There are two parts. The lecture and then the Q&A.
Let’s learn a bit about Brad first:
W. Bradford Wilcox is Director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia, and a member of the James Madison Society at Princeton University.
He earned his undergraduate degree at the University of Virginia and his Ph.D. at Princeton University. Prior to coming to the University of Virginia, he held research fellowships at Princeton University, Yale University and the Brookings Institution.
Mr. Wilcox’s research focuses on marriage, parenthood, and cohabitation, and on the ways that gender, religion, and children influence the quality and stability of American marriages and family life. He has published articles on marriage, cohabitation, parenting, and fatherhood in The American Sociological Review, Social Forces, The Journal of Marriage and Family and The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. His first book, Soft Patriarchs, New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers and Husbands (Chicago, 2004), examines the ways in which the religious beliefs and practices of American Protestant men influence their approach to parenting, household labor, and marriage. With Nicholas Wolfinger, Wilcox is now writing a book titled, Soul Mates: Religion, Sex, Children, & Marriage among African Americans and Latinos, for Oxford University Press. With Eric Kaufmann, Wilcox is finishing a book on the causes and consequences of low fertility in the West.
This is a must-see debate! (And you can buy Michael Brown’s new book here if you like it – I bought two copies)
About the debate:
On April 21, 2011 at 7:30pm at UCF’s Health and Public Affairs Building (Room 119), Rollins College professor, Dr. Eric Smaw and author and seminary professor Dr. Michael L. Brown will debate the question “Should same sex marriage be legalized in America?” The event will be held at 4000 Central Florida Blvd and is open to the public. After the formal portion of the debate, Brown and Smaw will field questions from the audience.
About the speakers:
Dr. Smaw will be responding in the affirmative. He earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Law from the University of Kentucky in 2005. His areas of expertise are philosophy of law, international law, human rights, ethics, and modern philosophy. He has published articles on human rights, terrorism, and cosmopolitanism. His most recent publication is “Swaying in the Balance: Civil Liberties, National Security, and Justice in Times of Emergency”.
Dr. Brown will be responding in the negative. He earned his Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and is a nationally known evangelical lecturer and radio host. He is the author of numerous scholarly articles and twenty books, including the recently published study “A Queer Thing Happened to America”, which is quickly being recognized as the definitive work on the history and effects of gay activism on American culture.
There is no compelling reasons by the state should change the definition of marriage
The reason the state conveys benefits for marriage is because marriage is beneficial for the state
Traditional marriage is recognized by the state for several reasons:
– it domesticates men
– it protects women
– it provides a stable, nurturing environment for children
Marriage has three public purposes:
– to bind men and women together for RESPONSIBLE procreation
– to get the benefit
– to provide children with two parents who are bonded to them biologically
– to create the next generation of people to keep the society going
Normally, opposite sex couples create children
Homosexual couples can NEVER create children together
Men and women are differences that are complementary
Monogamy is the norm for opposite sex couples.
For gay men, open relationships / cheating is the norm.
This is because women have a tempering effect on sexuality.
There is no evidence that recognizing same-sex civil unions and marriages have changed this trend.
Same-sex marriage guarantees that children will either not have a father or a mother
So which of the sexes is dispensable when raising children?
For example, consider Dawn Stefanowicz, who grew up with a gay father and no mother
She never got a chance to see a man model love and protect a women within a marriage
That makes an enormous difference in a woman’s life – in the way she relates to men
Even with scientific advancements, every baby has a mother and a father
If we change the definition of marriage so that it is based on consent, then why limit it to just two people
If marriage is not the union of male and female, then why have only TWO people
In Canada, you have civil liberties lawyers arguing for for polygamy
In the United States, Professor David Epstein was in a consensual relationship with his daughter
Should incestuous relationships also be celebrated as marriage? Why not?
Should polyamorous relationships also be celebrated as marriage? Why not?
Sexual orientation is not the same as race
Men are women are different in significant ways, but different races are not
You need separate bathrooms for men and women, but not for people of different races
Summary of Dr. Smaw’s opening speech: (He ended his speech after only 10 minutes)
You can redefine marriage so that it no longer based on the public purposes he mentioned (controlling procreation, fusing complementary male and female natures, providing children with mothers and fathers who are biologically linked to them, providing children with a comparatively stable development environment that offers comparatively less instability, promiscuity and domestic violence rates compared to cohabitation, etc.), but is instead based on consent and feelings, and that redefinition of marriage won’t open marriage up to polygamy, polyamory, etc.
If you like feminism, then you should allow same-sex marriage
If you like abortion rights, then you should allow same-sex marriage
Homosexuals participate in society by working at various jobs, so they are participating in society
Homosexuals should be given the same tax breaks as married people because they work at various jobs for money
Working at a job for money achieves the same public purpose as procreating and staying together to raise children in a stable environment
You can listen to the rest for the rebuttals, and cross-examination. Oh yes – there was cross-examination! It starts two thirds of the way through Part 5, if you want to jump to it. And sparks were flying! There is also Q&A from the audience of students.
This is such a great debate – I love to hear two passionate guys disagreeing about something. I love to hear both sides of the issues. There is always something to learn by listening to the other side. It makes me more effective and more tolerant when I stand up to defend my side of the argument.
Mary mentioned this radio show episode to me, and now I can share it with you, because the MP3 has been posted. You simply must listen to this inspiring interview.
Here’s Dr. Groothuis’ bio:
Douglas R. Groothuis (Ph.D., Philosophy, University of Oregon) is professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary in Denver, Colorado. He has also been a visiting professor or adjunct faculty member at Fuller Theological Seminary (Colorado Springs extension), Metropolitan State College of Denver, Westminster Theological Seminary (California campus), University of Oregon, New College Berkeley and Seattle Pacific University.
His articles have been published in professional journals such asReligious Studies, Sophia, Theory and Research in Education, Philosophia Christi, Themelios, Think: A Journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, Christian Scholar’s Review, Inquiry andJournal of the Evangelical Theological Society. He has written several books, including Truth Decay, In Defense of Natural Theology (coeditor),Unmasking the New Age, Jesus in an Age of Controversy, Deceived by the Light, The Soul in Cyberspace, and, in the Wadsworth Philosophers Series,On Pascal and On Jesus. Read more here.
the relationship between Christianity and philosophy
which Christian thinker inspired Dr. Groothuis to study apologetics (it’s Francis Schaeffer)
is apologetics mandatory and non-negotiable for every Christian, or is it optional?
what is fideism? is fideism Biblical? should Christians avoid education? are faith are reason opposed?
was Jesus good at making logical arguments? was Jesus an intelligent person?
how Christianity addresses the problems of purpose and meaning for individuals
what are the major sections of Doug’s new book on Christian Apologetics?
And there are questions from callers. The first question is on faith vs. knowledge, and what the Bible says about them. And there’s another point about the importance and significance of Jesus’ suffering, and how it fits in to the problem of evil and suffering. He talks about how an atheist professor is using his apologetics book as a text book at the very very secular University of Colorado at Boulder (blech!), and invited him to speak to his students. He contrasts Christian theism with naturalism and the role that science plays in apologetics. He goes over the two best scientific arguments for God’s existence.
Dr. Groothuis is on Facebook and Twitter. He has nearly 2500 Facebook friends and nearly 2000 Twitter followers. He is one of my favorite Christian scholars, because he has a worldview that fully integrates every topic you can possibly imagine. He is very, very evangelical – and not ashamed of it. A very passionate, authentic and influential Christian, who just happens to be a first class scholar and teacher. I think this interview has a very clear message, especially to young men: if you learn apologetics, God will use you. You will have adventures if you only take the time to arm yourself through study.
I am also a big fan of the interviewer, Dr. Michael Brown, who is solid on the same-sex marriage issue, and I have featured one of his debates on same-sex marriage before on this blog.
WINTERY KNIGHT 