the way it is. No kidding.

note that this comes from GenderNews.com, home of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW)

i'm envisioning something like rosemary's baby where they kidnap suitable mothers and inject them with devil sperm!

...In the name of "protecting marriage," [Southern Utah University professor Bryce Christensen] would create the mirror-image of China's one-child policy. Yet he tosses off such ideas nonchalantly, realizing that no one will pay attention to the fascist details of his agenda as long as he glosses them over with the rhetorical sheen of "marriage protection."

Couples are not given the option of chosen childlessness in the biblical revelation. To the contrary, we are commanded to receive children with joy as God's gifts

commanded! receive children with joy OR ELSE!

!!!

yeah, and loony religious foot have NEVER found any footholds in american politics.

of course these people are fucked in the head, but they should never be discounted, only tracked & analyzed.

I know a lesbian couple in Minneapolis raising two adopted kids and doing just fine.

Okay, so Cunga's actually kidding. Whew!

Not picking on Barry, but he summarized it well & it was the easiest post to quote...

I see why you would say that, as that's how it appears. But still, it's political humor. He's in the business of interviewing politicians for thought-provoking entertainment. He's not accountable to anyone as a journalist. That's why he has the job he does - because he's allowed to hold a double standard. His job is to sell TV time. He occasionally gets on his high horse, but that's what people want to see. But he doesn't have any obligation to be responsible about it. He interviews politicians because it interests him.

So maybe crossfire doesn't have any obligation to be responsible either, I don't know.

Anyway, I think airwave-broadcast stations should be required to show 2 hours of news per day with no commercials (thus eliminating the need to "sell" their news programs with stories about kittens) and 24 hour news channels should be required to either A) show some segments of commercial-free news or B) change their names to 24 hour gossip channels.

Seriously, if you are yelling at Jon Stewart for not haivng any journalistic integrity, you are a gigantic mouth-breathing feeb.

His top priority might be comedy, but if he wants to talk serious politics and have his opinion matter (which is does, has anybody disputed that on this thread) then he can't hide behind a "we're only the fake news!" meme every time he feels like it.

On ILM, the equivalent would be someone who wasn't a music writer discussing a topic with people who were, and every time their opinions are challenged, they write "but I'm not a music writer!" to deflect the rebuttals.

In a recent interview with John Stewart on Fresh Air, he said that he has the perfect job because he can call other people on their bullshit, bus has no accountability himself. (er, sumpin like at.) Armchair newsman, ILX regular - me, right now. I'm just saying shit. It's not my job to say it well.

Stewart's intro joke last night -- "My Santorum interview sucked" -- suggests we're not the only ppl saying this...

I'm like Jon Stewart too, oh no!

The Daily Show is just as surface and facile in its handling of headlines as Jon is in his handling of interviewees, it's just that the headlines are funnier. I personally thought the Santorum interview was hysterical because Jon kept cracking jokes and going off on tangents and Santorum had absolutely no idea of how to cope or interface with what was going on.

(xpost: Not blatantly making fun of a senator != delusions of journalism. Of course, Jon couldn't really get traction on anything because Santorum responded to everything put to him like he was a a Small World automaton caught screwing one of the Dumbo ride elephants, which generated its own humor in my household.)

I still think holding a comedian to the standards of a journalist is silly. I don't even take Al Franken seriously and he's actually attempting an earnest take on the pundit game.

jon passes on these counts, at least.

Before the "Limbaugh/Idiot" book, Franken had been unfunny for eons.