What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense
Cover of the first edition
|
|
| Authors | Sherif Girgis Ryan T. Anderson Robert P. George |
|---|---|
| Country | United States |
| Language | English |
| Subject | Marriage |
| Publisher | Encounter Books |
|
Publication date
|
December 2012 |
| Media type | Print (Paperback) |
| Pages | 168 |
| ISBN | |
What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense is a 2012 book about marriage by Sherif Girgis, the philosopher Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, in which the authors argue against same-sex marriage.
The book is based on an academic article published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, a student-edited conservative journal, in 2010. One month before its publication, in November 2012, the co-authors published another article in The Wall Street Journal presenting the book.
George, Girgis and Anderson argue against gay marriage. They suggest that marriage should lead to procreation, which is not possible for two people of the same sex. They call this the 'conjugal view'. Moreover, they argue that gay marriage would open the door to short-term unions and polygamy. They go on to suggest that gay marriage would be an expansion of the power of the state and a violation of religious liberty.
Writing for Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity, Douglas Farrow, a Professor of Christian Thought at McGill University, suggested the book represented 'a model contribution to public discourse, combining clarity and pithiness with fairness and generosity.' He added that the arguments professed by the co-authors were 'eminently rational'. In the Claremont Review of Books, Hadley Arkes concurred with arguments developed by the co-authors.
Writing for First Things, Hans Boersma, the J. I. Packer Professor of Theology at Regent College, said the book was 'remarkably well documented and proceed[ed] with a lawyer’s precision.' However, he criticized the authors for presenting sex as a private matter. Instead, he suggested they should have gone further and argued that homosexual activity was harmful to families and to American society as a whole. As a result, he argued that 'many will remain unconvinced' by the book.
...
Wikipedia