During the ongoing debate over same-sex marriage, it’s common to hear conservatives speak of the “definition of marriage,” but what exactly do we mean by the “definition” of marriage. Are we talking about the purpose of marriage, its form, or both? Most Americans (including conservatives) seem to be referring to marriage’s form: one man and one woman (for life). I submit to you that this is the wrong place to begin the debate. If we allow the discussion to center on marriage’s form, we are sure to lose.
I am persuaded that one of the main reasons we are facing the social and moral predicament we are is because we have reduced the “definition of marriage” to its form, losing sight of its purpose. Without understanding the particular purpose of civil marriage in society, its traditional form is not necessary. When we understand the purpose of civil marriage, however, the traditional form logically follows.
Philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, recently had a few choice words to 
Greg Ten Elshof just released an interesting book titled 
As some of you may know, I am an advocate against the cultural tendency to willfully and purposely delay marriage late into our 20s or 30s. It is my conviction that this is a recipe for sexual immorality in the church, and that it is a contributing factor to Peter Pan Syndrome (20-, 30-, and 40-something men who are still acting and thinking like teenagers), since marriage—and the responsibilities that come with it—are a key part of the maturation process. So I was delighted to read Mark Regnerus’s article in Christianity Today, “
J. Budziszewski made a great summary of the cosmological argument for God’s existence. He wrote, “Anything which might not have been requires a cause. Philosophers call such things ‘contingent beings.’ But the universe…is itself a contingent being, so the universe must have a cause. Now if we say that the cause of the universe is another contingent being, we merely invite an infinite regress. For the regress to have an end, we must eventually reach a being which is not contingent but necessary—not something which might not have been, but something which can’t not be. Furthermore this necessary being must be sufficient to cause its effects, and so it must have all of the qualities traditionally ascribed to God: Eternity, power, and all the rest.”
In his book The Last Word, Thomas Nagel, an atheist professor of philosophy and law at New York University School of Law, defended philosophical rationalism against subjectivism. At one point he admits that rationalism has theistic implications—implications he does not like. He suggests that subjectivism is due in part to a fear of religion, citing his own fear as a case in point:
Thinking to Believe 