Debating Same-Sex Marriage in Boulder
Monday night, at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Maggie Gallagher and Johnathan Rauch debated whether or not the government should recognize same-sex marriages. Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, and Rauch, senior writer for National Journal magazine, presented their arguments based on the concept of the purpose of marriage.
Believing marriage to be a “unique” relationship between a man and a woman, Gallagher insisted that it is “wrong for the government to insist, through the use of law, that we all believe same-sex unions are marriages.”
Rauch, for his part, proclaimed that if society does not recognize same-sex unions then marriage will come to be defined as a “civil rights violation” for its exclusion of homosexuals. Marriage is now viewed as simply a “life-style” choice according to Rauch.
Gallagher’s closing remarks indicate her belief that if homosexual unions are viewed as viable and legal marriages then the “core understanding” of marriage will be forever changed, for us and more importantly, for our children.
Let us hope, pray, and work to ensure our Church’s teaching on marriage is not defiled by those who would define it as a “life-style” choice.
Boulder, Colo., Jan 26, 2010 / 09:10 pm (CNA).- A crowd of hundreds heard two leaders in the debate over government recognition of same-sex “marriage” defend their positions Monday evening in a crowded lecture hall at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
The event, sponsored by the St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Center, drew an audience generally supportive of the redefinition of marriage.
The debaters were Maggie Gallagher, an author, social commentator and the president of the National Organization for Marriage; and Jonathan Rauch, a senior writer for National Journal magazine and an author of several books on public policy, culture and economics.
Many people argue by belittling the opponent in any way. Those are argument most people can understand and respond to. But the problem with ad hominem arguments is they are vulnerable to other ad hominem arguments in reply. Maggie Gallagher argues from years of experience, and originally an atheist, for why same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. Yes, sympathy generates a lot of interest within a society that believes itself to be unselfish, but is nevertheless militaristic to extreme. Laws are not based on sympathy, for otherwise we would all get what we desire. Laws are made by voting directly on a referendum, or voting for senators and representatives who fear getting votes out by their majority constituents. If same-sex relationships can be offered a marriage license through legislation, it should be evident to everybody the reverse can also be lawful: restricting civil marriage to only certain type of relationships. Otherwise, do away with civil marriage altogether (but even that takes a vote).
Many people argue by belittling the opponent in any way.
Those are arguments most people can understand and respond to. But the problem with ad hominem arguments (attacking the character of the opposition) is they are vulnerable to other just as convincing ad hominem arguments in reply.
Maggie Gallagher argues from years of experience, and originally an atheist (now a R. Catholic), for why same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms. Yes, sympathy generates a lot of interest within a society that believes itself to be unselfish, but is nevertheless militaristic to extreme. Perhaps that is why USA is so unselfish, out of a guilt complex.
But laws are not based on sympathy. Otherwise we would all get what we desire. Laws are made by voting directly on a referendum, or voting for senators and representatives who fear getting voted out quickly by their majority constituents.
If same-sex relationships can be offered a marriage license through legislation, it should be evident to everybody the reverse can also be lawful, and is not a matter of fundamental rights. The reverse is restricting civil marriage to only certain type of relationships, as has always been.
Otherwise, do away with civil marriage altogether (but even that takes a vote).