Thursday, June 08, 2006

Bill Bennet and the Daily Show

for those of you that I've bugged to watch this particular episode of the Daily Show since last night, you'll understand why after watching this clip.




Bill Bennett (your traditional Republican personality) was the guest on last night's episode promoting his book, 'America: The Last Best Hope', and the discussion goes towards gay marriage.

Jon Stewart then embarasses Bill Bennett live on tv.

The discussion itself was good. Bill Bennett, complete and total humiliation notwithstanding, gave decent points to ponder. Jon Stewart just had better ideas that were better explained. Nevertheless, the whole gay marriage debate was able to get the proper framing and nuancing that it was supposed to get.

Some choice quotes:

Jon Stewart: ...why not encourage gay people to join in on that family arrangement if that is what provides stability to a society?

Bill Bennett: Gay people are members of families... they already are members of families. They're sons and daughters-

Jon Stewart: -And that's where the buck stops? That's the gay ceiling?

Bill Bennett: Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man or a woman.

Jon Stewart: I disagree, it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.


Take note of that point. In a debate, that's an issue that you have to establish early on. Otherwise, the debate gets bogged down in technicalities and tangents, much in the same way an abortion debate can get bogged down on the question of whether or not a fetus is a living person or not.

More to the point, homosexuality as a human condition takes you on a very different path of argumentation as compared to homosexuality as a random fetish (which, I reccommend no one takes as a premise).

Nevertheless, both are arguable at this time, so either way can go depending on the debate. Makes you wish there was actually some evidence about this, huh?

Which brings us to my favorite part of the discussion:

Bill Bennett: How do you define marriage? Where do you draw the line? Immediately on the heels of this debate, Jon..

Jon Stewart: Don't go slippery slope with me, that's ridiculous.

Bill Bennett: No it isn't. What do you say to the polygamous?

Jon Stewart: You don't say anything to the polygamous... That is a choice to get three or four wives, that is not a biological condition that 'I gots to get laid by different women that I'm married to', that is a choice. Being gay is part of the human condition, there's a huge difference.

Bill Bennett: Well, some people regard their human condition as marrying three women...

Jon Stewart: ...Then let's go slippery slope the other way. If government says I can define marriage as between a man and a woman, what says that they can't define it as between people of different income levels, or they can decide whether or not you are a suitable husband for a particular woman.

Bill Bennett: Because gender matters in marriage. It's mattered in every human society, it matters in every religion...

Jon Stewart: Race matters in every society as well.


Barado. Another reason to develop a man-crush on Jon Stewart.

This particular discussion also gives me an idea for a possible motion for gay marriage with its own nuances (in other words a stock motion... with at twist!),

This house believes that marriage should be defined by governments.

What's particularly tricky about this motion is that it leaves opposition vulnerable to those infamous 'strategic' set-ups people keep talking about.

2 comments:

tet said...

ohmygod david! linteeek ang gandaaaaa nito. jon stewart is the man of my dreams charot. :)) ang talino nya!!! loved this post :)

Anonymous said...

I agree. Jon Stewart was particularly brilliant in this episode.

What I most appreciated was how he framed gay marriage as part of a logical progression of recognizing inherent rights: from slavery to women's suffrage to gay marriage.

It's interesting to note that one of the pioneers of scientific research on the biological/physiological basis was initally ostracized for his work. Gay rights activists believed that such research would only strengthen the claim that homosexuals are aberrant and afflicted with disease.

Years later, trends vindicate the man. Research shows that attribution of homosexuality to biological causes is correlated to respect for gay rights. Countries wherein a greater number of people attribute homosexuality to biological causes (as is the case for most European nations) rather than to a choice (as is the case in some US states) are often countries which do best on indicators of respect for gay rights.