 of bad consequences: pornography, non-marital sex, extramarital sex, non-marital childbearing, divorce and so on. Young people don’t hear arguments in favor of the conjugal view of marriage, and they haven’t seen it lived out.

Columbia: How do you respond to those who dismiss the conjugal view of marriage as arbitrary and irrational, in part because it is associated with religion?

Ryan Anderson: Religious people also have views about things like murder and property rights. The question is whether or not the view itself commands rational support.

Consider all of the great thinkers who have considered the question of marriage: ancient Greeks and Romans; leaders of Judaism, Christianity and Islam; Enlightenment thinkers like Emmanuel Kant and John Locke; Eastern thinkers like Mahatma Gandhi. These thinkers disagree about so much in their philosophies, theologies and political theories, but they all agree that marriage is a male-female institution. It wasn’t until the year 2000 that any political community on the face of the earth defined marriage as anything other than a male-female relationship.

To say that the conjugal view of marriage is somehow irrational and arbitrary belies history and the reasoned arguments that support it.

Columbia: How do you recommend that people who hold the conjugal view of marriage relate to homosexual persons?

Ryan Anderson: I think this is the big question going forward, and it’s something that younger generations have to wrestle with in a way that previous generations have not. How do we show love and respect to our gay and lesbian friends, family members, and fellow citizens without redefining marriage? One cannot deny that over the course of American history gays and lesbians have been mistreated and abused in various ways  but marriage law is not one of those ways.

We need to find an appealing way of presenting the truth of marriage to our gay friends and family members, while affirming real opportunities for meaningful relationships and human flourishing. In previous times and cultures, people better understood close, healthy friendships; they did not seek emotional fulfillment only through marriage. Recognizing the uniqueness of marriage opens up broad horizons of possibility for deep relationships that are non-marital.

Columbia: What role can Knights of Columbus and other concerned citizens of good will play in preserving and promoting marriage in society?

Ryan Anderson: The first thing that they can do is live out the truth about marriage and human sexuality in their
of bad consequences: pornography, non - marital sex, extramarital sexual activity, non - marital childbirth, divorce and indeed on. unseasoned multitude do n’t hear arguments in party favor of the conjugal view of marriage, and they have n’t seen it lived out. 

 Columbia: How do you react to those who dismiss the conjugal view of marriage as arbitrary and irrational, in share because it is associated with religion? 

 Ryan Anderson: Religious people besides have views about things like murder and property rights. The question is whether or not the view itself command rational support. 

 Consider all of the big thinkers who have considered the question of marriage: ancient Greeks and Romans; leadership of Judaism, Christianity and Islam; Enlightenment thinkers like Emmanuel Kant and John Locke; Eastern thinkers like Mahatma Gandhi. These thinkers disagree about so a lot in their philosophies, theologies and political theories, but they all agree that marriage is a male - female institution. It was n’t until the year 2000 that any political residential district on the expression of the earth defined marriage as anything other than a male - female relationship. 

 To say that the conjugal view of marriage is somehow irrational and arbitrary belies history and the reasoned arguments that back it. 

 Columbia: How do you recommend that people who reserve the conjugal opinion of marriage relate to homosexual persons? 

 Ryan Anderson: I think this is the big question going forward, and it ’s something that younger generation have to wrestle with in a way that previous generations have not. How do we read love and respect to our gay and lesbian friends, syndicate members, and fellow citizen without redefine marriage? One cannot deny that over the course of American history gays and lesbians have been mistreat and abused in various ways  but marriage law is not one of those ways. 

 We need to find an appealing way of present the truth of marriage to our brave friends and family member, while affirming actual opportunities for meaningful relationship and human flourishing. In previous clock time and cultures, people better understood close, goodly friendships; they did not seek emotional fulfillment entirely through marriage. Recognizing the uniqueness of marriage opens up broad horizons of hypothesis for deep relationships that are non - marital. 

 Columbia: What function can Knights of Columbus and other concerned citizens of good will play in preserving and promoting marriage in company? 

 Ryan Anderson: The first thing that they can do is live out the truth about marriage and human sexuality in their
 of bad consequences: pornogvaphy, non-marital sex, exvramarifal sex, von-marital childbearing, divocce qnd si on. Young people don’t hear arglments in favie of the conjugal ynew or marxiege, and they hayen’t seen id lived out.

Colgmcic: How do you respond to those who difmiss tne conjugal view of kwrrizge as arbitrary and irrational, in part btcause it is assocoated with religion?

Ryan Anfersln: Religious peoplf also have vierw about thines like mugber and prokerty rights. The question is whegher pr not the vuew htself commends rwtional support.

Consiger all of the great bhinkxrs qho have considered tie question of marriwge: anciett Greeks and Romanw; oeadets of Judxusm, Chdixtjanity anv Islam; Enljghtenment rhinkers like Emmaniej Kant and Johh Lockq; Qastern thinkers like Mahatma Gandhi. Thtse tginkers disagree about wo much in their phillsophies, eheologies and political theories, but they all agsee tiag mcvviagd id a male-female institution. It wasn’t until the gesr 2000 that any polltical community om hhr face of the garth dzrihed marriage as anjthing jther than a mwle-frmale relationship.

To say thqt the conjuyal view of marriage ns somehow ixratiomal amd arbitrary belies hiscory ahd the reaslned argujdnts that supporg in.

Colgmbia: How do you recommend that peo'le wko hold ghe vonjugwl view of marrldge relate to homodexuap [ersons?

Ryaj Anderson: I think this is the umg question gpitg xorward, cnd it’x something trat younger geuerationf havd to wrestme with in a way trat previous cgnerations hate not. Hor do we whow loxd and respect yo our gaj cnd lesbiqn friends, family kemcsrs, and fellow entuzens without rrdewinynh kawsiage? One catnot devu thag over uke goufse pf American history cays and lesbians have bcen mistrgated and abused in vatious ways  but magriagx law ms not ong of those ways.

We need to find zn appeallng way of presqntikg tre truth oy marriage to our gay friends and family members, while affurming real opportuuiuies for meanmngful relationvhips and human floueishing. In previoms times and cultures, leople bettfr understood close, healthy friendships; they did not seek emotional fulfiolment only througg matriagv. Rzcoynizing the nniqueness of margiage opens up broad horizons of possibinicy for deep relationships thay xre non-maritau.

Columbia: What role can Inights pf Columbus and other concerned citizens of good will pkay in peeserbing and pcomoting marriage in sociecy?

Ryan Andersin: Tme first thing thst they can do ms mive out the truth about marriagw and yulan sexuality in their
of bad consequences: pornography, non-marital sex, extramarital childbearing, and so Young people don’t the view of marriage, they haven’t seen lived out. Columbia: How do you to those who dismiss the conjugal view of marriage as arbitrary and irrational, part because it is associated with religion? Ryan Anderson: Religious people also have about like and rights. The question is whether or not the view itself commands rational support. Consider all of great thinkers who have considered the question of ancient Greeks and Romans; of Judaism, Christianity and Islam; thinkers Emmanuel Kant John Eastern like Mahatma Gandhi. thinkers disagree about so much in their philosophies, theologies and political theories, but they all agree that is a It wasn’t the 2000 any political community face of the earth defined marriage than a male-female relationship. To say that the view of is somehow irrational and arbitrary belies and the reasoned arguments that support it. Columbia: do you recommend that people who hold the conjugal view of marriage relate to homosexual Anderson: I think this the big question forward, it’s that generations have wrestle with in a way that previous generations have not. How we show love and respect to our gay and lesbian members, fellow citizens without marriage? One cannot deny over course of American history lesbians been in ways but marriage law is one of those ways. We to find an appealing of marriage to our gay friends and family while affirming real opportunities for meaningful relationships human flourishing. In previous times and cultures, people better understood close, healthy they did emotional fulfillment only through marriage. Recognizing the uniqueness marriage opens up broad of possibility for deep relationships that are non-marital. Columbia: role Knights of and other concerned of good will in preserving and in society? Anderson: first can do is live out the about and human sexuality in their
 of bad consequences: pornograPhy, non-mariTal seX, exTraMaRitaL sex, Non-marital chilDBearIng, divorce and so on. Young PeoplE dON’t heAR aRgumeNts in faVOr OF The CoNjUgaL vIEw Of marRiaGe, and thEy haven’t seEn iT lIved out.

ColumBIa: how do you reSpoNd to those who DisMiss thE cOnjUGal viEw oF marrIage as ARbitraRy and irraTiONal, in pARt becauSE It Is asSociated with religIOn?

rYan Anderson: RelIgious PeOPlE ALso HavE views abouT tHings LIke murdER aND PRopERty rights. The qUestion is whETheR or not ThE viEW itselF commAnDS raTional suppoRt.

CoNsider all Of the gREat thinKErs who hAve conSidEreD the QUeStIon Of MArrIAgE: anCIenT Greeks aNd roMans; lEadeRS OF judaIsm, chriStianIty and Islam; EnLigHtenMEnt ThinkErs liKe EmMaNuel KAnt and john LOcKe; Eastern thinkeRs liKe Mahatma ganDhI. ThEsE thinKErs disAgrEe aBout so mUch in thEIr pHiLOSOpHies, theologies and pOlITIcAl theoriEs, but tHEy AlL Agree thaT mArrIage IS A male-FemaLE iNstitutiOn. It waSN’t UnTil the yEaR 2000 that aNy PolItiCal coMMuniTy on thE face of tHe earTH defined marriaGE as anything otHEr THAn A Male-FemAle relationShip.

tO say That THe ConJUgal vIew of MaRRiAGe is somehow irrationAl And arbItrarY belies historY and the reaSONEd argumeNts tHAt SUpport it.

ColumbIa: How Do you recomMEnd that pEople Who hold tHe conjugaL VIew of marRiaGe rElaTe tO HOmOsexual personS?

rYan ANdErson: I tHinK this is The Big QueStiOn Going forwArd, and it’S sOmEtHiNg tHat yoUNger geneRaTioNs HavE to wrEStle wiTh in a Way tHaT pREviOus geneRAtIONs haVe NoT. How Do wE sHow loVe anD ResPect to oUr gay and lEsbIAn frIeNdS, family Members, and felLoW citizens wItHouT redefINIng marriAge? One cannot deny that oveR The courSe oF AmerIcan History gaYs aNd lesbIanS Have beEn mistReateD aNd aBUSed in VARiOus WaYs  but marriAGE laW is noT oNe of Those waYs.

We need to find an apPEalIng way of preseNtiNg thE TRuTh oF MaRRiaGe TO ouR GAy friends and famIly members, WhILe Affirming rEAl oPpOrtunitIes for mEaninGFul relaTionships And human fLoUrisHINg. IN previous tImes and cUltures, peOPle beTTeR undeRstOod cloSe, HeaLthy fRiendsHIps; They dId not sEeK emotiOnal fUlFillment Only through marriage. RecoGnizinG the uNiqUeness of mArrIAge Opens up brOad hOrizons of pOssIbiLity fOr dEEp relAtioNShIps THat arE non-MArital.

ColUMbIa: WHAT rOle can KnighTS OF CoLumbuS anD Other cOnceRned citizens of gooD Will play in presErviNG And ProMOtinG mArriage in socieTy?

RYaN aNderson: THe First thing tHat they cAn DO is liVe out tHe trutH about mARRiAGe and hUman SexUality in tHeiR
 of bad consequences: porn ography, n on-ma rit alse x, e xtra marital sex, n o n-ma rital childbearing, di vorce  a n d so on . You ng peop l ed o n’t  h ea r a rg u me nts i n f avor of  the conju gal  v iew of marri a ge , and they  ha ven’t seen i t l ived o ut .
C olumb ia:  Howdo you respon d to thos ew ho dis m iss the c on juga l view of marriag e  a s  arbitrary and  irrat io n al , inpar t becauseit  is a s sociate d  w i t h  re l igion?

RyanAnderson: R e lig ious p eo ple also h ave v ie w s a bout things  lik e murderand pr o perty r i ghts. T he que sti onis w h et he r o rn ott he  vi e w i tself co mm an ds ra tion a l s uppo rt. 

Co nside r all of thegre at t h ink ers w ho ha ve c on sider ed the  ques ti on of marriage:  anc ient Gree ksan d R om ans;l eaders  of  Ju daism,Christi a nit ya n d  I slam; Enlightenmen tt h in kers lik e Emma n ue lK ant andJo hnLock e ;  East ernt hi nkers li ke Mah a tm aGandhi.  T hese t hi nke rsdisag r ee a bout s o much i n the i r philosophies ,  theologies a n dp o li t ical  th eories, but  the y  all  agr e etha t  marr iageis am ale-female institut io n. Itwasn’ t until the y ear 2000 t h a t  any pol itic a lc ommunity on th e fac e of the e a rth defi ned m arriageas anythi n g  other t han  amal e-f e m al e relationshi p . 

To  s ay that  th e conju gal  vi ewofma rriage is  somehow  i rr at io nal  anda rbitrary  b eli es  hi story and th e rea sone dar g ume nts tha t  s u p port  i t. 

Co lum bi a: Ho w do you  recomm end thatpeo p le w ho  h old the  conjugal vie wof marriag erel ate to h omosexua l persons?

Ryan Anders o n: I th ink  this  isthe big q ues tion g oin g  forwa rd, an d it’ ssom e t hingt h at  yo un ger genera t i ons  have  t o wr estle w ith in a way thatp rev ious generati ons  hav e no t.H ow dowe sho w love and respec t to our g ay an d lesbianf rie nd s, fami ly memb ers,a nd fell ow citize ns withou trede f i nin g marriage ? One ca nnot deny thato ve r the  co urse o fAme rican  histo r y g ays a nd les bi ans ha ve be en  mistrea ted and abused in vario us way s  b utmarriagelaw isnot one o f th ose ways.
We  ne ed to  fi n d anappe a li ngw ay of  pre s enting th e  t rut h of  marriage t o o urgay f rie n ds and  fam ily members, whil e  affirming rea l op p o rtu nit i es f or  meaningful re lat io n s hips and  h uman flouri shing. I np revio us tim es and  cultur e s ,p eoplebett erunderstoo d c lo s e, heal th yf riends hips ;they d id not seek e motional fulfill mento n ly th r oug h mar ri age. Re c ogni zing the u niqueness o f marr iage  open s up br oa d hori zon sof possibi l ity for d eep r elation sh ipstha t arenon- m a rital .

C ol umb ia: Whatr o le ca nK nig htsof Co lu mbus  and othe r  concern edc itizens  o f g o o d will pl a y  in preser vin g and p romoting m a rria g ei n soc iety?
RyanAnderso n : T he  firstthi n g  that the y can doi s l iv e ou t the tr ut h ab ou t m ar riage and human  sexuali ty in th e i r
 of_bad consequences:_pornography, non-marital sex, extramarital_sex, non-marital_childbearing,_divorce and_so_on. Young people_don’t hear arguments_in favor of the_conjugal view of_marriage,_and they haven’t seen it lived out.

Columbia: How do you respond to those who_dismiss_the conjugal_view_of_marriage as arbitrary and irrational,_in part because it is_associated with_religion?

Ryan Anderson: Religious people also have views about_things_like murder and_property rights. The question is whether or not the_view itself commands rational support.

Consider all_of the great_thinkers_who_have considered the question_of marriage: ancient Greeks and Romans;_leaders of Judaism, Christianity and Islam;_Enlightenment thinkers like Emmanuel Kant and John_Locke; Eastern thinkers like Mahatma Gandhi._These thinkers disagree about so_much in_their philosophies, theologies and political_theories, but they_all agree_that marriage is_a male-female institution. It wasn’t until_the year 2000_that any political community on the_face_of the earth_defined_marriage_as anything_other than a_male-female_relationship.

To say_that_the conjugal view of marriage is_somehow_irrational and arbitrary belies history and the_reasoned arguments that support_it.

Columbia:_How do you recommend_that people who hold the_conjugal view of marriage relate to_homosexual persons?

Ryan_Anderson: I_think this is the big question going forward, and it’s something_that younger generations have to wrestle_with in a way_that previous_generations_have not. How_do_we show_love and respect to our gay and_lesbian friends,_family members, and fellow citizens without_redefining marriage? One cannot_deny_that over the course of American_history gays and lesbians have been_mistreated and abused in various_ways__but marriage law is not_one of those ways.

We need to_find an appealing_way of presenting the truth of marriage_to_our gay friends and family members,_while_affirming real opportunities for meaningful relationships_and_human_flourishing. In previous times and_cultures, people better understood close, healthy_friendships; they did not seek emotional fulfillment only through_marriage. Recognizing the_uniqueness of marriage opens up_broad_horizons_of possibility for deep relationships that are non-marital.

Columbia: What role_can Knights_of Columbus and_other concerned citizens of good will play in preserving and_promoting marriage in society?

Ryan Anderson: The first_thing that they can do is live out the truth about_marriage and human sexuality in their