Warning: Use of undefined constant REQUEST_URI - assumed 'REQUEST_URI' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in C:\xampp\htdocs\mbc1\wp-content\themes\jannah4\functions.php on line 73
"What’s Marriage?: Man and Lady, A Protection" Half 1/3 – jj
ok

"What’s Marriage?: Man and Lady, A Protection" Half 1/3



Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George discuss their new book “What is Marriage?: Man and Woman, A Defense” at the Catholic Information …

source

Tags

Related Articles

26 Comments

  1. The conservative view doesn't "seem almost baffling," it is baffling because it makes no sense. Conservatives should be for less government intervention in our daily lives and marriage rights for everyone. We know how good and stabilizing marriage can be, so why would we want to deny marriage to a gay couple who want to commit to one another?

  2. Nice speech, but hopelessly misses the mark.  Opposition to gay marriage was NEVER built up on a foundation of child production/rearing being central to the institution.  It was built up on a hostility to gays and their relationships, built up on the notion that their behavior was sinful, immoral, wicked, deviant.

    Now that THOSE attitudes and ideas about gays and their relationships are being rejected en masse, so too is opposition to gay marriage.

  3. I agree with the first speaker that if marriage is only about the love between two people then the government would have no interest in getting involved. In my culture (which doesn't set up laws reflecting religious beliefs), there is no interest in married couples that have no children (whether by choice or due to infertility). All effort is placed on couples who have children. There is a great deal amount of support to keep those families intact. Children are vital to strengthening our communities because we are a clan system. Not only do children add value to the clans but they further continue the legacy of both clans in which that child belongs to. 

  4. Doubletalkingjive, a heterosexual marriage that doesn't result in children is not the interest of the government. They may get the benefits by default because they fit the criteria of one man and one woman. However, the real intent of government interest in the marriage institution is to promote heterosexual marriages where children are involved.

  5. … besides, it isn't as if our conception of marriage hasn't changed prior to this debacle or same sex marriage. The issue of same sex marriage is a symptom of the problem not the problem itself. The problem is the sexual revolution and the vision of marriage that it promoted. A vision that we have payed dearly for: cohabitation, divorce, out-of-wedlock child bearing: all of these nothing but social parasites to the health of limited gov. (making the spectre of big gov. all the more tempting).

  6. maudlinmanify, the law cannot be arbitrary; it must treat like cases alike. Thus if marriage is just a strong emotional union then you'd be right that it would be discriminatory to limit it to straight couples… but then it would also be discriminatory to limit it to dyadic couples.

    In what principled way can such an understanding of marriage account for fidelity, sexual exclusivity, permanency, childbearing: those features that go to constitute marriage?Or is marriage a best friendship,merely

  7. The structure of the argument is this: If we allow our conception of marriage to be altered in one way, then we must allow it to be altered in many other ways, many of which we do not endorse. But the conclusion does not follow. Our conception of marriage *has* changed over the years. We once thought that marriage required the obedience of a wife to her husband. We have since revised that idea. But this revision has not caused us to abandon all other aspects of our conception. Get it?

  8. Although my opinion doesn't mean much, I'm only a UCLA philosophy major, I must say their work is impressive. I went from being utterly disgusted to the conclusion they drew to seriously considering, and often defending, their arguments after reading their book. I say often defending because I find many of the web critiques to their work to be largely unfounded, resorting to calling their arguments religious: listen to the men and take a course in critical reasoning before humiliating yourselves

  9. Being fueled by religious beliefs does not mean that their arguments are to stand or fall according to this motivation precisely because the arguments they employ do not rest on this motivation (i.e. to utilize the argument one need not be religious). Please respond accordingly to my comment: do you disagree that a religious person can argue that murder is wrong, be fully fueled by some religious adherence to this conclusion, and yet present an argument that does not rely on religion?

  10. This is simply beside the point. Rational viability here indicates the consistency by which a position maintains; regardless of whether many or even anybody opts for such measures (i.e. of allowing for the legality of polygamous marriages) the revisionary view must, again, in principle allow for these to take place if one so wishes.

  11. This comment displays a considerable lack in understanding as to how arguments are to be assessed. Just because their conclusion aligns with one that a religious group holds to (even if it be his own) does not entail that the argument sneaks in religious premises. e.g. just because a religious thinker condones murder does not mean that there are hidden religious premises (which you have not even brought to light) in the argument even if they present the argument at a religious gathering.

  12. Where are the polygamists? I believe Buzzfeed had an article on them celebrating the DOMA ruling. They're there. And they are happy because the door *is* open now. That's just a factual observation, not any kind of ideological statement.

  13. They really are dressed up as secular arguments. you know why? because they are secular arguments. just because the guy is religious doesn't mean his argument relies on a religious premise…………

  14. You asked where they are, so here's some of them:
    ASU Philosophy professor Elizabeth Brake: "individuals can have legal marital relationships with more than one person…"
    Dan Savage thinks the same; femenist icon Gloria Steinem, political activist Barbara Ehrenreich, and NYU Law Prof Kenji Yoshino also concur.
    Further, Brazil has recognized trios as a civil union…….

  15. actually, allowing homosexual marriage would change heterosexual marriage just as allowing contraception has changed nearly everyone's idea of what sex is and thus how they practice sex. consequences follow changes in definition. people are not free to make up whatever rules they desire. Rules are rules, regardless of how they make us feel. People can break them and do whatever they want but they are not free to change the natural law

Leave a Reply

Back to top button
Close