believe, and many millions of our fellow citizens believe marriage as defined is by its nature a heterosexual union. is bringing together of one man and one woman. it is not just a romantic attachment which can exist between any two people. it is not just a sexual relationship. it is the act of marriage which by its definition requires two people of opposite sexes. if you take that basic requirement away what you are left with is not marriage. the minister claims marriage has always been evolving, but this, mr. deputy speaker, is not evolution comet it is revolution. true, i am blessed with six children. i realize every married couple was able to have the gift of children. or indeed may want to. this doesn't change the fact that that concept of marriage has always been bestowed with a vision of procreation. every marriage has the potential it brings together biologically the two elements needed to generate a child. the very reason marriage is underpinned with laws and customs is because children usually result from it. they need protecting the tendency of adults to break their ties and cast off the

the union of the married, heterosexual couple is uniquely good because -- well, because the union of a married heterosexual couple is uniquely good. this intuition comes decorated with a complex theoretical apparatus, but the apparatus does not do any work. i think their book is a public service. is very grateful this book out there concisely because this is the perspective that fewer and fewer american share and a of people find unintelligible. i think it is good for the country for people to understand their fellow citizens. right now there are a lot of your fellow citizens who were being dragged kicking and screaming into the new world. it is good to understand what your fellow citizens are thinking. this is a lucid window into a dying world here. it is unlikely to persuade anyone who does not already agree with its claims, and it is not going to have much impact on its intended contemporary audience. but it really does have value in advancing our understanding of the landscape of arguments today. for that we should all be grateful to them. it will also be of enormous value to hist

the union of the married heterosexual couple is uniquely good because the union is uniquely good.now, this raw intuition comes decorated with a complex apparatus, but the apparatus doesn't do any work. i think their book is a public service. i'm grateful this book is out there precisely because this is a good fewer and fewer americans shared and a lot of people find unintelligible and i think it's good for the country or people to understand fellow citizens have right now a lot of fellow citizen are being dragged kicking and screaming into the new world and its good to understand what fellow citizens are thinking. this is a lucid window into a giant worldview. it's unlikely to persuade anyone who doesn't already agreed the claim won't have much impact on its contemporary audience, but does have value in just advancing our understanding of the landscape of argument today prefer that we should be grateful to them and will also be of enormous value to historians. thank you. [applause] >> i want to thank both of the participants in this debate for giving these stimulating presentation

the union of the married, heterosexual couple is uniquely good because -- well, because the union of a married heterosexual couple is uniquely good. this intuition comes decorated with a complex theoretical apparatus, but the apparatus does not do any work. i think their book is a public service. i'm very grateful this book is out there concisely because this is the perspective that fewer and fewer american share and a of people find unintelligible. i think it is good for the country for people to understand their fellow citizens. right now there are a lot of your fellow citizens who were being dragged kicking and screaming into the new world. it is good to understand what your fellow citizens are thinking. this is a lucid window into a dying world here. it is unlikely to persuade anyone who does not already agree with its claims, and it is not going to have much impact on its intended contemporary audience. but it really does have value in advancing our understanding of the landscape of arguments today. for that we should all be grateful to them. it will also be of enormous value to

marriage, i believe, and millions of our citizens believe, marriage is, by its nature, a heterosexual union. it is the bringing together of one man and one woman. it is not just a romantic attachment, which can exist between any two people. it is not just a sexual relationship. it is the active marriage which, by its definition, requires two people of opposite sexes. if you take that basic requirement away, what you are left with is not a marriage. they claim that marriage has always been evolving, but this, mr. deputy speaker, is not evolution. it is a revolution. with six children. i understand not every family has children or may want to. but this does not change the fact that this form of marriage has always been bestowed with a vision of procreation. every marriage as the procreation that brings together the to the elements needed to generate a child. the very reason that marriage is underpinned with laws and customs is because children usually often result from it. they need protection from the adults that want to break their ties and cast off their responsibilities. marriage exists t

marriage i believe and many millions of fellow citizens believe marriage is by its nature a heterosexual union. it is bringing together of one man and one woman. it is not just a romantic attachment, which can exist between any two people. it is not just a relationship. it is the active marriage which by its very definition requires two people of opposite not. if you take a basic requirement of a, what ui love to it is not marriage. marriage has always been evolving, but this, mr. deputy speaker, it is a revolution. i am left with six children. i realize every married couple is able to have the gift of children were indeed may want to, get this doesn't change the fact that concept of marriage is always bestowed with the addition of procreation. every marriage is procreative potential that it brings together biologically to elements in it to generate a child. the very reason marriages underpinned with laws is because children are usually often result from that. they need protecting from the tendency of adults to break ties and cast. marriage exists to keep parents exclusively committed to one a

marriage, i believe, and many millions of our fellow citizens believe, marriage is, by its nature, heterosexual union, a bringing together of one man and one woman. it is not just a romantic attachment which can exist between any two people. it's not just a sexual relationship. it is the act of marriage which by its very definition requires two people of opposite sexes? if you take that basic requirement away, what you are left with is not marriage. the minister claims marriage has always been evolving, but this, mr. deputy speaker, is not evolution. it is revolution. true, i am blessed with six children. i realize not every married couple is able to have the gift of children or indeed may want to yet this doesn't change the fact that that concept of major has been bestowed with a vision of procreation. it brings together biologically those needed to generate a child. the very reason major is underpinned with laws and customs is because children usually often result from it. they need protecting from the tendency of adults to break their ties and cast off their responsibilities. marriage exists to ke

marriage i believe and many millions of fellow citizens believe marriage is by its nature a heterosexual uniont is bringing together of one man and one woman. it is not just a romantic attachment, which can exist between any two people. it is not just a relationship. it is the active marriage which by its very definition requires two people of opposite not. if you take a basic requirement of a, what ui love to it is not marriage. marriage has always been evolving, but this, mr. deputy speaker, it is a revolution. i am left with six children. i realize every married couple is able to have the gift of children were indeed may want to, get this doesn't change the fact that concept of marriage is always bestowed with the addition of procreation. every marriage is procreative potential that it brings together biologically to elements in it to generate a child. the very reason marriages underpinned with laws is because children are usually often result from that. they need protecting from the tendency of adults to break ties and cast. marriage exists to keep parents exclusively committed to one anot

. >> while the heterosexual couples were from d.c., gay couples were from pennsylvania and virginia. >> it was circumstance but it was wonderful. >> they do a civil union but is not the same as marriage. >> while it is the most dramatic day of the year, there is a practical reason for getting married on valentine's day. we heard it from a lot of men. >> you do not forget your anniversary. >> [inaudible] so for him one potential argument already averted. and so in case you're wondering how much it costs to get married in d.c., $45. sam ford, abc 7 news. >> that is less than a parking ticket. >> good luck to everybody. >> no problem remembering the anniversary. let's take you to one of our weatherbug cameras. the sun was up and a beautiful day. 50 degrees in rockville. all across the region was quiet and calm and it continues that way to this moment. temperatures falling off with sun set behind us. the official high and low at reagan national. temperatures will be the same. and the bottom will drop out. old man winter will come back from wherever he pays a visit for the weekend. 43 in washington. colder air to the north and west. the colder areas upstrea