The web counter may make some believe that “hit whore” is a concept commensurate with the creation of the internet, but “if it bleeds it leads” has encapsulated the voyeuristic nature of the average media business model long before we had electric typewriters.

No. The bigot does that. When “natural law” isn’t a code word for “gods did it” or a blatant attempt to infuse the inanity of the Christian bible with some inalienable value because of it’s mere existence, “natural law” is a grab bag of post hoc nonsense typical of the type of bigot in question.

On point 2, my reading after the fact wouldn’t support your view in the way she expressed herself. For her, and those who believe like her, complementarianism is a whole bag of principles.

Non-believers know certain things are wrong, they say, because there’s a kind of natural order to things, but then they use that to define all sorts of things that they want to state are in the natural order or not based on god’s ordering.

Even if the Catholic Church defined it as a sacrament only in the 12th century. And that modern marriage of the last couple hundred years largely has nothing to do with historical marriage, most of which was authorized by states, not religions.

Marriage is fine!

That’s when they start SCREAMING…..

Given the Church’s stance on human life, it was especially appalling.

That’s where the 16th century reformer Martin Luther turned things around.  He taught that the 6th commandment, “You shall not commit adultery” was to be seen as a gift for reinforcing and protecting family bonds, and that’s why a lot of Lutherans like myself see that as a gift justly belonging to gay couples as well as “straights”.

Luther also suggested that the husband should wash the diapers, but that’s another topic.

 I think most people still don’t believe hermaphrodites even exist.

Yet plenty of people think angels exist.  If presented with an intersex person, a devout person might just conclude they’d met some sort of demon.

Mythology can explain anything at all, when said mythology is, you know, made up.

He also makes a hash of understanding of what natural law reasoning is.

Perhaps that’s because there’s no reasoning involved in the idea of natural law.

The discussion that follows is often illuminating. They may end up defending something they know is wrong and discouraged by scripture, but is also legal, widespread and often personally practiced by the Marriage Defender.

But your comment made me think about this a bit deeper… If marriage is about procreating… why is fidelity an issue? As long as you don’t get pregnant by or knock up anybody else than your assigned spouse (Or do we get to choose our spouse ourselves? I don’t think that’s a good idea.), then it shouldn’t matter. And we can just marry them, too, then! Oh, and no need to stay and raise the kids, if we are done procreating with our spouse. Ooooooh! I know! We turn marriage licences into work contracts in baby farms! I mean, if marriage is (just) about procreation, that’s ultimately where you end up, right?