So how do you have an honest argument on a topic in which both participants are in agreement?
Ths seems an indication that On Being is so insecure about whether 'gay marriage' is a good thing, that it has to present the traditional view in the past tense now that both participants in the conversation are in agreement!
How dishonest and ridiculous is that. Marriage is what David Blankenhorn originally believed and stated it is...a way to bind the three entities, mothers, children and fathers, for their good and the good of society. It predates governments and should not be subject to endless redefinition and repurposing to suit adults at the expense of children.
If each new generation came into being like Athena, springing full grown from the heads of the previous generation, there would be no need for marriage at all. David Blankenhorn gave it away himself...saying during the Prop. 8 hearing that he's too much of a liberal to stick to his own beliefs. He's nothing but a traitor to the cause, abandoning the needs of children to the desires of adults. Disgusting!
More information about text formats