Today on Public Discourse, Sherif Girgis (co-author of What is Marriage? One Man, One Woman: A Defense) argues that we need to reason about what marriage is--to understand its essential features and why the state has an interest in promoting them--before we can craft sound marriage law:
Everyone has blind spots. It is philosophy’s ambition to cure these by canceling them out, through dialogue and scrutiny of assumptions. But even academic philosophy has its dogmas. One current example is support for same-sex marriage: To question it is to be anathematized by those occupationally averse to anathemas.
So I was both pleased that Alex Worsnip reviewed my co-authored book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, and unsurprised that he misunderstood it. My former classmate in Oxford’s philosophy master’s (B.Phil.) program, Worsnip is sharp and serious about arguments, and consistently blind to arguments of certain sorts.
13 Comments
Looks like Worsnip didn't even make an honest attempt at reviewing the book. Just knocked down a bunch of strawmans.
Great rebuttal by Girgis. He made the sloppiness of Worsnip's review painfully obvious.
Homosexual marriage confuses the issue of civil marriage purposefully, because they know most people are not philosophers and cannot see the faulty or invalid arguments from homosexual marriage advocates and defenders. All they need to do is to confuse the issue in the public's mind, with the aid of newsmedia, so as to get a near tie in the votes regarding civil marriage. If they can get enough people confident of their analogical arguments (no pun intended), and carry the votes of the anti-Christian, they have a chance at redefining marriage for the self-satisfaction of adults.
They want a tie, in the political arena. And many Christians help them, uninformed. We can call our times: 'The Age of Misinformation', because anyone can easily put forth untested ideas or try to 'reinvent the wheel'.
But women are left unprotected by this scheme to insist logic supports homosexual marriage (camouflaged as same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions). Men can easily take advantage of women's modestly hidden need and desire for sexuality at some age. So, of course, many men would vote to turn marriage into an X-rated adventure.
Do we satisfy women's need for stability and protection for motherhood, or do we satisfy women's temporary sexual fantasies, ignoring the needs of children engendered by "accident", making civil marriage a matter of adult satisfaction?
Natural marriage is defended through reason and statistics, as opposed to erotic emotion. The first is the result of wisdom or spiritually guided faith. The second takes us back to take-by-force times, or barrios. Which subculture would women (and their wanted children,if any) want to live in?
This reply to the book "What is Marriage?", illustrates well "What is NOT marriage". Thanks Mr. Girgis. Great 'enlightment'
You are very Modern, indeed, in the good sense of the word.
"WHAT IS MARRIAGE? MAN AND WOMAN: A DEFENSE"
A defense from WHAT, exactly? For heterosexual couples, exactly what needs defending? Did you think that Straight couples will stop getting married if Gay couples START getting married? None of my Straight friends feel that way.
Did you think if Gay people are allowed to marry, Straight people will start "turning Gay?" Sorry, it doesn't work out that way.
Did you think your marriage will be in greater danger of falling apart if the Gay couple next door decides to tie the knot? If so, you probably didn't have much of a marriage to begin with.
No matter how many times you re-package your anti-Gay message, it still falls flat.
@Jeanette Exner
Gay is not a people. And if the institution of marriage were being fully honored, as defined, you would not be here demanding it be changed so as to lend an appearance of acceptability to your depravity.
Like all predators you sense weakness and you attack when you believe your prey is at its most vulnerable.
You're right, Randy. "Weak" and "vulnerable" perfectly describe the arguments made by Sherif Girgis and Alex Worsnip.
That's right Janette; you sense weakness and you attack.
As it is with all sociopaths your principle goal is to create willing victims who affirm the appropriateness of the crimes perpetrated against them.
Strange how you have no defense for the points made; other then to deflect and redirect. let's try to address the points made; as opposed to changing the subject when you find yourself in the position of having to defend the indefensible.
Little man and the author of this blog like the Ruth Institute make sincere valid arguments about the public importance of man/woman marriage and as always the other side cannot rebut it.
Notice how post #3 just has a bunch of red herrings and strawman arguments and totally ignores all of the valid objections in post #2. Just the same old tired blah blah blah.
Jeanette Exner: Answer yourself. All you have to do is read the book. It is paperback, and is not expensive. Can't you afford it?
The easiest seen defense for marriage between a man and a woman is the person that types the message.
None of us came from same sex couplings.
Nature and Nature's God determined that a very long time ago
Great piece...thanks for sharing it.
Since Sherif Girgis acknowledges that procreation is not a requirement for marriage, the only thing left is the fact that straight people have heterosexual sex. That is the sole basis for their argument (no matter how they try to package it as the magical bonding of "one flesh" or some such nonsense). The fact that straight people can have sex with each other hardly merits excluding gay couples from CIVIL secular marriage. There is nothing astonishing about intercourse. Regardless of the sexual orientation of the participants.
The fact that right minded folks are capable of procreating naturally is the only rational basis any court needs to affirm our history and traditions.
"There is nothing astonishing about intercourse. Regardless of the sexual orientation of the participants."
So according to marriage corruption supporters the miracle of life is no miracle at all; just some cheap parlor trick used to keep perverts from receiving the praise they so richly deserve.
David in Houston: Not sure how old you are, but there's no other sexual act aside from what you call 'heterosexual sex'. The rest is only in your imagination. The sexual act might be without love, and even rape or incest, but it is still the sexual act. 'Sex' means gender, and vice versa. I keep having to educate you. Amazing. . .
Rubbing yourself is not the sexual act, or pretending with a rubber mannequin either, in case you haven't figured it out. It pains me to teach you in public what your father didn't - /\/\/\/
Procreation is not a requirement for marriage, and we don't need Girgis to resolve that. You mean you hadn't found out, yet? The potential for procreation is assumed by the marriage license, ON AVERAGE, based on sex (gender). It's a good system, on average. Note that both persons have to show up with birth certificates, and note there's no check for opposite sexual organs. Note what is actually checked: the sex.
So, if we follow your own 'logic' to determine what should be or not legal, we note a condition for a marriage license has been to check for sex difference, and therefore you have proven marriage is for 2 opposite-sex, not blood-related, adults. You have proven what you didn't want to prove. Ups. . .
The sexual TOOLS for procreation are NOT essential - they are assumed on the average, merely from the registered sex of each partner at birth, whether they use those tools or not. It's a very economical system, ready for regulating procreation, if and when it happens. Same-sex friendships don't require regulation. No one said the approach is fool-proof. You could counterfeit a birth certificate, dress as your opposite sex, and marry a man. Who cares?
Like a plumber who comes to your aid, if he doesn't bring his/her TOOLS along, he doesn't get paid. You surmise it from the big truck, and let him/her in.
But, who ever heard of a lady plumber? That would be a first
I've never seen one. No competition from that sex, there. Got to get dirty. Like?