I’ve been busy with life: family mainly. For instance, this post has been interrupted no fewer than five times (diapers, dropped pacifiers, etc). But fear not. I’m planning a return to blogdom in the near future, likely next week.

In the meantime, I note with approbation that the Very Left Reverend has been reading the Gruntled Center‘s reflections on what Presbyterians should say about Homosexuals, marriage and same-sex unions, and VLR has been less than impressed. Go find out why. (More here and here) (Ed Note: VLR is no longer blogging at these links…)

VLR is concerned with a functional definition of family. I appreciate that tact, but even so, I find Gruntled’s arguments on their own weak. Particularly his latest effort to defend his statement that “Marriage is the complementary union of a man and a woman to make and raise children.” I’ve posted a bit on this “good” of marriage, and wonder why Beau isolates this “good” above the others in his “social ideal”. There doesn’t seem to be a good reason to do so, and his attempts to rationalize why we still let people who have no chance of having children marry anyway shows that this so called ideal is selectively applied. One could just as easily allow gays and lesbians to marry, like we might allow a sterile couple to marry, and still argue in some sense the positive social role of marriage for bearing and raising children. And in particular, I think this is both hyperbolic and wrong as a justification of keeping “marriage” for heterosexuals:

However, if all children were produced without marriage, society would disintegrate. And if no marriages produced children, society would end.

Please. Allowing gays and lesbians into the “social ideal” of marriage in itself does nothing to bring this apocalypse upon us…

Okay, back to my babies. More soon…