"Hey, i'm sure you're a really nice person, I just think you should be legally discriminated against and denied certain rights solely on the basis of your sexual orientation because I have some ill-informed and antiquated ideas about The Sanctity Of Marriage (tm). Beer?"
Doesn't really seem realistic to me.
Oh, let's hear what he has to say:
"Furthermore, if we allow ourselves to be intimidated by our fear of the world's censure into silence in the face of attempts by homosexuals to make their sin acceptable under the laws of the polity, then we have abandoned our role as teachers of righteousness."
"The repentant homosexual must be met with forgiveness. Even hypocritical homosexuals must be treated individually with compassion. But the collective behavior of the hypocrites of homosexuality must be met with our most forceful arguments and our complete intolerance of their lies."
"That a few individuals suffer from tragic genetic mixups does not affect the differences between genetically distinct males and females."
Yheaaa, sorry, but he actually is a bigot.
I want to define what's scientific because after 50 years in pessimistic scenario religion can be considered scientific and pope might be The Chief Scientist.
When you start identifying a group, and placing restrictions on rights which you enjoy, you are taking a hateful position.
Somehow the lack of throbbing, purple-veined meatsicks must render it less compelling.
EDIT: withdrawing the above childishness, turns out he does write extensively about divorce.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-11-13-1.html
A quick search suggests he regularly incorporates criticism of divorce into his other writings.