Is what you want us to read at that link, or another link?
Secularists are big on Darwin and evolution.
How, then, do they propose to propagate the race via same-sex couples?
If marriage can be redefined arbitrarily once by the state, then it can be redefined arbitrarily again, to something else, later. Maybe soon, people will be able to marry siblings, or animals, or more than one person at the same time. Where does it end?
Recipe for anarchy.
I am not religious nor a Christian though I do believe that there is a GOD or Creator. Opposition to homosexuality is not based upon religion. It is based upon the obvious fact that homosexuality is against human nature. It is against common sense even. Human beings are very obviously designed to procreate and homosexuality is just a severe corruption of that design. Considering that human sexuality is essential to mankind’s existence (the raising of the next generation) then any corruption must be controlled and discouraged. Corruption uncontrolled will lead to further corruption. This is obvious even in how every type of sexual corruption or perversion is even more pronounced in the homosexual communities.
You do not at all have to be religious to be against homosexuality. All it takes is some basic common sense to tell that it is no good for children and society.
btt
We don’t need no stinkin’ “secular argument”...
seriously.
Marriage is a representation of the character and nature of God.
Gay “marriage” is simply a perversion and blasphemy.
To me the authors were making a claim that there was a “secular argument” (which I too believe there is) but then they actually did not articulate that argument; they simply said the “Christian” argument is both secular and religious, but even there they did not do a good job of explaining how that was so.
I don’t think the authors improved anything in the debates on this issue.
“Gay Marriage” is an obvious oxymoron. Marriage, by definition, is the union of one man and one woman.
Debate is utterly superfluous.
Influential legal bodies in both the United States and Canada have presented radical programs of marital reform, . . . [even] the abolition of marriage. The ideas behind this movement have already achieved surprising influence with a prominent American politician [Al Gore].
seems Al was successful in abolishing his marriage...
bm
Marry you kids for tax and benefit purposes.
Sexless marriages are not illegal.
Losing the inheritance taxes will really compel the Dhiminicrats to a very narrowly defined definition of marriage.