Replies

That’s the angle we need to push to protect the traditional, Biblical definition of family

I don't know the idea of family should be restricted to Biblical. Family is the same all over the world. This is how humankind works. The only difference might be the number of spouses. There has never been any approval for same sex unions anyplace significant in history. If we talk about a 'Biblical' definition, this give the impression it's solely a religious institution. It isn't.

When I used the term Biblical, I was not suggesting it as a bedrock of jurisprudence, but as a root of where the definition of family and marriage came from for Western civ.

That said, there are gays who toy with the idea of gay marriage, but who know that theirs would not be a marriage in the eyes of God, only of the state, which largely defeats their purpose (of being accepted as a normal family). Also, the Biblical argument for marriage is for procreation. Like it or not, those laws are still on the books in 39 states, and have their rooting in the Biblical definition of marriage and family. Those state constitutions and laws simply don’t make a direct connection, but the influence is there.

All I was saying is that we need to defend traditional marriage at two fronts: the personal front when the topic is brought up around us, and the legislative front when it comes time to draft legislation and vote. The two fronts are not fought in the same manner.

It’s Natural Law.

Homosexuals are sexually dysfunctional and they can only reproduce by abusing technology.

How many other primates species are there where homosexuals procreate? Zero.

Robert Redford is correct: Rome is burning.