What is Reddit's opinion of What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

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.

But why is it "abusive" and "inherently wrong" to beat one's child if I can "find examples" of kids who were beat who turned out okay?

If you want a book which includes a pretty good index of the surveys available and which makes a secular argument against SSM, I would recommend: https://www.amazon.com/What-Marriage-Man-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225

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.

Great post. Ryan T Anderson is a fellow Catholic who I greatly admire. It takes strength to stand firm in face of shifting culture.

Check out the book he made with two other authors. It will provide you with arguments in favour of traditional marriage.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225

Interesting, he seems to have recycled the main thesis from the book "What is Marriage." (read this once; good stuff) http://www.amazon.com/What-Marriage-Man-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1424717992&sr=8-1&keywords=what+is+marriage

> 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

It would be sinful to enter into a same-sex civil marriage, regardless of one's good intention to help a friend. This is still the case even if neither person has homosexual tendencies.

This moral teaching was made clear in a 2003 document by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

> "In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection."

> - Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual persons, paragraph 5

Although it does not directly address the question of civil marriage, I recommend watching Jason Evert's video Homosexuality, Marriage and Holiness to show the logic and loving motivation behind the Church's moral stance.

For a detailed explanation of the non-religious, philosophical/rational/social case why the State should not redefine civil marriage to include same-sex couples, I recommend What is Marriage? Man and Woman: a Defense. One of the authors, Sherif Girgis, has a great 35 min talk that summarizes the arguments here.

If you're serious you'll read a (short) book about it.

https://www.amazon.com/What-Marriage-Man-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225

I recommend reading/watching What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense as a video, paper or book by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George.

It is a secular, rational natural law case for conjugal marriage, in contrast to revisionist views of marriage (e.g. 'same-sex marriage' and 'poly unions').

Here is an excerpt from the start of the paper:

>What is marriage? Consider two competing views: > > Conjugal View: Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its inherent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children contributes to its distinctive structure, including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it. > > Revisionist View: Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life. It is essentially a union of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable. The state should recognize and regulate marriage because it has an interest in stable romantic partnerships and in the concrete needs of spouses and any children they may choose to rear.

It also demonstrates how the common good of society crucially depends on legally enshrining the conjugal view of marriage and is damaged by enshrining the revisionist view.

>What unifying good is there to procreation? And gay people can educate children as well.

Sorry, I missed a word in there. I am saying this is the end (read: function or purpose) towards which marriage is ordered. It should be read as the unifying good of marriage is procreation and child rearing. Sorry if that was unclear.

>Could you expand on this "glue"

The nuclear family is fortified by the commitments I mentioned (permanence, exclusivity, and so on).

>If to procreate means to "bring forth", it is possible through surrogacy for a gay person to procreate and raise the child.

Two gay people cannot, together, procreate. You know this. Gay people don't procreate through surrogacy. A child never results from sexual activity between members of the same sex.

>But your beliefs are not secular, which is the point of the post

Just because a belief is held by someone who is Catholic doesn't make it or the reasoning upon which it is predicated a religious belief. I also believe 2 and 2 make 4, and the Church would endorse that as well. Is that belief religious or secular? Nowhere in my posts have I made recourse to the authority of the Church or divine revelation. You need not be religious for any of these arguments. In fact, the arguments I've made so far say nothing about the morality of homosexual activity, although the Church of course believes what She does about that as well.

>Not really, there were cultures where gay people got married, specifically in Native American Cultures and some South African tribes.

Only recently, that's the point. I see Argentina being first to legally recognize it in 2010. It's a novelty.

>Probably because most people are heterosexual? Also because reproduction was a priority. I'm not arguing against straight marriage, so I don't know why you bothered with that.

Most people are still heterosexual. You are arguing against a conception of marriage though, which holds gender complementarity as an essential feature. Its stability in historical conceptions of marriage despite other variations (such as number of women or men) is telling. This is the point I was trying to make.

I am leaving home for a while, this is likely the last response I'll be posting. Thanks for being pretty respectful. Really, at this point, if you are curious about all of this, do some reading. It's much more fruitful than reddit conversations, and you'll hear from people smarter than myself. I'd suggest What is Marriage?. It's a quick read and will make the case with secular arguments.

Have a good one my friend.

As others have made clear, Catholics are obligated to oppose 'same-sex marriage'. This moral teaching was made clear in a 2003 document by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

> "In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection."

> - Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual persons, paragraph 5

I recommend watching Jason Evert's video Homosexuality, Marriage and Holiness to show the logic and loving motivation behind the Church's moral stance.

For a detailed explanation of the non-religious, philosophical/rational/social case why the State should not redefine civil marriage to include same-sex couples, I recommend What is Marriage? Man and Woman: a Defense. This video summarizes the arguments.

> If moral is the sum of the values of a community,

How can morals be the sum values of a community?

Does that mean you approve of Saudi Arabia's practices related to stoning gays, executing prisoners, ect? Or China's practices of jailing political dissidents? Or traditional practices around the world allowing for female circumcision or slavery?

That's the sum of the values of different communities around the world. Are they moral?

If morals are just the sum values of a community, that means morality is relative to society. You have no basis to judge anyone or any religion if that's all morality is.

And, just to emphasize, that's not what the Catholic Church believes, that's what YOU believe. Just because you don't accept or want to admit the implications of your beliefs doesn't make the implications not real.

> then how can you want to be a part of that community

Don't you think it is rather "intolerant" (again according to your own beliefs) to tell people what communities they should want to belong to? That's just as judgmental as Catholics trying to teach people what marriage is.

> If nobody can judge a relationship... how can religion?

If relationships cannot be judged, then they're just morally neutral questions, like what should I eat for dinner or how should I cut my hair. If they are just morally neutral questions, then, according to your own beliefs, "should I break up with my boyfriend to follow the Church" is like asking "should I eat stir fry or salad for dinner."

There's no way to morally judge which choice is better, so there is no way to morally judge the person judging. This again is according to what you are saying, by implication. And again, the implications are real, even if you don't want to accept them.

Remember, no one is coercing anyone. The Catholic Church isn't forcing the original poster to break up with his boyfriend. The Church is just saying things, and he is following. There is no coercion against anyone's will here so you can't say "it's immoral because of coersion."

Now, no one behaves like this in real life. Everyone (including you, or else you wouldn't be angered by what happened), thinks relationships have more weight and seriousness than what to eat for dinner. The Catholic Church definitely things that. But this is why statements like

> moral is the sum of the values of a community

and

> nobody can judge a relationship

Are wrong. They are not accurate descriptions of the world and, well, if you cared about things like truth and intellectual honesty, you would discard them.

> And once more: who says that ssa is bad? or where is it written?

Look, this really requires a book length treatment. I would recommend what is marriage: man and woman a defense as a good explanation of why marriage can only be understood between man and woman.

---

As for why the truth about marriage and gender matters, we have to turn to a somewhat unrelated issue. Just look at recent cases involving transgender regreters. There is a lot of concern that people are rushing into changing their birth sex because it has become a political/identarian issue. The truth of the matter is that these are difficult decisions, people cannot easily change their birth sex, and children are unfit to make these permanent decisions. Because some people want to deny these truths, lives will be ruined as a result.

So the truth has consequences, even if the consequences are not immediate. And the same goes for your beliefs as well.

As for the Catholic beliefs, we have been around for 2000 years, exist in every nation on the planet, and built Western Civilization. There have been abuses and things haven't been perfect and indeed, Catholicism teaches that evil will always be with us, even in the Church, until the end of the world. But overall the consequences of the beliefs of the Catholic faith are beneficial, the proof is in the deeds we have done and how long we have lasted and how far we have spread. The same cannot be said of social liberalism.

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.

>I don't think the primary purpose for women is to have children. It seems like that is what Catholicism focuses on telling women to do, and that's it.

This is completely wrong. There have been some amazing women in the Catholic Church such as Catherine of Siena, who is a Doctor of the Church, or Joan of Arc.

In fact, the first PhD in computer science was obtained by a Catholic nun.

As for homosexual marriage, It may help to do some research into the philosophical arguments about what marriage is before making a judgement on that issue. There are some good books arguing that marriage is only a conceptually coherent concept if it is in between a man and a woman.

But just in general, both the emotionally connective and procreative aspects are necessary for marriage. We shouldn't drop one just because both are necessary.

Lastly, we should not forget that homosexuals will always fit into the Catholic Church! There are [many homosexuals who remain faithful to the teachings of the church]. In fact there are many even on reddit and one of our mods is even a gay Catholic cannon lawyer . There are some great AMAs in r/Catholicism by gay people.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/4tf3ne/i_am_a_homosexual_celibate_catholic_man_ama/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/14hg4r/iama_gay_celibate_27yearold_catholic_man_ama/

M.D./Ph student checking in that supports traditional marriage. http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225

M.D./Ph student checking in that supports traditional marriage. http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225

I don't actually think that most of these people are psychopaths, that's why I said looks like. I think they're misguided, ignorant, ill-informed, people who think there's something else to it than what there really is. "What, they have a total of two penises in their relationship instead of one? That must mean they worship Satan".

But psychopaths can also be very successful individuals. Lacking empathy for other people could mean fewer obstacles between them and their goals.

>http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225

Okay, so the summary starts out with an argument from antiquity, that is also a false premise because what we recognize as "traditional marriage" is very modern. Marrying for love rather than property. Or if marrying for property, at least people are more free to choose their own partners in our time than they were previously. And people are more free to not marry at all, making getting married that much more about personal choice.

But back to the antiquity, so what if it were how it's always been? We did away with slavery, we did away with theocracy and monarchy. We improved conditions for people in society. Doing something for a long time or doing something at any time earlier than now, doesn't mean it's the best thing we could possibly do. If you have to rely on something being historical to make your case for you, that probably means your actual case is too weak to stand on its own.

>They show why both sides must first answer the question of what marriage really is.

There is only the question of what marriage should be, because marriage is what we define it to be. Should it discriminate on the basis of gender? Not Does it discriminate on the basis of gender?

So how about you cite whatever paragraph(s) of the book you linked to that makes the best case for why we should discriminate on the basis of gender when it comes to marriage?

I hope it's not the absurdity of banning same-sex marriage being the only way to protect against polygamous marriages. If we have a case against polygamous marriage, it too has to be able to stand on its own, or it's not worth anything.

Edit: Looking a bit more into what's said about the book, I see they also bring up reproduction and child rearing. And there's no reason marriage has to be about either. It can be. You can also separate the two. Being able to reproduce doesn't say anything about how well you can parent. While the parenting aspect is by far the most important of the two. There is no lack of human reproduction, but there is a lack of good parenting. Or parents at all. I don't think we should be promoting reproduction for as long as we continue to fail to provide capable parents for the children.

And for this I can see an advantage to same-sex coupling over opposite-sex coupling. Less is more.

M.D./Ph student checking in that supports traditional marriage.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225

http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/04/27/supreme-court-same-sex-parenthood-column/26452519/

I used to have your opinions

You can't go wrong by starting with this book: https://www.amazon.com/What-Marriage-Man-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225

It's only a few dollars but it's a worthwhile investment for answering such questions.

If you're up for serious discussion, and willing to enter with an open mind (I don't discuss things with intransigent people, similarly, I don't consider myself intransigent on the issue--willing to change my mind provided a convincing argument). Start here: http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225

M.D./Ph student checking in that supports traditional marriage. http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225

M.D./Ph student checking in that supports traditional marriage. http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Now, you may say that if YOU disagreed with homosexual marriage because of its lack of connection to procreation than you would also oppose marriage between sterile heterosexuals, but that's YOU. No Christian believes that, and not because of bigotry and bias, but because of what marriage IS.

Here, read this set of discussions. Or, for a more in-depth discussion, read the book.

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?

I'd recommend OP and anyone else interested in the topic read "What is Marriage" which deals really well with all this. It's been some time since I read it myself so I can't recall all the arguments it made perfectly to mind.

I also see others have already done a good job answering the question and it's clear that OP is completely close-minded on this issue. Let's just address a few points then for the edification of anyone who might be lurking.

• Even OP acknowledges that the Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin. Can we stop with "Christians" claiming the Bible isn't clear on this point?
• On the Bible, let's consider God's character. He is love, He is a good father, He is sovereign. So, do you think God gives commands in the Bible to be a killjoy? "Hey, let me ban xyz because those humans will really struggle to avoid that and it'll be funny to watch!" No, not if He is love and He's a good father. God's commands are there for our benefit. As our Creator, He knows what is best for us better than we know it. So God's commands are only for our benefit, thus it's to our benefit to follow Biblical sexual morality, no fornication, no homosexuality, no adultery, etc.
• Homosexuality being natural or not is irrelevant. Personally I think it is a combination of nature and nurture but sin is sin and that's that. We all are born with different tendencies to sin. Some people struggle with anger, some with jealousy, others with lust, such on and so forth. No matter how "natural" or not your sin is, it's not okay.
• Homosexuality is a disorder given that most humans are not homosexual and the survival of our species depends on most humans being heterosexual.
• Homosexuals suffer from higher rates of mental illness and other negative conditions, this is true even in countries that are very "accepting" of homosexuality so you can't claim such conditions are caused just by society. So much for the "no harm" argument.
• Particularly among men, it's simply not sanitary or healthy to engage in the sorts of sexual activity they do. There's also the fact that most homosexual men sleep with multiple partners to add to general unhealthiness of the practice.
• Homosexuality impairs same sex relations all across the board. A big part of the reason why interacting with people of your same sex is different than interacting with the opposite sex is that there's no sexual attraction or sexual issues to deal with when interacting with the same sex. Homosexuality messes with this and suddenly every relationship could potentially have to deal with sexual politics. It also makes it harder to have same sex friendships, especially among men. I mean, just look at the Bible and the relationship between David and Jonathan. A relationship people now want to insist must have been homosexual because they can't imagine such a strong love that isn't sexual in nature, due to their own warped desires.
• The premium society places on marriage only makes sense within the context of a single spouse of the opposite sex. Otherwise, there is no point to marriage whatsoever.