If there was proof that people who actually follow LGBT issues should be writing about them for even traditional media sources, this article could be it.
An article about two activists who are working against same-sex marriage in Connecticut yesterday in the New York Times says that it's here to inform us that the activists use "biology, not religion" to make their arguments.
Their super-biological argument? A man and a woman are needed to make a baby, so marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples.
I'm not really offended as a gay man; that's pretty much the same "argument" that the Religious Right has been making for over a decade. I'm more offended as someone who studied biology in college that that would be considered even a scientifesque argument. And I'm more than a little offended as someone who's followed LGBT closely for years that the Times would think that this is news.
Because, seriously, is there anyone among us who thinks that the Religious Right wants to marginalize LGBT people because of a sincere belief in their religion?
Here's the Galloways' argument:
"It takes a man and a woman to create children and thus create a family," Mrs. Galloway, 60, told a legislative panel in Connecticut last year as it was considering a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. [...]
The decision was cheered by gay couples who argued that civil unions, despite giving them the same rights as married couples, were something less than marriage. But it has caused consternation among opponents of gay marriage, many of whom, like the Galloways, say their objections are not based on religion or morality, but in nature.
A minority opinion agreed with these two jackasses:
"The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry," he wrote, adding, "As many courts have recognized, the primary societal good advanced by this ancient institution is responsible procreation."
This argument is in no way, shape, or form "biology." And I wonder if it's even an "argument."
I honestly don't even know what it means for an argument to be "biology." Biology is a science, and science doesn't make policy arguments. People use data gleaned through the sciences to make policy arguments, but there's no experiment or study out there that will result in a bill.
And same-sex couples are definitely biological, as in, they're living creature. Living beings who form families and communities as much as any heterosexual couple would. Sometimes children through adoption or high-tech options, and those children are living, making them biological as well.
There's no biology in their argument, but I take more issue with the implication that generally the Religious Right relies on religion to push their garbage:
The Galloways represent one side of a debate that is often charged by undercurrents of bigotry and religious belief. The court's ruling on Friday went on at length about the history of discrimination against gay people.
While they are Christians, the Galloways say they refuse to use religion to defend their view of marriage because it just muddies things. And they insist they are accepting of everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
By protecting heterosexual marriage, what "we're trying to do is protect the foundation of society," Mrs. Galloway, a volunteer worker from Trumbull, Conn., said in a telephone interview on Saturday.
And of course they're accepting of everyone, because a homophobe would never say that they aren't homophobic. Duh!
The myth the Religious Right pushes is that they're nice people who don't really care about LGBT rights, but who, after in-depth and dispassionate religious study, came to the conclusion that gays are less-than. Or deserve to be exterminated, depending on whom you ask.
It was never bigotry sown to add political expedience to other projects. These folks never felt an authoritarian impulse to control others' sexuality. And these people never bought into the lie that society will be destroyed (destroyed!) if gays are allowed to live freely.
Nope, to the New York Times and other "liberal" media, it was a quirkier feature of provincial religion, what Real Americans believed because their Small Town religious values told them to. It couldn't be simple homophobia, now could it?
It's dumb to call this argument "biology," and it's buying into their mythology to call it "religion." It's just stupidity, as the Galloways themselves prove:
"The fact that we as a couple married later in life and tried to have children of our own, but were unable, we probably value children more than most people who didn't have to spend as much time thinking about it," said Mr. Galloway, 48, a certified public accountant. He said that all that reflection, in addition to parenting classes they have taken, had only reinforced their belief in traditional marriage, and that children are better off in a stable environment with a mother and a father.
No, not having children and taking a few parenting classes doesn't make them experts on child development and psychology. And being married without children while arguing in front of a state legislature that marriage's only purpose is raising children doesn't make them wise philosophers.
It just means that they're full of shit.