I've noted before that it did not take long before France and Brazil applied doctrines allowing same-sex marriage to allow polygamy and allow the distinction between man and woman in childbearing. This is simply the outgrowth of the most basic argument against redefining marriage; that if you define marriage in terms simply of a romantic relationship instead of in terms of the traditional bedrock of family law--weaker vessels called mothers and children--you will automatically tend to neglect the traditional bedrock of family law and thus hurt mothers and children.
From Canada come some more examples of this principle. Again, when you ignore the basic premiss upon which family law is established, you will in turn erode the protections that are crucial to family law, and those who should be protected by family law are instead injured by it.
How should the church approach homosexuality (V): "Biblical friendship" as a Trojan horse?... - King David was light in the loafers. He liked men better than women. Yes, in *that *way. Are you surprised? You shouldn't be. Jesus was like this, too. ...
5 hours ago