Think this is a good idea? you are an idiot.

Not that gay marriage is a good idea, or a bad idea, but that justices should rule against the will of the people. Those justices should be executed in public. If you missed that little point, go check it out now, and come back when you;re not an idiot.

When this blog was young, a billion and a half years ago, I had this discussion wiht Spoons. He was adamant, I was wrong and he was right, because he didn’t feel his marriage was threatened by gays being married. he was, of course, wrong. And I was young to blogging, so i backed down-but this time I will not back down, because I know I’m correct.

let’s start by looking at the discussion. The issue in question is the term “Marriage”.

I don’t thing any human being in their right mind would deny any two people the right to be happy and live their lives. Certainly, I do not. The idea of “civil unions” is perfectly straightforward, and makes perfect sense, for same sex AND different sex peoples. Two old people living together in a small home, even if no sex or anything like that is involved, should have the right to civil unionship,and all the priveleges and safeties it implies. And for that reason alone, Civil unions should be recognized everywhere.

So why not marriage? Why not allow gays to marry?

Let’s look at marriage. Marriage is, at it’s core, a religious entity, and until a clear and well defined separation existed between church and state, there was no reason for Marriage to be thought of as anything but a religious rite, and is considered a sacrament in most Christian faiths.

When secularism became popular enough that there was a clear need for the non religious to pair bond, the State endowed itself with the authority to marry.

This is the beginning of the bullshit, right there.

Because Civil marriage and religious marriage hold the same legal weight, they have become indistinguishable to most people. Except people of faith.

people of faith understand that the male/female pair bond, whose primary (but not sole) purpose is procreation, is at the core of our society. It is not the word we object to being misused, but the concept. You can call the relationship between a man and a man a ‘marriage”, but in the true sense of the word, it will never be, because the mechaincs aren’t there.

So why should I be concerned with semantics? Who cares if someone calls it a marriage, if I think of it as a civil union?

The improper use of the word is a wedge. The entire point of saying that Marriage can apply to gay couples is to allow them the tool to break the Christian church.

Once it becomes law that gays can marry civilly, the gay community will use the law to attempt to force Priests to marry them, which is of course impossible, and a priest who declines to do so will be subjected to legal action.

The problem is, in most of Christianity, homosexuality is considered a no-no. Not all, mind you, there are lots of denominations that openly accept the gay lifestyle (ALL Christian churches accept gays, incidentally. Just not their behavior).

The law will allow the gay community to force the churches to rewrite Christianity to suit their purposes. This is a problem. This tactic has been used over and over again to force one organization or another to accept people who do not fit the mold of that organization, and has done irreparable harm in many of these situations.

This would destroy Christianity, and that is it’s point. Gay men and women have less of an issue of being excluded from their faith, than they have with being told they are sinners. Legalizing gay marriage is the first step toward rendering useless the mores of Christianity. The bottom line is, most of Christianity won’t allow for homosexuality, so rather than trying to find a place where they are accepted, the gay community is set on making the straight community as unhappy as they are.

Christianity has enough trouble without adding this to the mix.

And legislation by judicial fiat is flat wrong, everywhere.