If you mean that the traditional institution of marriage has some social utility, and that the state has a vested interest in promoting that institution for that reason, then I agree with you. However, that comes dangerously close to the argument the queers are using to expand the definition of marriage. Since all society benefits from marriage, why not expand it to include ALL citizens?
Religion is the only bulwark against advancing homosexual marriage as anything but a secular institution.
Religion is the only bulwark against advancing homosexual marriage as anything but a secular institution.
Thank you for your fascinating post. It's funny: I had been thinking that your argument (post #63, below) came "dangerously" close to that of the same-sex marriage proponents, to wit: since the state cares not for the spiritual dimension, it might as well sanction gay marriage.
I guess no hetrosexual athiests are married then right? -Lone Voice in the hinterlands
"Married" in what sense? If they're atheists, they probably didn't opt for a church wedding. So that means they're married for the state's purposes, the very situation we've been discussing here. I repeat, the state does not require any spiritual dimension to endorse a relationship, nor should it. But the resulting union is a "marriage" in the same sense that a contract between me and my mechanic is. -IronJack