An interesting article, the title of which is really a statement and not a question.
The substance begins about halfway down the page and lays blame for secular society’s increasing acceptance of homosexual unions on contraception because it separated sex from marriage and childbearing, and that marriage was created as a partnership between man and woman within which the human race was ensured its continuing existence. As for us “moderns”, it’s all now based on “feelings”….
“For us moderns, love is a feeling, and marriage is simply one way of celebrating this feeling. Why shouldn’t gay men who have the feeling also be allowed to have its celebration? Marriage has nothing necessarily to do with children, but rather with this feeling of love. Children are not necessarily a part of the package. They are considered optional, and not a part of marriage’s essence.”
From there the argument maintains that nature and nurture are separate concepts, and that same-sex couples can pass along many things, but they cannot adequately teach children what it is like to be either men or women. In those cases of homosexual couples with children, the author notes, somewhat bluntly, that same-sex childrearing is “culturally parasitical” because nature has decreed that two homosexuals cannot reproduce and they depend on heterosexual couples “to have them for them.”