Polls and election results show Americans sharply divided on same-sex marriage, and the controversy is unlikely to subside anytime soon. Debating Same-Sex Marriage provides an indispensable roadmap to the ongoing debate. Taking a "point/counterpoint" approach, John Corvino (a philosopher and prominent gay advocate) and Maggie Gallagher (a nationally syndicated columnist anPolls and election results show Americans sharply divided on same-sex marriage, and the controversy is unlikely to subside anytime soon. Debating Same-Sex Marriage provides an indispensable roadmap to the ongoing debate. Taking a "point/counterpoint" approach, John Corvino (a philosopher and prominent gay advocate) and Maggie Gallagher (a nationally syndicated columnist and co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage) explore fundamental questions: What is marriage for? Is sexual difference essential to it? Why does the government sanction it? What are the implications of same-sex marriage for children's welfare, for religious freedom, and for our understanding of marriage itself? While the authors disagree on many points, they share the following conviction: Because marriage is a vital public institution, this issue deserves a comprehensive, rigorous, thoughtful debate....
|Title||:||Debating Same-Sex Marriage|
|Number of Pages||:||281 Pages|
|Status||:||Available For Download|
|Last checked||:||21 Minutes ago!|
Debating Same-Sex Marriage Reviews
I tried really hard to get through Gallagher's arguments against same sex marriage, but she doesn't really have one. Corvino presents a lot of well thought out, logical, highly reasoned arguments in favor, and predicts the arguments that will be used against them. However, he overestimates his debating partner, who starts with personal attacks--intermingled with how unfair it is that teh gays always think it's just bigotry and hate when clearly IT IS SCIENCE--and then moves on to semantic nonsense (calling gay couples married is the same as referring to both dogs and cats as dogs) and plain irrationality. My favorite example being that 1) same sex marriage will null the meaning of the word and screw up all marriages for everyone, while 2) not enough gay people even want to get married to make it worth society's time and effort to recognize them.Her other primary "reason", and the one behind her founding of the National Organization for Marriage, is that marriage is about kids having a mother and father. The question of why she chooses to defend marriage against the one form of coupling that actually can't result in accidental unwanted children, the sole purpose of NOM, rather than divorce or single parenthood, is totally ignored.But what makes her most unbearable to me personally is that she begins her section by saying that she understands the other side's argument perfectly, ALL same sex marriage opponents do(!), but proponents like Corvino willfully insist on not understanding hers. Honestly, if she did understand what Corvino was saying, rather than falling back on her Catholic upbringing and the smiting God gave her when she was a bad, bad girl and had sex before she was married, she'd shut up already. Or at least write something that relates to the issue, rather than stringing a lot of big words together in an attempt to confuse people and take up space.I probably would have rated this book higher if I'd resisted the temptation to give Gallagher the benefit of the doubt.
A book that is praised by both Senator Rick Santorum and Dan Savage has got to be interesting (Wiki Santorum and Savage). Corvino does a good job of calmly explaining the importance of same-sex marriage. Gallagher's argument against same sex marriage is that it is in society's (and children's) best interest if children live with their biological parents in a loving, stable relationship. Marriage is fundamentally about raising children and not about being in a loving relationship. She argues that same-sex marriage shifts (for the worst) this important social construct. She argues that same-sex couple can have wonderful relationships, can raise children, can even be given more rights (hospital visitation, etc.). But marriage is too important to expand (and perhaps dilute) the definition by allowing same-sex marriages.Though I think all the studies support her thesis (children thrive best with their biological parents in stable relationships), she seems to be closing the barn door after the horses have left. Her traditional definition of marriage is in such tatters from divorce and out-of-wedlock births, that stopping gays from marrying is not going to make that big dent in our society.
This book's title summarizes its contents. As in a formal debate, Corvino presents his case as to why same-sex marriage should be legally recognized, and then Gallagher explains why it should not. Each side then briefly refutes its opposition's arguments. I purposely am not stating which side of the argument I held before reading the book. To do so would reduce the value of this review. I concluded the book holding that same viewpoint, but I realized better the strength of my opponent's argument and some weakness in my side's. If more disputants in this contentious issue were to read this book, it might reduce some of the bitterness which characterizes the current debate.
This is the best treatment of the gay marriage debate that I've encountered. Regardless of your position on the issue you'll encounter a perspective or argument you likely haven't considered before. The divide is deep with the two interlocutors not only disagreeing on the issue, but also on the nature of the disagreement -- not only on the meaning of the terms in the debate, but on the nature of meaning. Gallagher and Corvino adopt strikingly different rhetorical styles. Corvino takes a technical, almost Jesuitical, tact while covering as many arguments as possible; whilst Gallagher focuses in on a few core issues more deeply.
I found the format of this book to be really interesting. I also appreciated that Maggie Gallagher (the case against) didn't hide behind religion in defense of her stance. While I am on the side for same-sex marriage, it was very interesting and edifying to learn about the opposing side that was not religious-based.
I am an LGBT ally, so the likelihood of this book changing my opinion was low. One could say that I metaphorically cheated and read the end of the book before I started. Dr. Corvino and I see eye to eye for all intents and purposes. If someone is experienced in arguing for marriage equality, the biggest takeaway from this book is learning about common anti-equality arguments and the flaws in them. Gallagher doesn't really manage to overturn what Corvino has to say. The biggest insight she provides is the, what I take to be honest, belief that her opposition is firmly rooted in what's best for society and children. Unfortunately, we've seen this redressing of bigotry too often in cases against interracial and inter-religious couples to accept it as anything more than an attempt to justify bigotry that is otherwise rooted in what one person thinks their god feels how other people should comport themselves, rational arguments be damned.Read this book if you're not familiar with anti-equality arguments, but reserve your energy for better things than what Gallagher writes, unless you're the kind of person who enjoys reading "Mein Kampf" so that you can better understand "what the other side thinks".
'Debating Same-Sex Marriage is an important book that lays bare the philosophical arguments for and against the legalization of same-sex marriage. Although I am partial to Gallagher’s arguments, Corvino’s position is well argued and more in tune with the times.'Read the full review, "What Same-Sex Marriage Means," on our website:http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
A good intro to the non-religious arguments for and against marriage.
It provides logical and causal arguments, the morals dilemma, ethics, etc. After all, this book is really worth reading.