Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council struggles mightily to convince people that the arguments against same-sex marriage aren’t based on religion.
However, even such an absolute religious and conscientious exemption to a homosexual “marriage” bill would not make the redefinition of marriage acceptable, or even tolerable, for one simple reason–the principal objection to homosexual “marriage” has nothing to do with religion. This is something that people on both sides of this debate need to be constantly reminded of.
No, this is something that disingenuous demagogues like you like to repeat but that reasonable people find laughable.
We are not just fighting for “the right of religions to define marriage for themselves,” apart from the definition of “civil marriage.” This is because, at its heart, marriage is neither a civil institution nor a religious institution.
Instead, marriage is a natural institution–rooted in the order of nature itself.
Nonsense. Every species that reproduces sexually pairs up to do so, of course, but nature contains a wide variety of ways that happens, from random sexual encounters to non-mating reproduction (females lay eggs, males come along later to fertilize them, for example) to forcible sexual encounters to annual mating to lifetime mating. It is absurd to only pick out one of those “natural” means of reproducing and say, “A ha, nature wants us to do that.”
The reason marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman is because it takes precisely one man and one woman to create a new human life. Marriage is treated as a public institution because it is in the public interest (not just in the private interest of particular couples) for the human race to reproduce and continue into future generations.
And if same-sex marriage had anything at all to do with the existence of heterosexual marriage, this might be a compelling argument. But it doesn’t. Allowing gay couples to get married doesn’t have anything whatsoever to do with whether straight couples will continue to get married and reproduce.
Indeed, if the whole point is reproduction and the propagation of the species then it would make sense to allow gay couples to marry and have full access to the full range of medical means of achieving parenthood. That would mean more babies. But you see, Sprigg knows that his argument is nonsense. That’s why he won’t take it to its logical conclusion, he only takes it to the first convenient, if irrational, conclusion he can think of.
Why? Because his real reason for opposing gay marriage has solely to do with his religious views. Period.