A response in particular to the TheAtheistAntidote’s video “Gay Marriage NO; Respect YES”, and more generally to all those who make the procreation-centric (or anatomical) argument in favor of the state’s exclusively privileging heterosexual marriage. The procreation-centric (or anatomical) argument destroys rather than strengthens the foundation for the exclusive privileging of heterosexual marriage. How odd that those who identify themselves as defenders of marriage would rely on an …
Related Blogs
- Related Blogs on abortion
- Related Blogs on Aquinas
- Related Blogs on atheist
- The Meming of Life » Atheist Etiquette Parenting Beyond Belief on …
Author:
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Thanks very much.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Brilliant!
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
AtheistAntidote… Ughhh, I can’t stand that guy!
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
LOL. Thanks.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Bravo brother, that’s the best arguement i have heard yet. you go gurl !
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
prof KC would love a call as buddy is dieing of Cancer. I would love always love to hear from you
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Evangelicals tend to avoid the topic of divorce since, well, so many of them are divorced. Not good for the collection plate and all.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
I wonder if TheAtheistAntidote believes that divorce should be illegal because it doesn’t contribute to the welfare of children (in fact it totally sucks for them) so by that logic people should not be allowed to get divorced.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
“It was Adam and Eve. Not Adam and some old lady” lmao.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Thanks very much.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Excellent video. : )
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
.. I dunno, maybe im not supposed to get it. This particular subject is pretty far out of my personal sphere as I am not gay, nor do I have any desire to marry anyone (or any thing, pets included).
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Apart from my position that homosexuals (or any other orientation, whatever you want to call it) should be able to do anything heterosexuals can in the eyes of the law, I don’t get it. I appreciate that there are some legal abilities only a spouse can possess, but these can be garnered to individuals through other means (power of attorney, etc). This leaves only the label ‘marriage’, which is centered around barbaric mythology. I don’t see how anyone would desire the label’s associations..
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
(2)
they have rights and duties.
I don’t know maybe because it’s legal then it’s more.. condoned or something.
Anywho in Islam it’s just outright forbidden.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
(1)
That’s so strange.. I was thinking of all this society and the purpose of marriage today.
If the society allows gays to exist, why not give them a marriage?
Just to be clear, I’m a Muslim and so I disagree with homosexuality on principal. It doesn’t make sense that you would allow homosexuals to have relationships but not allow them to get married and have rights before the law? Which is, actually I think a very important reason for marriage – the minute people get married (cont)
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Tifforo, there is a link to the full text of Rauch’s essay in the description box. He sets forth in some detail the non-procreation-related arguments for marriage in the essay. Have a look at it. Excellent stuff.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Hey, thanks very much, Amethus1. I’m glad you do.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
This was great! I love it!
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
I don’t mean to say divorce is worse than a bad marriage for children. As much as it sucks, it’s much better for people to split up than stay together if they’re miserable. I’m just saying, when your parents split up for whatever reason, even if you know it has to happen, it is pretty crappy. And Jesus said no. So logically TheAtheistAntidote should be opposed to it.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
I’m not sure divorce is worse for children than an unhappy marriage between parents who hate each other.
Unfortunately, even statisticians don’t really believe when they get married that they have a 50% chance of getting divorced, meaning its as likely to end as it is to not end.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
This video hints that there might be a reason other than children for the state to sanction monogamy over polygamy, but doesn’t say what it is. So, Prof, in your view, what is the reason for allowing marriage between sterile heterosexuals but not between humans and animals? The financial security of women?
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Really. It was articulate and well thought out. Its such a shame that gay marriage is being shunned and lumped in to a category with marrying animals and multiple partners! Insane.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
And, of course, the abandonment exception didn’t come along until several decades after Jesus.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Funny thing about that, isn’t it? Especially since, unlike homosexuality, Jesus actually forbade it. Under no uncertain terms is it acceptable for any reason other than infidelity or abandonment. My mom’s family values didn’t stop her from cheating on my dad and leaving him for her second husband, who she’s now living in sin with. Ironically, my dad’s an atheist and he’s totally free and clear according to Jesus