Reddit reviews What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense
We found 12 Reddit comments about What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Used Book in Good Condition
> 4.Which is a better outcome
The best outcome is following the truth about homosexuality and abortion, don't you think?
And truth can't be "made more accessible" or changed for utilitarian ends like bringing people back. It just is true.
I would highly recommend some good books, such as What is Marriage: Man and Woman, a Defense and Persuasive Pro-Life by Trent Horn. It may help to understand why pro-lifers and people who believe in natural marriage hold the views they hold, before suggesting they change them.
Furthermore, many liberal denominations are in decline, even though they changed their teachings to be more accommodating to outsiders. The Catholic Church does not need to become more liberal or accommodating to current trends to thrive and be successful: https://onenewsnow.com/church/2016/11/20/study-churches-with-conservative-theology-grow-faster
I'm afraid you're seriously mistaken. Two people of the same sex can't be married. It's like how a square can't be a circle. It just goes against the definition of the term.
If you want to understand why I say this, I highly recommend this book. It explains why it is illogical to consider anything other than an exclusive man-woman union as a marriage.
This isn't about "tolerance". This is about the meaning of the term marriage.
The "secular" argument against the redefinition of marriage is based on the discussion about what marriage is. The moment you frame the discussion around "equality of marriage" you're already taking a step beyond the basis that form marriage in the first place, so it's question begging.
One must first define what marriage is and then we can begin to discuss whether people have a "right" to it. The secular argument is based on natural law (regardless if people think or don't understand it).
I have yet to have a single pro-gay-marriage person give a definition of marriage that ultimately doesn't make marriage meaningless, which would mean they're advocating something they don't believe exists in the first place, which is absurd.
BTW, this is a secular defense of traditional marriage: http://amzn.com/1594036225
While some of OP's responses make me question that this is being asked in good faith, I will nonetheless try to answer.
First, one needs to consider the fact that there is literally a book on non-religious reasons why Gay marriage is bad policy. This is a pdf of the article that the book was later spun into with more arguments and sources. It is only 43 pages long and easy to understand.
Ultimately, it comes down to a couple of things: if you think there is value in humans procreating, then marriage policy should encourage biological sex (reproduction) in any shape or form to the exclusion of other relationships, otherwise, there is no added incentive to have children.
Similarly, you need to think of people as having natural ends, limited as they may be. Biologically, humans tend towards survival, reproduction, and expansion. If you do not think humans are supposed to, by our nature (because you deny that humans have a particular nature, which many people do and have done) do anything of the aforementioned, then this argument will ring hollow to you. You might say, is a computer natural? I would say yes, any tool is a natural expansion of our desire to survive and expand. Computers included.
Therefore, you might see then that while a liberal approach (classically speaking) might want to leave gay people alone to enjoy their rights to self determine, the same people might not want to extend incentives designed to reward a stable family unit to a relationship that will neither result in children, nor can.
From the article above:
> A thought experiment might crystallize the central argument. Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage. But imagine that human beings reproduced asexually and that human offspring were self‐sufficient. In that case, would any culture have developed an institution anything like what we know as marriage? It seems clear that the answer is no....The essential features of marriage would be missing; there would be no human need that only marriage could fill....Because marriage uniquely meets essential needs in such a structured way, it should be regulated for the common good, which can be understood apart from specifically religious arguments. And the needs of those who cannot prudently or do not marry (even due to naturally occurring factors), and whose relationships are thus justifiably regarded as different in kind, can be met in other ways.
You can take it or leave it, but it is rather meaningless now that gay marriage is the law of the US.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225
You definitely would enjoy some of their works. Particularly:
https://www.amazon.com/What-Marriage-Man-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=X39PYP8GT616NY99W3SC
> Please try to from a non theological perspective defend denying gay marriage?
http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225
>Please from a non theological perspective try to tell me why a fetus without a heart beat spawned from a rapist has more rights than the mother whose body contains it?
http://www.cambridge.org/cr/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/american-government-politics-and-policy/defending-life-moral-and-legal-case-against-abortion-choice
> no purpose other than an emotional one.... led to the widespread image that Republicans are gay hating bigots.
To quote Donald Trump: "Wrong."
The problem with this argument is that it fails to consider the legal arguments against gay marriage. Actually, the only reason why people want gay marriage is because of a misunderstanding of the nature of marriage and their emotional response to what they feel is an inequality(which doesn't exist).
People who give up over the battle of gay marriage due to political correctness are the reason why people see Republicans as gay hating bigots. Basically they are admitting that there is no(and was no) justifiable argument that could be used against Gay Marriage. This patently false, we simply were so involved in Gay Marriage fervor, that no bothered to do a substantial argument against it.
I have said publicly I am not sure who is right, the Libertarians or the Conservatives, but to say there is no good arguments against Gay Marriage is intellectually dishonest.
The best argument in print is here: http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225
> The fact is, the only time anyone EVER trots out the "the government should be out of the marriage business entirely" line, is when they are being forced into a corner of admitting they want to limit the rights of gay Americans arbitrarily,.....During the Supreme Court and higher court hearings of the gay marriage cases, I paid close attention and read court transcripts and listened to recordings of the proceedings
Genetic Fallacy, just because you don't like where it is coming from doesn't mean its the wrong position. It seems that you are bias against this argument for no justifiable reason either as many libertarians have been arguing this for years but as I explained above,
I agree they did a bad job on defending in the Supreme Court, still has no bearing on the validity of the issue. People should actively seek out non-religious arguments and taking political arguments from Herman Cain is going to give you a skewed view of the subject.
There are several verses on the topic that make it clear where the Bible stands. Since people get funny about the OT, let's just look at NT verses.
http://www.witnessfortheworld.org/homont.html
I'd also recommend you read What is Marriage? and Correct, Not Politically Correct. The "Correct" book is a really short read and has a useful Q&A section in the back. What is Marriage is more academic but still a great read. Interestingly, neither relies much on the Bible to make their convincing case for marriage.
That's the liberal position, yes.
If you are interested in this topic and are willing to entertain a serious and secular defense of traditional marriage, the likes of which you will never be exposed to without seeking it out, here's a read:
https://www.amazon.com/What-Marriage-Man-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225
Your views on marriage have been informed by pop culture. You can do better than that.
Another fair point. So, a clip here, so you don't even need to leave Reddit.
>...
>#Our Argument in Brief
>To orient readers, let me summarize the claims we defend in our book.
>Marriage is a human good with its own structure, like knowledge or friendship. The present debate is not a debate about whom to let marry, but about what marriage (the human good that the law has reasons to track) really is. Two answers compete for legal enshrinement.
>The first, driving the push for same-sex marriage, is that a certain emotional intimacy makes a marriage. But as our book shows, this answer can’t coherently distinguish marriage from companionship, an obviously broader category. So it gets marriage (the human good) wrong.
>The second view of marriage begins from basics. Any voluntary form of community involves common action; it unites people toward common ends in the context of commitment. And in these respects, what sets marital community apart is its comprehensiveness: in (1) how it unites people, (2) what it unites them with respect to, and (3) how extensive a commitment it demands.
>First, marriage unites people in their bodies as well as their minds. Just as your organs are one body by coordinating for the biological good of the whole (your survival), so a man and woman’s bodies unite by coordination (in sexual intercourse) for a biological good (reproduction) of the couple as a whole. No other activity makes of two people “one flesh.”
>Second, as the act that makes marital love also makes new life, so marriage itself is uniquely enriched and extended by the bearing and rearing of children, and the wide sharing of family life.
>Third, because of its comprehensiveness in both these senses, marriage alone requires comprehensive (permanent and exclusive) commitment, whatever the partners’ tastes.
>The stability of marriage, so understood, best ensures that children will know the committed love of those whose union brought them forth. This gives them the best shot at becoming healthy and happy people, which affects every other social good. That is why every society with the merest ambition to thrive has socially regulated male-female sexual bonds: to shore up the stabilizing norms of marriage, on which social order rests.
>If marriage is redefined (in law, and hence in public opinion and practice) as simple companionship for adult fulfillment, then, for reasons to be explained, it will be harder to live by its norms and urge them on others. And this will harm the social goods that hook society into regulating marriage in the first place.
>Besides defending these claims, my coauthors and I answer the most common objections to the historic view of marriage. And we show how society can uphold that view without ignoring the needs, undermining the social dignity, or curbing the fulfillment of same-sex attracted people.
>#Misreadings
>...
I end the clip at that point from this article as this is a succinct presentation of their book, What Is Marriage?
The actual meaning. The philosophical school that goes back to Aristotle. Using nothing but reason and observation derives objective moral principles.
Weblink? Read a book. You might learn a bit more.