FLORIDA (Yaakov M / VINnews) — Ben Shapiro defended the argument that marriage should remain a sacred institution between a man and a woman, on his talk show and on Twitter.Join our WhatsApp group
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
His comments came in response to the passage of the “Respect for Marriage Act”, which repeals the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act passed under President Clinton, a bill that allowed states to refuse recognition of same-gender marriages from other states.
Shapiro blasted the disingenuous tactic by leftists who treat supporters of traditional marriage like crazy people.
He said, “Now the law of the land is that the only rationale for saying marriage must be between a man and woman is if you are a Jew, Christian, or Muslim…if you are a religious bigot.”
Ben Shapiro says even Martians would be opposed to same-sex marriage: "You could be a visitor from Mars and you could see that all of human procreation relies on man, woman, child" pic.twitter.com/t8UU8eJOhq
— Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) November 16, 2022
He continued, “The argument for traditional marriage has nothing to do with religion…You could be a visitor from Mars and you could see that all of human procreation relies on man, woman, child.”
Shapiro’s point was that the left tends to marginalize and dismiss traditional conservative arguments by labeling them religiously fanatical, even though they are rooted in common sense and not based on religious beliefs.
Andrew Sullivan criticized Shapiro’s claim on Twitter, saying: “@benshapiro cannot seem to grasp the distinction between “civil” and “religious” marriage. In a liberal society, rather than a theocracy, such a distinction is foundational.”
Shapiro shot back: “I fully grasp the distinction. You fail to explain why the law should or must obliterate the distinction between male-male or female-female vs. male-female dyads when they have wildly different societal effects and benefits.
“The view that the law ought to use the same label to apply to all dyads, regardless of the [gender] of the people involved, can only be defended by radically changing the nature of marriage. SSM isn’t the only legal issue implicated here; so is no-fault divorce, for example.”
The view that the law ought to use the same label to apply to all dyads, regardless of the sex of the people involved, can only be defended by radically changing the nature of marriage. SSM isn't the only legal issue implicated here; so is no-fault divorce, for example.
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) November 17, 2022
“SSM is merely the latest symptom of an underlying cause: the destruction of marriage itself, defined as a relationship providing the basis for child-bearing and rearing. Redefining marriage isn’t “respect for marriage” any more than redefining red as blue is respect for red.
“You may like the redefinition. But let’s not pretend that it’s not a fundamental redefinition, or that there are no non-religious arguments for the traditional marriage definition.”