Defending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity.
Encompassing the marriage related topics of gendered biology, kin anthropology, family law and policy.
Comment Policy
Disputes of fact and of opinion are why we are here. We may disagree with you, just as we hope you share your disagreements with us. Being friendly will usually invite friendly replies. We can and will delete otherwise great posts for unseemly profanity.
Comments anywhere on the site -- no matter how old the post -- will show up on the front page as a recent comment and in the comment RSS feeds.
Now I know that advocates of same-sex marriage are often offended by this response, and they point out that it's ridiculous. But it is the obvious and natural consequence of their claim to have the right to marry members of the same-sex. Their answer that it's absurd is a natural intuition from a moral view they've just jettisoned. I've never heard a serious response that explains how we are to limit marriage from here on out except using borrowed capital.
Marriage has always and everywhere by every culture and religion been treated as something that has meaning in an of itself apart from our own ideas. It's a radical move, whether it's acknowledged or not, to change marriage to a cultural convention open to redefinition. The only thing that temporarily limits marriage on this new definition is the borrowed capital of a view that has been overthrown to gain this new "right."
Check out some of the videos of Maggie Gallagher of National Organization of Marriage. This woman knows what she is talking about and knows how to present the arguments. I suggest if you do not know how to speak about this issue that you start out repeating the points she makes and then gradually put your own spin on it as you come up to speed on the issue.
Here is one of my favorites: Why Is Gov't in the Love Business? http://www.youtube.com/user/NationForMarriage#p/u/15/Vk9Vb4Fso94
The key in my estimation is keeping it simple and reminding people of basic truths about gender and how that fits in with both the good of individuals, their children and the good of society. With all due respect to Greg Koukl he is not yet up to speed on this issue and instead of floundering publicly he needs to come up to speed on it in his own mind before sharing his thoughts publicly. And it makes no sense to try and re-invent the wheel when there are people out there who can and do speak eloquently on the issue.
Koukl makes good points in "Borrowed Capital":
ReplyDeleteNow I know that advocates of same-sex marriage are often offended by this response, and they point out that it's ridiculous. But it is the obvious and natural consequence of their claim to have the right to marry members of the same-sex. Their answer that it's absurd is a natural intuition from a moral view they've just jettisoned. I've never heard a serious response that explains how we are to limit marriage from here on out except using borrowed capital.
Marriage has always and everywhere by every culture and religion been treated as something that has meaning in an of itself apart from our own ideas. It's a radical move, whether it's acknowledged or not, to change marriage to a cultural convention open to redefinition. The only thing that temporarily limits marriage on this new definition is the borrowed capital of a view that has been overthrown to gain this new "right."
Check out some of the videos of Maggie Gallagher of National Organization of Marriage. This woman knows what she is talking about and knows how to present the arguments. I suggest if you do not know how to speak about this issue that you start out repeating the points she makes and then gradually put your own spin on it as you come up to speed on the issue.
ReplyDeleteHere is one of my favorites:
Why Is Gov't in the Love Business?
http://www.youtube.com/user/NationForMarriage#p/u/15/Vk9Vb4Fso94
The key in my estimation is keeping it simple and reminding people of basic truths about gender and how that fits in with both the good of individuals, their children and the good of society. With all due respect to Greg Koukl he is not yet up to speed on this issue and instead of floundering publicly he needs to come up to speed on it in his own mind before sharing his thoughts publicly. And it makes no sense to try and re-invent the wheel when there are people out there who can and do speak eloquently on the issue.
Careful Joe,
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of angles which need to be taken. I agree with what you wrote, all except for following another's path.
Maggie is good at what she does. She knows us, and we know her.
Focusing on the plainest truths about gender is the key.
But I like Koukl's take, and I don't find it any bit behind Maggie.
Wow. Did I misread or is that Koukl article dated May 2004? It is still amazingly relevant.
ReplyDelete