Quote Of The Day

“the problem with gay marriage isn’t that it harms my marriage, or yours, but that it changes the institution of marriage – for my children, my grandchildren, and all future generations. It downplays the essential, irrevocable nature of gender differences – and serves to undermine the crucial importance of gender specific roles in all relationships. A gay couple might claim that they fill distinctive roles in their relationship – with one woman working hard to support the family, for instance, while the other cooks and decorates and nourishes the kids. But choosing complementary roles for the sake of convenience or preference isn’t the same as recognizing that these contrasting approaches arise from your very essence as a man or a woman. There’s something arbitrary, synthetic and, indeed, temporary about a same sex couple attempting to imitate a heterosexual marriage by fulfilling distinct responsibilities in the relationship”. –Michael Medved

18 Responses to “Quote Of The Day”


  • “A gay couple might claim that they fill distinctive roles in their relationship – with one woman working hard to support the family, for instance, while the other cooks and decorates and nourishes the kids.”

    This may be the most idiotic statement ever made in arguing the illigitimacy of gay marraiage. What country does this guy live in ’50′s Sit-comland? I guess by that argument a hetorosexual couple in which the husband and wife both work should be banned also. In which case most all marriages are illegitamte. Lets write a law saying that mothers should not be allowed to work. They must stay at home and cook and clean, do the laundry and iron all day and then when their husbands get home, the house must be spotless, the dinner must be on the table, they must greet their husband with a martini in their hand and of course they must keep their mouth shut and not disturb their husband while he watches the ball game and then when the ball game is over, they must be ready in the bedroom to satisfy their husbands needs.

    This sounds great to me, but I don’t think my working wife would be too happy with this arrangement.

    Given that michael Medved was once a failed movie critic, by these terms Mr. Mom was blasphomy.

  • Re-read the quote Michael, he was using that example with reference to gay marriage not heterosexual marriages. He is actually condemning that example, not upholding it.

    Either way, it was his main point that I liked: men and women are essentially different, by their very nature, and only a marriage between a man and a woman can truly have those two different – yet complimentary – natures together.

  • He is making an irrelevant argument, male female roles have changed, so the distinction no longer exists what is his point.

    Men and women are different, so blacks and whites have different DNA and different culture should they be banned too.

  • Nope, men and women are not different with respect to ‘roles’, men and women are different with respect to nature. We are by nature different in how we see and take in the world.

    Not so with race.

  • Of all the Republican salesmen, Michael Medved is my favorite. He strikes me as an awkward and unapologetically biased clinging to strange puritanical and nationalistic ideals. I discovered him when I moved out to the left coast and think he’s easily the most entertaining talk show host I’ve heard so far.

    As far as his statement, I think it’s amusing how well the homosexual agenda has broken down the argument against gay marriage. Is this what the anti-gay rhetoric has come down to? It’s way too subjective to be defended. It’s only a matter of time. :)

  • Ah, but those of us on the anti-gay marriage side have been winning more than losing. Haven’t you seen the recent state constitutional ammendments?

    Btw, the argument against gay marriage is much more powerful than a simple ‘Quote Of The Day’. ;-)

  • Yup, I have. I’ve also seen many countries allowing gay marriages. Also, society seems to be less and less hateful towards homosexuals. I overheard middle school aged boys talking the other day and they mentioned a certain gay friend, but not with the hateful slant the kids had when I was that age. In 20 years or so I predict people will look back on homophobia with the same disgust they look back on racism and sexism.

    Btw, I’m a married guy and a kid who grew up in a family where homosexuality was tolerated (and celebrated in some cases). I think I have the strongest relationship out of anybody I know and definitely do not see relationships as arbitrary, synthetic and, indeed, temporary. I actually think I value them more than most of the homophobic people I know do. *shrugs* anectdotal evidence never says much, though. I hope my kids will grow up in a world with less hate and more understanding and tolerance to love.

    The trend seems to be moving in that direction and for that I’m happy and perceive the homosexual agenda as successful.

  • Let’s not confuse anti-gay marriage with anti-gay, the two are certainly not the same. Nobody is arguing, nobody that I know anyway, that we should ban being gay itself. Those of us who argue against marriage being extended to gays would argue the same thing against say, polygamists being given marriage rights. So just as being against polygamy doesn’t make one anti-heterosexual, so too, being against gay marriage does not make one anti-homosexual.

  • Wishing to refuse legal rights to a particular group of people is being anti-”group of people.” I love how people with anti-gay platform immediately bring up stuff like polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc. Let’s stay objective to the gayness of our conversation. ;)

  • Wishing to refuse legal rights to a particular group of people is being anti-”group of people.”
    - msondo

    Not necessarily. We as a society withhold certain rights and privileges all the time on certain groups without being “anti-group.” Young adults (under 21) are not legally allowed to buy or consume alcohol, but that doesn’t mean that society is against people who are under 21.

    It is debatable if same-sex marriages are a or should be a Constitutional Right or if they should be allowed for local governments to decide. In other words, there is no explicit guarantee or Constitutional Right for homosexuals to marry, so there is no denial of any right. How can something be denied if it isn’t there to begin with?

    Personally, I have no problem with homosexuals getting married and having their marriage recognized by the state, but if someone else doesn’t agree, that doesn’t make them automatically anti-homosexual.

  • Nobody is arguing, nobody that I know anyway, that we should ban being gay itself. Those of us who argue against marriage being extended to gays would argue the same thing against say, polygamists being given marriage rights. So just as being against polygamy doesn’t make one anti-heterosexual, so too, being against gay marriage does not make one anti-homosexual.

    Ahh, the polygamy argument. The old slippery slope that if you allow gay marriage you must allow polygamy, doesn’t the slippery slope work the other way, if you are in favor of banning gay marriage why not ban interracial marriage. Its the same logic.

  • Punkie Brewdrinker

    Marriage is a sacred, God-blessed institution meant to be entered into by two loving heterosexual people for the duration of their lives and in the spirit of his eternal lovingkindness. Haven’t any of you fuckers ever watched “Bridezillas”, “WifeSwap”, “Newlyweds: Nick and Jessica”, or the “Littlest Groom”? It is obvious that God wants us to protect marriage and not see it cheapened by just letting anyone get hitched.
    I love my (female) wife.

  • doesn’t the slippery slope work the other way, if you are in favor of banning gay marriage why not ban interracial marriage. Its the same logic.

    There is a rooted in nature difference between a man and a woman. The two of them, for one, could produce children, and therefore their union, even by evolutionary standards, is unique. Marriage has always been tied to the nuclear family, and therefore has some connection to the procreation of children.

    When opponents of gay marriage deny marriage to gay people, they are using the same logic that one would use denying marriage to polygamists (although, I admit, on less firm ground). They are basing it on family and children, and the continuation of civilization. Opponents of gay marriage would use the same logic to forbid gays to marry that they would use to forbid polygamists, very early teen marriages, incestual marriages, etc…But one can’t do it with regard to interracial marriages. There is nothing fundamentally different from a black man and a white one, for example, as far as the qualifications above go. So no, there is no slippery slope from anti-gay marriage to anti-interracial marriages.

    Think of it this way, are you against polygamy? If so, is that a slippery slope towards a ban on interracial marriages? Of course not – well the same with bans on gay marriage.

  • Punkie Brewdrinker

    Actually, I think there should be a ban on unattractive people marrying. In a purely NATURAL way, the procreative union of two ugly people does produce children, but they are often ugly and unattracitve (not guaranteed to “continue civilization”) and, hence, not evolutionarily advantageous to the species. Plus, I just bristle when I see two ugly people holding hands in public, like they own the damned town or something!

  • Eugenics. ;)

    Btw, what part of the Constitution discusses marriage, or legal drinking ages?

  • “Btw, what part of the Constitution discusses marriage, or legal drinking ages?”

    No part discusses marriage. Polygamists use this fact to argue in favor of their marriages.

  • I’ve never known a polygamist but I’ve known countless homosexuals.

  • The quote above states “[Gay Marriage] downplays the essential, irrevocable nature of gender differences – and serves to undermine the crucial importance of gender specific roles in all relationships.” Mr. Medved is stating there is a crucial gender role that is inherent to all relationships that is of paramount value to society.

    But what is a crucial gender role that applies to all relationships?

    In American culture people are actually expected to interact with each other without regard to gender in all manners of public discourse. Mr. Bush is expected to interact with Ms. Rice in the same manner as with Mr. Powell. One would probably believe all Americans, including Mr. Medved, would agree that is the case because there is no crucial gender role in that relationship. It is a fundamental American value that there is not a ‘gender role’, the opposite of Mr. Medved’s statement.

    Mr. Hispanicpundit asserts this American denial of ‘gender role’, but turns to gender itself. Gender makes people “by nature different in how we see and take in the world”. Mr. Hispanicpundit would expect Mr. Medved to interact with Mr. Bush in the same manner if he was married to Ms. Rice instead of the current Mrs. Bush. Both women presumably share the same ‘take on the world’ despite any other factors.

    It seems he would have a different expectation of him if Mr. Bush were married to Mr. Powell instead of Ms. Rice. ‘The continuation of civilization’ is threatened if Mr. Medved interacted with a Mr. Bush married to Mr. Powell, presumably because Mr. Powell cannot have the ‘take on the world’ universal among women. Otherwise, this valuing of the differing natures of the genders is not relevent.

    Should one choose to allow for the possibility that Mrs. Bush, Ms. Rice, and Mr. Powell would each bring a unique insight into the world to their marriage, what but the potential procreative act drives the differences expected of Mr. Medved’s interactions with Mr. Bush? Mr. Medved must then be expected to meditate upon the these intercourses before interacting with Mr. Bush, and doesn’t that compel those interactions to be considered a public rather than private matter?

    It seems Mr. Medved must be consigned to a society that uses its instrument, the state, to publicize the specifics of its members’ relations if he is to properly meet the expectations being made of him. He must be assured Mr. Bush has selected a suitable spouse and applied for government certification that their sexual congresses are for the production of children, lest the entire program become of a uncertain or prejudicial nature.

Leave a Reply