Public Square Apologetics for the Historic "Conjugal" Definition of Marriage

Apologetics in the public square in favor of maintaining the historic "conjugal" definition of marriage ("one man, one woman, for the purpose of procreation") should not be primarily the religious arguments we talk about in our churches. It's not that we shouldn't be able to talk about our religious views. We should! The religious liberty issue is a different argument. What I am talking about here is that our religious arguments are obviously not what are going to be respected in the public square by those who do not share our religious views. I suggest that proponents of traditional "conjugal" marriage who are being accused of imposing their moral and religious views on others should study the following paper, especially noting Part II, E. The argument in the public square in favor of the historic "conjugal" definition of marriage needs to be based on the solid points of civil law and natural law found in this paper, and which sustained the historic understanding of marriage for millennia until this strange moment in history we call the present.



Anonymous said...

The same authors expanded this article into a book. See http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397073893&sr=8-1&keywords=what+is+marriage

I highly recommend it.

Erich Heidenreich, DDS said...

Thanks! I have it, read it, and highly recommend it as well.