I would like to break down his argument in sections. His first point was procreation. Of course, gay couples cannot procreate like a heterosexual couple can, but as Jon points out, there are numerous avenues a gay couple can go down to "prep" the next generation. Things like artificial insemination from a sperm donor, which is expensive, but definitely an alternative that is open to lesbian couples, and being taken advantage of by heterosexual couples that cannot have children on their own (in and of itself a Christian disgrace). Another avenue is adoption, and studies have shown that kids can grow up healthy if they are given the love and affection and attention that they need, even if it's from two dads or two moms. Talk about a general population crisis, especially in other countries. If we gave every gay-married couple 2 kids, why I'm sure our foster care services, orphanages, and general poverty would be greatly improved. So when Huckabee suggests that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman on the insistence of procreation, he is sorely missing the point.
My next point is one that Jon makes, which is discussing the Bible's role in marriage. Yeah, all of the forefathers of Judaism had multiple wives (it's a case for variation, since there weren't as many people then as there are now), so what? You know, that's not my major beef. What my major beef is religious folk pick and choose what is supposed to be followed from the Bible, and want literalism from those selected verses (like creation), but as soon as an outsider suggests that marriage thing from the Bible should be taken literally, they're are yelled that they are taking the Bible "too literally". Where does something like that end? It's impossible to tell, because religion is powerful enough to allow hypocrisy to exist relatively unfettered. My basic thing is, you either take the Bible literally or you don't. You either allow polygamy or you don't. You either believe in Jesus' teachings (all of them) or you don't. You either stone gays or you don't. But if you stone gays, you have to stone adulterers and the like too, so perhaps that might not be the best thing to believe in. My point is thus: Since you don't believe in polygamy, why not same-sex marriage?
Huckabee then suggests a slippery slope fallacious argument that if we change the definition, we have to include every lifestyle change, like polygamy. No, you don't, because we already agreed that polygamy is illegal, and gay couples don't want to have more than one partner, they just want to have the right to have ONE, like everyone else does in this world.
Again, Huckabee throws around shades of meaning with regard to "equality". You know, we're either created equal with all of the same rights as our neighbors, or we're not. It's that simple. You know how simple it is? It's so simple, that for many many years, black people were classified as 3/5 of a person. It's so simple that, before that, most black people were slaves. If it's simple one way, why not the other, right? Privileges are not the same as rights, I agree. Having a license to drive a car is not a right, but a privilege. But, at least in this country, we have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I believe marriage fits into all three of those. Life; it's been shown that marriage extends life expectancy, or that for some, marriage is a way to live life. Liberty; We are a free people, and all that is granted to free people should be the same, no matter your race, age, creed, religion, or sexuality. And the Pursuit of Happiness; well, isn't that every one's ultimate goal, to be happy? I have not met a soul who has not wanted some sort of happiness in their life. And you know what, for some, marriage is happiness, and we should not, no, we SHALL not interfere with that pursuit, regardless who that marriage is to.
Then there is the big one: Huckabee suggests there is a"big difference" between being black and being homosexual. He obviously is stuck in the 50s. For many years, it is widely accepted by psychiatrists and psychologists that homosexuality, much like heterosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but a biological occurrence with no conscious choice of the individual whether to be gay or straight. Jon rightly stops him by saying he knows many more than Huckabee does, and rightly puts him in his place that his argument is malarkey. Jon is right, religion is absolutely a lifestyle choice, and one that takes the cake in protections from the government. (Remember what I said above, religion is powerful enough to do what it wants, in the face of conflicting information.)
Then Huckabee shows his hand by going back to "redefining the word". Who cares? What does it do to people? Aren't the monotheistic religions individualistic anyways? Meaning that what one person doesn't affect your own salvation, as long as you follow what you're supposed to do? Words are redefined everyday, every decade, every century. Does gay even mean what it did when "Deck the Halls" came out? I don't think so, unless guys "don their gay apparel" of a shirtless vest and tight leather pants a la New York nightclubs of the 1970s.
My last point that I want to make is thus: "we have to agree to disagree, because you're not going to change my mind" is horrible, and humans tend to be this way. This is where being a skeptic comes in handy, because open minds trump all. Truly open minds, not the ones that say "I'll try anything once". Because once you become a skeptic, you say, well let's see how it works out, and if new information comes in to either support or contradict what we originally knew, then we'll go from there. None of the other stuff that says we're going to only believe the first thing and not any other new information. This is what I feel Huckabee is stuck in. He feels so strongly in this position of man and woman = marriage, but he won't even let others try it out to see if it will work. What is truly telling, is that in the 6 months in California where gay couples married, no one exploded, and life went on, ob la di ob la da, and since it wasn't in the sensory experience of Mike Huckabee, I'm sure he was none the wiser, and did not lose any sleep.
Perhaps when we all come to realization that what someone else does doesn't affect our own existence too greatly, then we can truly embrace the idea of personal liberty or what discrimination truly means to human existence.
(Sorry if there were spelling or grammatical errors, I was too fucked to proof-read after writing all of that above)
1 comment:
Good article.
The main thing I have to say is that I think you're treating much of this man's argument as more legitimate than it is.
The first point - procreation - if he's suggesting that marriage should only be allowed between people who can procreate, then he is saying that infertile couples should be banned from marrying too. Nobody is suggesting that, because that simply isn't what marriage is about. It is irrelevant.
Second point - bible - this argument is extensively covered and completely crushed by the concept of the separation of church and state, which is something I understand Israeli hasn't got quite a firm grasp on, defining itself as a "Jewish" state as it does - but America, at least if wikipedia can be trusted, essentially created the concept.
You can have whatever religious ideology you want - consistent or misguided or whatever - but if you buy into this thing called "democracy" then you keep it the hell out of government and legislation.
The polygamy point is actually an interesting one, and one I don't know very much about. It would seem to me, intuitively, that the reason polygamy is banned is because of the misery it causes the women it is more or less forced on - with the assumption that they would prefer to be their husband's only wife.
If there is a situation where women truly enter into such a situation of their own free will (as I vaguely understand the Mormons do) then yes, it is man's inalienable right to make an ass of himself (or herself, in this case). Sure, it can be legalized - nobody is being hurt here except for the person voluntarily inflicting it upon herself.
Rights vs. privileges - Stewart misses his cue here. Huckabee says rights (like voting) are guaranteed to all but not privileges (like marriage). Stewart asked how about not letting Hispanics vote, when he should have asked how about not letting Hispanics have a driving license.
To imply that you have to earn the right to get married is simply stupid - I don't know what else to call it. To be able to drive you have to prove you fit relevant criteria - namely, the ability to not kill people driving. It is restricted because if it isn't people will be hurt. The same simply cannot be said of marriage.
To demand heterosexuality from a person to get married is exactly like demanding Caucasanism from a person wanting a driving license.
Homosexuality: biologically predetermined or consciously chosen? - who gives a fuck? Persecuting people on utterly irrelevant "chosen" grounds like religion or political opinion isn't even remotely more democratic than persecuting people on irrelevant unchosen grounds like race. The key here is have you got a reason to restrict this person's freedom. Because just the fact you want to isn't enough.
Finally, Huckabee feels it important to stress he is not a homophobe. I simply don't buy it. He, and his camp, are either deeply homophobic, or deeply, deeply ignorant of what it means to be a democracy. And if it's the latter then it's even worse. It is not a legitimate argument.
I also share your sentiment about this "agreeing to disagree" business. I've thought this for ages. Perhaps a short TV show is not the best place to carry a discussion all the way to its conclusion, but in proper discussion, if this isn't the ultimate purpose, then the whole exchange is virtually meaningless.
Post a Comment