Medved on Gay Marriage
Here are some basic premeses of the Medved approach.
1 Homosexuality is a behavior --therefore anti-descrimination laws do not apply.
Actually it's hard for me to believe that since gay people often practice celebacy (Morressey was celebate for years) but still, he was gay You wouldn't say a gay person isn't gay because at that moment he happens to be eating a sandwich instead of practicing some homosexual "behavior." Conversely men in prison exhibit such behavior often who would never identify themselves as gay even while doing it. So you often have the orientation completely irrespective of the "behavior."
2 Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice rather than an inherrant trait.
Granted, there is no way for me or Mr. Medved to know whether this is true or not. It therefore makes sense that neither of us are qualified to impose our opinion on the matter on others and decide whether or not their union should be recognized by the government as legitimate or whether they are entitled to protection under the current anti-descrimination laws.
Furthermore, just because we don't know if it's a choice doesn't mean no one knows. There is a group of people who know very well. They are called homosexuals. Just ask one. Generally when asked whether their sexual orientation was a choice homosexuals come up with the same answer: was yours a choice? When did you decide to be straight?
In my own experience, sexual attraction has been something I have had completely no control over. I couldn't decide not to like women any more than I could decide to hate the taste of chocolate. So to believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice would be to believe that it is unlike anything in my experience involving human urges and most if not all homosexuals are lying.
3 A ban on gay marriage isn't discriminitory --since they have the same right to marry the opposite sex as heterosexuals do.
This is typical of the lawyer-ball logic at which Medved excels. By this same argument you could just as easily say that the 1950s ban on interracial marriage wasn't discrimination because black people could marry within their race just as white people could.
I hope one day 40 years from now we can look back with the same satisfaction at having shed some of the out dated prejudices of our grandfathers.
4 It's not about hating homosexuals or banning anything, it's all about preserving the definition of marriage.
First, there is no THE definition of marriage. My wife and I got married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas. I imagine this kind of thing would be scandalous and perhaps not even recognized by some people 50 years ago.
For some marriage is an arraingement between the parents of the respective participants involving property ownership and family relationships.
To me a ban on gay marriage is not preserving THE definition of marriage, but imposing YOUR definition of marriage.
Second, it's kind of a cowardly to reduce the argument to semantics. It's not about a "word definition" when a life partner of many years can't visit his or her loved one in the hospital or have power of attourney or share health care benefits because of this "definition." It's a reality with real life consequences.
To better illustrate my point, let's say my definition of my foot is "The part of my body that I put shoes on and is in your ass." Now, I have nothing against you. I certainly wouldn't want to assault you Nobody wants to kick you in the ass --I'm a nice guy! I'm just seeking to preserve THE definition of my foot. What? Are you going to attack the definition of my foot? Feet are very important! Clearly I'm the victim here. What do you have against my foot? etc...
There's an even weaker more cowardly version of this argument going around:
4b I have nothing against Gay Marriage, but I don't think Judges should be making up the law / breaking the law...etc.
This is like the "It's not that you left me for another woman, it's HOW you left me..." argument.
In other words, I know you're not going to accept "I'm a homophobe and I hate homosexuals" or "I don't think homosexuals should have the right to marry one-another." So I'll water it down a bit and see if you'll swallow "I don't think Judges should over-step their bounds in this case."
First : Actually Judges make the law all the time. It's called "Case Law."
Second: You sure didn't mind when Judges picked your president.
Third: Many of the civil rights (I know republicans hate civil rights) we enjoy are because people at one time or another broke the law. From Bra-burning suffregettes to striking workers to Rosa Parks breaking the law by sitting at the front of the bus. Civil disobedience is unfortunately sometimes the only way real social change can be made in this country.
1 Homosexuality is a behavior --therefore anti-descrimination laws do not apply.
Actually it's hard for me to believe that since gay people often practice celebacy (Morressey was celebate for years) but still, he was gay You wouldn't say a gay person isn't gay because at that moment he happens to be eating a sandwich instead of practicing some homosexual "behavior." Conversely men in prison exhibit such behavior often who would never identify themselves as gay even while doing it. So you often have the orientation completely irrespective of the "behavior."
2 Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice rather than an inherrant trait.
Granted, there is no way for me or Mr. Medved to know whether this is true or not. It therefore makes sense that neither of us are qualified to impose our opinion on the matter on others and decide whether or not their union should be recognized by the government as legitimate or whether they are entitled to protection under the current anti-descrimination laws.
Furthermore, just because we don't know if it's a choice doesn't mean no one knows. There is a group of people who know very well. They are called homosexuals. Just ask one. Generally when asked whether their sexual orientation was a choice homosexuals come up with the same answer: was yours a choice? When did you decide to be straight?
In my own experience, sexual attraction has been something I have had completely no control over. I couldn't decide not to like women any more than I could decide to hate the taste of chocolate. So to believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice would be to believe that it is unlike anything in my experience involving human urges and most if not all homosexuals are lying.
3 A ban on gay marriage isn't discriminitory --since they have the same right to marry the opposite sex as heterosexuals do.
This is typical of the lawyer-ball logic at which Medved excels. By this same argument you could just as easily say that the 1950s ban on interracial marriage wasn't discrimination because black people could marry within their race just as white people could.
I hope one day 40 years from now we can look back with the same satisfaction at having shed some of the out dated prejudices of our grandfathers.
4 It's not about hating homosexuals or banning anything, it's all about preserving the definition of marriage.
First, there is no THE definition of marriage. My wife and I got married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas. I imagine this kind of thing would be scandalous and perhaps not even recognized by some people 50 years ago.
For some marriage is an arraingement between the parents of the respective participants involving property ownership and family relationships.
To me a ban on gay marriage is not preserving THE definition of marriage, but imposing YOUR definition of marriage.
Second, it's kind of a cowardly to reduce the argument to semantics. It's not about a "word definition" when a life partner of many years can't visit his or her loved one in the hospital or have power of attourney or share health care benefits because of this "definition." It's a reality with real life consequences.
To better illustrate my point, let's say my definition of my foot is "The part of my body that I put shoes on and is in your ass." Now, I have nothing against you. I certainly wouldn't want to assault you Nobody wants to kick you in the ass --I'm a nice guy! I'm just seeking to preserve THE definition of my foot. What? Are you going to attack the definition of my foot? Feet are very important! Clearly I'm the victim here. What do you have against my foot? etc...
There's an even weaker more cowardly version of this argument going around:
4b I have nothing against Gay Marriage, but I don't think Judges should be making up the law / breaking the law...etc.
This is like the "It's not that you left me for another woman, it's HOW you left me..." argument.
In other words, I know you're not going to accept "I'm a homophobe and I hate homosexuals" or "I don't think homosexuals should have the right to marry one-another." So I'll water it down a bit and see if you'll swallow "I don't think Judges should over-step their bounds in this case."
First : Actually Judges make the law all the time. It's called "Case Law."
Second: You sure didn't mind when Judges picked your president.
Third: Many of the civil rights (I know republicans hate civil rights) we enjoy are because people at one time or another broke the law. From Bra-burning suffregettes to striking workers to Rosa Parks breaking the law by sitting at the front of the bus. Civil disobedience is unfortunately sometimes the only way real social change can be made in this country.
posted by uberdroid | 1:19 PM
2 Comments:
Yeah, Medved doesn't say gays choose to be so. He says he believes most gays are born that way. Just read his articles on the subject. His problem, from what he believes and writes, is that marriage is specific to the opposites of a man-and-woman relationship, based on the social meanings and inherent ramifications of the opposites. Besides the fact that they are naturally prone to create children, they bring physiological differences to the relationship that are necessary for raising children. His argument is that men and women aren't interchangeable and so marriage is something more than just a long-term monogamous relationship. Even if you disagree with all this, that's what you should be arguing against because that's actually what he says.
I appreciate that. This was a rant based on listening to him in the car on the way to work in 2005-ish. despite the title It devolved into a not so much Medved-specific piece but a retort in general to different arguments against gay marriage that I've heard over the years from conservatives.
What I've noticed is that most arguments I hear against gay marriage are not ever about gay marriage. It's always some metaphor for something they want you to believe is "like" gay marriage. Pedophelia, polygamy --murder or rape is even brought up sometimes...
And given that when a child is up for adoption it means a heterosexual union failed and given the success rate of straight marriages and the number of abused and neglected children who have a traditional mom and dad so what if they're not interchangable? So what if there are differences. Bring on the differences!
I appreciate the thoughtful response.
Post a Comment
<< Home