“The debate hinges on whether or not we should change the definition of the fundamental natural and social institution.”
We can’t change the actual definition, that is beyond humanity’s power. The debate is about changing the state’s understanding of the fundamental natural and social institution even more then it ha already been mutated with serial civil divorce and remarriage. No one would even be having the debate if so many weren’t conditioned to think the state defines marriage. Pope Leo XIII warned about this happening 130 years ago.
Freegards
Genesis 1
English Standard Version (ESV)
26 Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
The debate is about changing the state’s understanding of the fundamental natural and social institution even more then it ha already been mutated with serial civil divorce and remarriage.
...civil divorce and remarriage are nothing new...
No one would even be having the debate if so many weren’t conditioned to think the state defines marriage.
...and what kicked off this whole redefinition of marriage are estate tax code benefits accruing to spouses...absent that, and civil unions would have sufficed for the gay crowd...