Same-Sex Marriage Debate: Gallagher vs. Corvino
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ส.ค. 2013
- Debating Same-Sex Marriage at Notre Dame: Maggie Gallagher, co-founder of the National Organization for Marriage and the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, vs. John Corvino, a gay rights activist and Philosophy professor at Wayne State University, on October, 25 2012. This debate was part of the College of Arts & Letters Dean's Fellows program at the University of Notre Dame.
For more information on the lecture: bit.ly/1951sZo
For more information on the Dean's Fellows program: bit.ly/16Yyg0j
Corvino won, hands down.
When I listen to Ms. Gallagher there are two things that come to my mind. First the woman has been deeply hurt and damaged by what has happened to her. Second she doesn't know when to stop digging.
You can't be serious. This woman is a Yale graduate?
I lost track of what she was rambling about at the end there
She is not nearly as good of a debater.
I get mad at Gallagher a lot in this debate, yet I have to remind myself that this is not entirely her fault. When you're taking a side in a debate that has no valid arguments, you're kind of forced to say stupid things for long lengths of time. Ms. Gallagher has nothing particularly compelling to say and so she finds herself in a position where she has to skew reality.
Case in point:
Ms. Gallagher poses the concern that if marriage equality is enacted, straight married couples will be discriminated for being married and straight. There are a so many things wrong with a line of reasoning like that, I almost feel insulted. I'm a straight guy. I hope to get married to a wonderful woman some day. I have a straight family complete with two sister who are both married to great men. Yet all of us are in favor of marriage equality, and not one of us thinks straight marriage is "disrespectful" to gay people somehow.
Gallagher goes on to say she's scared people who oppose gay marriage will be labeled "bigots", but if you hold an opinion which you have no valid argument for justifying, what are you expecting people to think when you try enforcing that opinion on other people? Maybe it's time for her to reassess her opinion.
The best comment I've read in a long time
Arthur Berk Thanks. I don't know what else to say about her. She just repeats the same irrelevant statements over & over again.
"Marriage is not a big deal." Then why do you care if gay people get married if you don't think its a big deal?
It seems to me that Gallagher is arguing against fornication (a "crime" she, herself committed) and divorce.
It seems her argument is more against gay adoption. Allowing gays to marry does not prevent straight couples from having kids.
It is, in fact, very natural for women to be beyond childbearing years, and yet they are allowed to marry.
She really doesn't know when to shut up, does she? It takes 30 minutes for her to get to her ridiculously jumbled point that's hidden behind a wall of words telling her entire life story. Meanwhile, John is clear, personal, and to the point in his argument, all in a little over 15 minutes.
Corvino wins this. Hands down.
It took Corvino about 20 min to point out his opinion and it took Gallagher 1 hour and 16 min for her point of view. However Corvino has a better stand point then Gallagher. Gallagher used so many fallicies such as the emotional appeal and the slippery slope. I believe Corvino won this argument.
37:00 and I'm begging her to make a point already.
John gives facts and information. She tells personal stories and is confuaing me. I wonder who stated their view better. Even at the end of her speech im like "sooo... When are you going to start stating your view?"
"Don't ask; dont tell." is a thing of the past. Marriage which confers civil right upon partners is between two loving people. Only fascists or the feeble minded would deny this. If you deny it, which of those two are you? Are you wallowing in misery because the world is moving on and leaving you behind?
I thought they got "15 minutes" to introduce their side????
Gallagher's argument didn't really have much if anything at all to do with Gay Marriage. She actually presented more of an argument against divorce, and child bearing/rearing outside of the institution, but that's about all. She also didn't present a legitimate reason against gay marriage itself, because she didn't show any compelling reason how allowing gay marriage would, in anyway, impact straight marriages. The younger generations have figured it out, perhaps because young adults having gay friends today is a lot more common than it was just a generation or two ago. The most important argument that wasn't presented at any real length, is that the children of gay couples deserve the same protections that automatically exists for children of married straight couples. Those children deserve to have their parents relationship respected by society just as much as any heterosexual couples relationship, and allowing marriage within both of these types of families shows that respect.
i LOVE John Corvino!!
John Corvino rocks....!!
She bombed this totally. So many fallacies in her arguments.
15 mins right? that lady talked for 20 + mins without a single interruption by the moderator. Bias maybe.. trying to give her time to make some sense of her rambling.
Her argument is so flawed. It’s crazy
Her opening 'argument' is terrible. Rambling, off topic and -- to be frank -- boring.
Ms. Gallagher talks forever and says nothine.
This is kind of frustrating for me because the opposition to marriage equality often is very cissexist. Procreation does not belong only to cis-straight people. Nonbinary and trans people exist and may have gay relationships. Furthermore, sex and gender are both spectrums. There aren't exclusively two genders nor two sexes. Children need to have role models of all genders, yes- children however do not need a mother and a father to be healthy, well-rounded, and safe.
I was sorry that during the whole debate no one challenged the assertion that the ideal environment for a child to be raised in is with a mother and a father. It is ideal because society holds it up as a model to be emulated and those not fitting that model are made to feel that lack something for not having been raised by a mother and a father. That ideal does more harm to millions by telling children they are somehow deficient. Show me what concrete advantages the child with a married heterosexual couple has that cannot be provided by another parental structure. Is the child of a lesbian couple, or single mom incapable of being as intelligent, as caring, and productive as the child with raised in a home with a married heterosexual couple? I believe they can be equally intelligent, caring and productive. The only difference is that the children of a non-conventional homes are constantly reminded that they lack something because they lack a conventional home yet they are never told what it is that conventional home confers other that conventionality.
1/40th of one percent of children would be better off in a gay relationship? THAT'S ENOUGH.
Gallagher doesn't think you should be allowed to have a child with someone other than your spouse? DIDN'T SHE??
The problem with the anti-marriage-equality position is that the arguments are so bad and so scattered that it's hard to know where to start. Ms. Gallagher needs to at least attempt to make some argument causally connecting marriage equality with the parade of horribles that are supposed to result. Hearing her talk is like listening to the Chewbacca Defense.
The claim that she isn't going to be able to promote the types of marriages that she supports if there is marriage equality is non-sensical. She's living in a fantasy world where this is one type of marriage. There are already egalitarian marriages, patriarchal marriages, dysfunctional marriages, golfing marriages, loveless marriages, etc.... There are as many types of marriages as there are married couples. If she wants to promote a certain way of two people being married, she should go ahead and do that, but it's ridiculous for her to expect same-sex couples to forego equal treatment under the law because their marriages make a certain rhetoric more difficult for Maggie Gallagher.
So happy I can get married now and not worry about being denied!
Marriage is Polygamous in most Tribal Cultures. It is usually, but not always, One male and several Women. And you can't force Men and Women to be in an unhappy, loveless Marriage. Drunken one night stands do happen; should we force them to be together? According to Gallagher's preferred system, that will happen. What about Mothers who were raped and got pregnant? According to some texts we should.
The obvious reason Maggie does not want to focus on research is that the vast majority of research goes against her argument. The motivation behind her argument appears to be based on what went wrong with her relationship with the father of her first child who left her.
1:19:45 Maggie's answer confirms that her motivation is based on her experience of being abandoned. Maggie does not want to prevent gays from adopting children but wants to deny the legal responsibility and ability to provide insurance and co-parenting that marriage provides.
1:29:20 Good answer acknowledging that marriage fulfills more human needs than just procreation.
god she is really wasting so much time and energy
I didn't quite get her whole point. Can someone explain her point to me? Please?
As soon as the law disassociates marriage with rights, then you could make the argument that it shouldn't matter. Up and until this happens, that *entire* argument fails before it begins.
if you speed her up to 1.75 she sounds like ben shapiro
I think marriage equality folk should stop attending these events - you either believe in equality or you don't - attending just encourages the loony right - Maggie Gallagher believes that no gay relationship should have any legal recognition and even opposes civil unions that give gay family limited rights - you don't need a debate to establish that's just nasty
I just don't get it. I am straight and non-religious. I simply cannot see how gay marriage affects my own marriage, or my life in any way. So if homosexuals want to get married, what do I care? Live and let live. Everyone is entitled to some happiness in this life.
But clearly not everyone shares my attitude. Who, in truth, are the people who object to gay marriage? Answer: mainly the religious and homophobes. But nobody is forcing anyone within these two groups to personally have a gay marriage.
As an atheist, I don't try to control how Christians or Muslims live. So I don't stick my nose into their bizarre beliefs and customs. They can believe all the supernatural things they want, perform as many strange rituals as they like, provided they are not criminal. So why don't they extend the same privileges to other people? Have they never heard the phrase 'mind your own business'?
Marriage Equality is here to stay. Live with it. It's 2015. To defend gay apartheid at this stage is coming across as rather desperate. Opposing equality is self-destructive. Faith based bigotry is embarrassing. You need to decide if being totally against common sense in the name of your "faith" is at all reasonable. You can be in support of love or hate, not both. Nobody will change from straight to gay or from gay to straight. It is what it is. Denying science is admitting ignorance. Life's too short for this stupid argument. Live and let live. We all die soon enough. And then we're dead. Forever. It's your choice to live your life happy or angry.
Notre Dame? Oh, that isn't a biased venue at aaaaaaall...
The Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. There are only 5 or so references which can be used against gay people:
1) Genesis
It's a condemnation of gang rape.
2) & 3) Leviticus
This is part of the Holiness Code, and not the Moral Code, which means it has nothing to do with morality and is meant only for the Jews. The term translated to 'as with' means bed every other time it's used in Leviticus and when Paul referred to this passage (see my Corinthians comments) he wrote bed. There's also no way any Hebrew term can be translated to specifically mean "as with" since there are no Hebrew terms for words like "as" nor "with". The term used for abomination can only be found to convey ritual transgressions and the term for a moral transgression was not used.
4) Romans
It's a clear cut condemnation of Pagan idolatry. Both gay and straight sex rituals were used in their idol worship. There's a good reason why homophobes only give the "for this reason" part without giving the reason.
5) Corinthians
Paul stated "male bed" and "soft" (as in morals or fabric - this term is never used to mean some sort of mannerism.) The meaning of the two terms has been lost to history, all we do know if Paul was referring to that Leviticus passage. This passage was condemning masturbation instead of homosexuality less than 100 years ago. Before that, in the 16th century, it was condemning pedophilia and in the medieval times it was pimping.
Jesus mentions homosexuality as least twice, if not three times. He refers to gay men as born eunuchs in Matthew 19, one of the 3 types of men not made for marrying women. When Jesus met a gay man, via the Roman Centurion trying to heal his 'pais', He said of him, "Never have I seen faith greater than this." Neither time does he condemn. There's also research that "raca", when He states "Whomever calls his brother raca..", is the word we have as the f-word today.
The greatest, most passionate love story in the Bible also happens to be between two man. At no point in history have two men been alone in private where one takes off all of his clothes and gives it to other as a sign of devotion unless those two men were gay or bisexual
The actual debate starts at 8:00.
really? the best argument you could use is the slipery slope falacy
Why are people so interested in other people's sex lives.
And you did this way ago
Her name is Gallagher, but she isn't smashing any watermelons. I feel cheated.
That was the first thing that popped into my mind when I read the title. Corvino talks and Gallagher smashes a melon with the failed arguments of the right wingers carved into them. Come to think of it, that's pretty much how it felt. She smashed her own arguments to pieces.
Gay Marriage can prevent adultery in the gay community. However, marriage can't stop it, just prevent it.
Corvino is spot on. It's a shame that the topic of same-sex marriage, is even being discussed.
Omg the "plumbing" part was cringe inducing
The government always defined relationships
All over the place
I thought you had to be smart to go to Yale. I have listened to her response and she makes no sense at all. I am a Traditional Roman Catholic. But she gives no real reason not to allow gay marriage and ends with I hope I am wrong Wrong about what.
Spends her entire time (wayyy more time than John talked) talking about how marriage is based on the ideals of children having mathers and fathers. At 1:24:0 she literally says "I don't think gay marriage is related to child well being". Her entire speech was filler and she contradicted herself. Wow
***** so when straight couples are "unnatural" *_they_* should still be able to marry, but not us? Since when does being able to reproduce become a prerequisite to marry? Not to mention, how does reproduction play a factor with those of us who DON'T want kids?
Civil liberties vs daddy issues.
To Thomas Eshuis, who wrote: "Again, do you know
what a slippery slope fallacy is? And why any possible arguments about
incestuous marriage have nothing to do with ssm?" ('Sorry - had to post this separately as You tube is not
taking me to our thread.)
Yes! I do know what a slippery slope fallacy is. I'm happy to explain this
common misunderstanding. Not every slippery slope argument involves a logical
fallacy - only those where there is no evidence for a slippery slope. An
example would be, “If we recognize gay marriages, then people will want to
marry their goldfish.” This is a ss fallacy because
1) There are no current examples of people wanting to marry their goldfish,
2) There are no historical examples of people marrying their goldfish, and
3) it would be extremely difficult for a person to have a sexual relationship
with a goldfish.However, none of these things are true of incestuous
couples. There are many of them, including some who are gay, and they want to
be married. Why isn’t discriminating against them hateful and bigoted? Please
read the case studies here. And the FAQ: marriage-equality.blogspot.com/p/case-studies.html
The argument absolutely has to do with ssm. If one aspect of traditional
marriage can be changed (heterosexuality,) then the other aspects can be
changed as well (biological unrelatedness, sexual exclusivity, the number of
people, etc.) There is no reasoning that would allow gay marriage, but would
forbid incestuous marriage.
+freemanstudio : Except for this: Incestuous relations can already result in marriage in many states. The majority of marriages in the Bible were polygamous, and some were the results of rape, wherein the rapist was made to pay the father of the victim 15 silver sheckles and then made the victim marry the rapist. As far as your reasoning of forbidding incestuous marriage, there is a real chance that any resulting offspring of an incestuous marriage could be genetically deficient or mutated, especially if the process is multi-generational.
Ms Gallagher was so out of her depth that it was painful to watch her stumble along without any real on topic statements. If they had gotten someone who was able to debate a topic then maybe, just maybe at least one person in the audience who was unsure of their stand on the topic could have been swayed but at the end of her speaking for the life of me - if you really did not know that this was a debate and you came in as she started to speak, you would not know what the hell her stand or what she was speaking on.
John is the man and wins everytime there is a debate with whomever comes up against him.
John Corvino is is boss
Omg I should do my resear
After becoming Hamilton Trash, everything History is amazing.
Whoever that First Lady is is completely idiotic I'm sorry she took time to speak and her case doesn't matter wow
SInce Corvino ducked this question, it begs to be asked again:
Are you for full marriage equality, or marriage equality for gays only?
Because if you're not for FULL marriage equality, you're not for marriage equality at all. In other words, what is the reasoning that would expand the definition of marriage to include gays, but would forbid legal marriage to two loving biological sisters, or an adult brother and sister, or a father and his adult daughter? There is simply no answer to this. (Which is probably why no one will answer the question.)
Google "full marriage equality" to read actual case studies of these people suffering discrimination.
freemanstudio actually the answer is genetics which show biological
inbreeding is more subject to congenital birth defects and chances of such
disorders are increased the closer the relationship of the biological parents.
So there I've answered your silly analogy. Just as euthenasia is
unlawful, so too would legally condoning the act of risking a population to any
type of defect or needless harm by inbreeding.Google "inbreeding" to read actual case studies of people suffering from inbreeding and the defects commonly associated with this.
Interracial, marriage
I love Christian people but not there religious practices!
This lady did a very good job of not allowing this debate to become over simplified. The idea that gays want to have marriage legalized simply because they deem heterosexual couples as having failed ignores the purpose for marriage.
If gay people are happy, I am also happy for them. HOWEVER, do not dare go around telling people that it is natural. I have personally educated my self and learnt the extent of damage that using the wrong hole can cause...This basically means that some holes were not meant to be penetrated and therefore its against nature to do so...period. I am personally against the idea of same-sex marriage as it insults the historical and cultural definition of the word marriage. How about you guys call it something else? Gay people tend to be creative so can't you think of another word to describe whatever that relationship is? I doubt anyone will oppose you then.
Gallagher yay!!! Corvino boo!!!