Responding to an Argument About Gay Marriage ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/ADsjBxDheMo/maxresdefault.jpg) ## Metadata - Author: [[YouTube]] - Full Title: Responding to an Argument About Gay Marriage - Category: #articles - Document Tags: [[advocacy]] [[policy]] [[research]] - Summary: Responding to an argument about gay marriage - URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADsjBxDheMo Okay. Number one. >> All right. Let's see it. >> Because marriage isn't just about love. Number two, because governments recognize it for what it produces, children, families, and the stability of society. >> So, reasons one and two are the same reason, procreation. And then the other things you've added on to reason two are still accomplished by gay marriages. So really the two reasons are just well they can't have kids therefore they shouldn't be getting married. But this is obviously just a weak rationalization. This is not a real reason because there are plenty of heterosexual couples that get married and are either unable to or choose not to have children. And unless and until I see any kind of sustained attempt to discourage or prohibit such heterosexual couples from getting married, obviously that is not a deal breakaker. The fact that they are not going to have children doesn't mean they shouldn't get married. Again, if you are not saying that heterosexual couples should not or should not be able to get married if they cannot or will not have kids, you cannot say the same about gay marriages. That is just again a weak rationalization. >> Number three, because without the male female compliment, it loses its natural purpose. The very reason it existed long before it was a legal contract. So reason number three is obviously disqualified because it is transparently an attempt to fertively slip religion into the rationalization. It's suggesting that God created marriage to serve something related to male female complimentarity prior to its function as a social and legal institution. But this is not supported by any data. This is just a religious dogma that arises from the imposition of certain presuppositions and ideologies upon the biblical text. When we actually let the data operate on their own terms, we see that marriage as a social and legal institution long pre-existed the birth of anyone who ever wrote down anything that ever made it into the Bible. And it has also long existed independent of and beyond the reach of the scope of influence of the Bible. So again, this is a religious reason masquerading as a non-religious reason. And it is not supported by any data. >> But what you're forgetting when you say keep religion out of it is the idea of marriage as we know it, lifelong, exclusive, faithful, binding, that came from Christianity. >> No, it didn't. Christianity got it from Judaism. But it also long pre-existed Judaism and any people group known as Israel or Judah. And it has also long existed in a number of other societies that operated independent of and beyond the scope of influence of Judaism or Christianity. >> Ancient cultures had unions of course, but the Christian understanding of marriage as sacred, a covenant, not just a deal, that's what shaped how the world views marriage today. >> Uh this is simply not true. There are many societies that pre-existed Christianity and Judaism and again have existed beyond the scope of influence of both traditions that have treated marriage as a sacred and a holy union that is instituted through religious ceremonies and that is enforced through the divine. So you can look at the Indis Valley. You can look further east in Asia. You can look in Mesopotamia and Egypt prior to the existence of Israel or Judah. There are all kinds of societies that treat it as a sacred and a holy union. Now the language of covenant descends from Judaism and Christianity. And both you and I exist within societies that descend from that influence. And so that is why we use specific language. But the framework that you are laying out is not unique to Christianity or even to Judaism. It long pre-existed and long operated beyond the influence of both. >> So when you reject religion but still want the version of marriage that religion defined, you're actually contradicting yourself. >> Yeah, that's just not true. >> And no one is saying that you can't be with whoever you want. Uh point of order, there are Christian pastors around the US and the world who are suggesting that gay people be executed. So yes, there are lots of people who are saying you cannot be with whomever you want to be with. >> I mean, there's choices to be made and some can be sinful >> or so your tradition demands you assert. But don't take something that's inherently spiritual and designed by God and try to strip the God part out of it while keeping the rest. >> Uh that's not what's going on here. But there's no reason anyone shouldn't be able to do that and you need to get significantly better educated about these issues. >> If you reject the faith, that is sad, but that is fine. Just don't rewrite what that faith created. uh you are the one trying to rewrite what your faith has created and you would do well to learn to think critically and Google competently. And the fit for this video has been Lavar Burton says read band books., Responding to an Argument About Gay Marriage, YouTube, 01k9x33nv4fczbxhwrgdxmgryd.