It seems to me that some people are just tooting the horn of moral relativism. Your response that I guess Etheridge doesn’t think fetuses are children, well that’s moral relativism. It’s not about opinion, and that’s what I’m hearing constantly from the pro-homosexual-marriage side. It’s like, well, you don’t agree with it, but you can’t tell other people, etc. Or, that’s their opinion.
If we based everything on opinion, then everything is justified. The mob had plenty of reasons to kill people they didn’t like. If I said that’s wrong, are you going to say, well, the mob’s opinion is that it’s right, so why are you imposing your beliefs on them? And that seems to be the argument.
What you really need to ask is why every culture on earth has made marriage between a man and a woman. Even if there were variations, like polygamy, it still had the same intent. For example, one man could be in 5 marriages with 5 women, but it was still a man and a woman, 5 times. But a man and a man in a marriage was never sanctioned like that, not in 99% of the world at least. And there’s a reason. People saw the necessity for strong stable relationships in order to raise children.
If there was nothing wrong with a man and a man raising a child without a woman, or two women without a man, then why did God create men and women differently? They complement each other for a reason. If any combination was just as good, then God would have made everyone the same, but he didn’t.
