Response to Rudd agreeing on gay marriage

I was a bit surprised to find this opinion piece at The Drum site. Usually what's posted there is of genuinely good quality, unlike this drivel which has apparently passed a level necessary to be published. It masquerades as some sort of argument against Kevin Rudd's rather long-winded but well thought out change in direction on gay marriage, stating that Rudd has got it wrong now to support it.

I thought I might as well read it now that I'd seen it. Unfortunately, the expectation of somebody with intelligence putting forward intelligent arguments for the other side of the debate, I was presented with little more than unfounded opinions that have been proven wrong, Bible quotes (yes, Bible quotes  FFS!), random statistics, all seeming to be sort of mixed in with an underlying dislike of gays. I now present to you, Michael Cook's response to Kevin Rudd. 

You can read it all at the link if you want. I had the misfortune to do so. Some of it is truly appalling. For example:

Christian views on redefining marriage vary, of course. But Australia's traditional definition of marriage as a partnership between a man and a woman is not fundamentally based upon the Bible. It is based on the notion that marriage is the only institution which unites children with their mothers and fathers.

Every child has a right to a mother and a father. more

Evidently solo parents are denying their kids then? WTF does this guy think families are these days? He goes on:

Redefining marriage should be opposed because it does a colossal injustice to vulnerable children. It makes it legal to deprive kids of the right to know their natural mother and father and to be raised by them. more

 As a parent of a wonderful young lady now, that comment alone is personally insulting on so many levels.

Well that's pretty much the gist of his entire long winded raving argument. I can't see anything else in there that remotely looks like an argument. We've got some random guy who reckons marriage isn't all about love (as us dastardly gays think it is for us), some scripture quoting from the Bible (like it's actual evidence or something), and a metaphor about Thomas More from bloody 500 years ago.

This is the thing isn't it. This piece is put there as a serious sort of argument against marriage equality, and all he can come out with in reality are disproved opinions and little more than Bible bashing. That is why marriage equality is suddenly coming to so many countries, because nobody can come up with an intelligent argument against it.