It can be difficult to understand creationists at times. Last week, I observed Disco. Inst. blogger Martin Cothran wondered: "If their relationships are already stable, then why do they need to be stabilized?" Cothran only applies that logic to teh gays, of course. I pointed out that the same logic applies to straight folk, and that he seemed to be arguing against marriage per se.

Apparently that wasn't what he meant, and Cothran is now trying to rework the argument:

So maybe we could restate the question for Rosenau and see if we can break through the logical firewall he seems to have set in his mental system settings: "If the relationships of gay people are already stable then why do we need marriage to stabilize them?"

Maybe Cothran's point is simply that stability is not a good way to justify marriage in general. If so, Cothran should take it up with James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family (bear in mind that Cothran works for the Family Foundation of Kentucky, an affiliate of Focus on the Family):