Aristotle's Take on Gay Marriage?

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2008/07/04/Michael_Sandel_Justice-Journey_in_Moral_Reasoninga

Harvard University Professor of Government Michael Sandel explains classical Aristotelian notions of "justice," by examining them in the context of the modern issue of same-sex marriage.

-----

Harvard professor Michael Sandel gives a lecture condensed from his popular university class Justice: A Journey in Moral Reasoning.

In it, he analyzes the meaning of justice in the modern world. - 2008 Aspen Ideas Festival

Michael J. Sandel is the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University, where he has taught political philosophy since 1980. He is the author of Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge University Press, 1982, 2nd edition, 1997; translated into eight foreign languages), Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy (Harvard University Press, 1996), Public Philosophy: Essays on Morality in Politics (Harvard University Press, 2005), and The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering (Harvard University Press, 2007). His writings also appear in general publications such as The Atlantic Monthly, The New Republic, and The New York Times.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• gay
• same
• sex
• lesbian
• marriage
• married
• marry
• government
• aristotle
• michael
• sandel
• justice
• fair
• fairness
• law
• legal
• laws
• philosophy
• privacy
• lgbt
• lbgt
• church
• state
• sanctioned
• california
• proposition
• prop
• banned
• ban
• fora.tv
• foratv
• fora
• tv

[CoolParkourName]

Position #4: Everyone recognized as married by the state, only straight couples recognised by their religious organization. Reason both will be recognised officially, statistically and in court but marriage doesnt need to be religious, religious groups will never accept gay marriage because that is accepting that their religion is "wrong"

[ak47tacos]

@fentina What qualifies marriage is to be able to supply life, which can only be done during procreation between a man and a women

[TheRawrbaby22]

this guy just blew my mind

[matereymate]

how is ak47 a top comment?

[fentina]

@TruthIsLife7

thank you but I consider myself to be enough educated on the "major dangers of homosexuality" and would welcome it if you tried to be not quite as condescending.

Also,was there any reason you contacted me other than your need to tell me about those major dangers? no? then fuck off please,I'm pretty sure I felt my IQ lowering while reading through your comments...

[Russebby]

@TruthIsLife7 You really didn't reply to the assertion I made, that divorce is mentioned many more times in the Bible, yet our society seems to have little issue with high divorce rates. Because of this, I have to blow you off, and I stand by my thesis, that a couple in a loving and committed relationship, regardless of their sexuality, deserves a state-recognized marriage much more than two kids who will be divorced in six months. Marriage is for life, not disposable, and that's your flaw.

[TruthIsLife7]

@Russebby See my link below for a few of many reasons why Christians should never support homosexuality. I don't think that making homosexuality illegal would be helpful or do much to stop it...but the govt. should never be in the business of promoting things that are harmful to life as homosexuality most certainly is.

[TruthIsLife7]

@fentina Please get informed on this topic. Read:

conservapediaDOTcom/Homosexual­ity

They have a LOT of hard science data listed there about the major dangers of homosexuality. Please don't reply with the naivete about it being a biased source. The fact is ALL sources are biased and very few more than atheist sources. Conservapedia has many links to secular research on the dangers of homosexuality. Ask yourself why secular news never informs u of this hard scientific research.

[fentina]

@dkdjhh

a)I said that two years ago b)what does your comment have to do with mine?

The"true,objective meaning of marriage"?Really?If you're looking for the meaning of marriage in times long passed aka back when only people of opposite sex married then to me you're also saying that the oppression of women is a great thing and that they should have no rights.'Cause the "true,objective meaning of marriage" was using women like property. Marriage was a business deal.THAT definition has changed...

[dkdjhh]

@fentina Even if the world changes the meaning of marriage, the true, objective meaning, will never change. It is when a man and a women marry. you know what a "man" and a "women" is, right?? :S