Gay Marriage: Prof. William N. Eskridge, Jr. v. Maggie Gallagher (audio) - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

UtahDan · 06-14-2006, 06:24 PM

This is a link to a podcast of an event at the Cato institute where the merits of Prof. Eskridge's (Yale Law) new book about lessons of the "gay marriage" experience in Europe is debated by him and Ms. Gallagher who is a long time scholar on the issue of non-fault divorce and more recently gay marriage.

These two, respectively, articulate the positions for an against as artfully as I have ever heard. In fact, it made me realize how rarely you hear anyone really articulate either side of the debate in other than moral terms.

One of the other things that is striking is that inspite of vehement disagreement, these two scholars very obviously have deep respect for the work and research of the other and even appear to be friends. That is worth taking note of.

It is an absolute listen and I would love to hear people's thoughts on it.

http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=2935

Robin · 06-15-2006, 12:38 AM

Okay, I listened to the entire thing and here is what I have to say...

The good prof. is always right, and to the extent that Maggie is right, she seems to be making the case for some OTHER institution, other than marriage, that encourages men and women to have babies and not abandon them. She argues that this is the purpose of marriage. But there are also many other purposes of marriage, and that is the problem. If marriage as an institution was ONLY about procreation, then the elderly prophets would not remarry when they lose a spouse to death.

Gallagher makes a great point. Society benefits when children are raised by their parents, and we should encourage parents to stay together and raise their kids. If marriage were only about generative sex, I would tend to agree with her. If Society wants to invent some NEW institution that encourages this, I would say 'go for it.' How about this -- successful two-parent homes get a tax break? And by successful, I would argue that kids would have to be performing well in school, and not be truant. Sounds good to me.

06-14-2006, 06:24 PM	#1
UtahDan Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Bluth Home Posts: 3,877	Gay Marriage: Prof. William N. Eskridge, Jr. v. Maggie Gallagher (audio) This is a link to a podcast of an event at the Cato institute where the merits of Prof. Eskridge's (Yale Law) new book about lessons of the "gay marriage" experience in Europe is debated by him and Ms. Gallagher who is a long time scholar on the issue of non-fault divorce and more recently gay marriage. These two, respectively, articulate the positions for an against as artfully as I have ever heard. In fact, it made me realize how rarely you hear anyone really articulate either side of the debate in other than moral terms. One of the other things that is striking is that inspite of vehement disagreement, these two scholars very obviously have deep respect for the work and research of the other and even appear to be friends. That is worth taking note of. It is an absolute listen and I would love to hear people's thoughts on it. http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=2935 __________________ The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo

06-15-2006, 12:38 AM	#2
Robin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 961	Okay, I listened to the entire thing and here is what I have to say... The good prof. is always right, and to the extent that Maggie is right, she seems to be making the case for some OTHER institution, other than marriage, that encourages men and women to have babies and not abandon them. She argues that this is the purpose of marriage. But there are also many other purposes of marriage, and that is the problem. If marriage as an institution was ONLY about procreation, then the elderly prophets would not remarry when they lose a spouse to death. Gallagher makes a great point. Society benefits when children are raised by their parents, and we should encourage parents to stay together and raise their kids. If marriage were only about generative sex, I would tend to agree with her. If Society wants to invent some NEW institution that encourages this, I would say 'go for it.' How about this -- successful two-parent homes get a tax break? And by successful, I would argue that kids would have to be performing well in school, and not be truant. Sounds good to me.