tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post1594659429597983904..comments2024-03-03T10:53:22.293-08:00Comments on The Debate Link: Why Even the Best Case Against Same-Sex Marriage is Morally UnsustainableDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-54180141938498244672012-05-28T09:45:25.185-07:002012-05-28T09:45:25.185-07:00Actually, that's a terrible case against SSM, ...Actually, that's a terrible case against SSM, for several reasons.<br /><br />1) I don't believe that God ordained marriage as between a man and a women (<a href="http://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2006/12/anti-heteronormative-reading-of.html" rel="nofollow">Cf.</a>).<br /><br />2) Even I did believe that, I'd "stand yet before the Lord" (Gen. 18:22) and demand that the judge of all act justly (cf., the entire book of Job).<br /><br />3) Even if I thought this was a valid religious proscription, I'd be disinclined to enact it into civil law. An affront to God? As the Romans put it: "Let the Gods avenge themselves." They'll get whatever just deserts are headed their way.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-495872273593775842012-05-28T09:40:39.551-07:002012-05-28T09:40:39.551-07:00Actually, the best case against SSMs is that marri...Actually, the best case against SSMs is that marriage was ordained by God to be between a man and a woman. How it affects society on a social/economical level is secondary to the real the offense of SSMs. <br /><br />It's impossible to refute marriage is a religious institution, and given what it stands for, SSM by definition is in complete violation, it is an egregious affront to God's sovereignty.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15459712437736593834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-32989418750648512982012-05-18T11:01:42.618-07:002012-05-18T11:01:42.618-07:00I think your discussion of the "strong" ...I think your discussion of the "strong" case misses a couple of points. <br /><br />(1) The empirical claim that societies with high levels of acceptance of same-sex relationships (I think the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries are usually cited) tend to have lower levels of marriage.<br /><br />(2) The gender essentialism of SSM opponents, particularly with regard to parenting. How many times have you heard "Children deserve to have a mother and a father?" Even purportedly progressive shows like "Glee," that get blamed for presidential policy preferences, will still put forward the idea that the daughter of two dads must feel some gap or lack in her upbringing due to the absence of a female parent. That this matters for SSM is premised on the assumption that marriage is centrally an institution that exists to facilitate parenting.<br />I think it's almost certainly true that marriage as a social institution developed as a way of getting women reliable assistance in obtaining resources for childrearing, and getting men some assurance that the children they were feeding are genetically theirs. That people might continue this mutual commitment beyond the woman's fertile years is a relatively-recent peculiarity of our now regularly living past our fertile years.<br /><br />Obviously, (1) confuses correlation with causation, and (2) ignores the changes in family law of the last 200+ years, including those in reaction to increasingly reliable paternity testing. But they're definitely very common claims that do not rely on the "gay marriage will crowd out straight marriage" thesis.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.com