Follow us on Instagram
Try our daily mini crossword
Play our latest news quiz
Download our new app on iOS/Android!

Debate highlights differing interpretations of marriage's function, symbolic value

A debate on the case for same-sex marriage between politics professorStephen Macedo and Sherif Girgis ’08 ended on the same platform from which it started: The case for same-sex marriage has a limiting principle, one side said, while the other argued changing marriage law accordingly would strengthen the institution of marriage. The debate was moderated by religion professor Eric Gregory.

A limiting principle is a principle, often unquestioned, that may limit the explanations one comes up with.

ADVERTISEMENT

Girgis, who took a class taught by Macedo in 2006, majored in philosophy at the University where his senior thesis on sex ethics was awarded the title of best thesis in ethics and best thesis in philosophy.

Macedo, who argued for same-sex marriage, said that gay people will benefit both physically and psychologically through the realization of their marriage commitments. Same-sex marriage, he said, can improve the suicide rates and bullying rates for children of same-sex couples. He also noted that 400,000 children currently in foster care would be able to get homes if same-sex marriage were legalized.

He added that there are battles of rights and responsibilities of rights that married couples bear toward one another, noting that over 1,100 federal and state laws revolve around marriage. Marriage, he said, has a legal and pragmatic basis beyond the symbolic or religious basis sometimes traditionally associated with it.

“The institution of marriage in the United States is freighted with social meanings. The word and the relationships, the public recognition … are crucial parts of what’s at stake,” Macedo said, also saying that he believes marriage to be a fundamental liberty.

Girgis argued that law shapes culture and that enabling same-sex marriage would not strengthen the norms of marriage culture. Citing polyamory and polygamy as evidence, he said that the deep emotional bond in the context of commitment that Macedo referenced in his viewpoint cannot support same-sex marriage.

Both polygamists and gay people, he said, say they are not fully satisfied with the normal pattern of marriage and try to find more personal fulfillment in a different kind of bond. If homosexual marriage were allowed, he said, then polygamy should be allowed as well, but no one is disputing that polygamy goes against the norms of marriage culture.

ADVERTISEMENT

"It turned out very different then I thought it was going to be,” Noga Zaborowski ’18 said regarding the talk. “I expected to hear something more controversial to me. It wasn't provocative.”

Parody posters of the event have been put up in several of the residential colleges. Elly Brown ’18, a member of the Anscombe Society, said she did not appreciate the posters' humor and that she values having a debate rather than simply making fun of ideas. Brandon Joa ’18, also a member of the Anscombe Society, said he found the posters witty and funny.

The event, entitled, "Gay Marriage: A Debate," took place on Wednesday Nov. 5 at 7:30 p.m. in McCosh 50.The event was co-sponsored by the Program in Gender and Sexuality Studies, the Office of Religious Life, the Undergraduate Student Government Projects Board, and several off-campus organizations.

Subscribe
Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »