The angry buzzing of the bees over this whole gay marriage nonsense makes me shake my head in sadness.
You’re fighting the wrong fight, peoples.
What is the current definition of what marriage is, according to the conservative, Church-going elites?
It is Disney marriage with an arbitrary rule. The core of marriage is that two people in love with each other ratify their emotional attachment with a big, expensive ceremony.
The core of marriage is ‘love’, love here being defined as hormonally inspired obsession. Last year’s debate between conservatives and liberals was “is it okay to have sex before you ratify your love,” with the conservatives saying “no; sex is for marriage,” and the liberals saying “sure, it’s just a ceremony.” The libs won the argument, and now kids who really mean it when they call themselves Christian are sleeping with their girlfriends and moving in before marriage.
The arbitrary rule is that conservatives think it’s bad for people to become obsessed with people of the same sex.*
The problem is the conservatives had already accepted that marriage was about ‘love’. They didn’t lose the culture war. They conceded, handed over all their weapons, and then continued fighting.
Now, the gov is strong-arming gay marriage on the population, and the conservatives are all ticked off, but that same concession, that same lack of weapons, still applies.
As long as marriage is about ‘love,’ gay marriage is just as legit as straight marriage. In fact, as long as marriage is the ratification of ‘love’, there is no logical reason why an individual might not marry anyone or anything he can fall in love with, including people of the same sex, multiple people, children, animals, Pokémon cards and the Eiffel Tower (warning, that link is about someone marrying the Eiffel Tower, so if you can’t handle it, don’t follow).
What does the Bible say marriage is?
1) Man’s purpose is to multiply and conquer the earth (Genesis 1).
2) He needs a helper suitable to accomplish this purpose (Gen 2).
3) The two become a single organism (Gen 2), a relationship Jesus strongly implies remains effective even if they think they’ve dissolved it (Matthew 19).
4) In any case, it is not to be broken (Mat 19 again).
5) This unity is the same unity Christ has with the church (Eph 5, and part of why I believe the bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood: these things apparently work through repeated physical acts).
6) People contending with lusts should seek marriage, and people who are married should tend to each-others’ lusts, in order to avoid temptation (1 Corinthians 7).
So: Biblical marriage is not the ratification of ‘love’, but a Voltron-esque fusing of a man and a woman into a single organism so that the man might pursue his given objective of conquering his corner of the world and producing children, and that this whole relationship is an echo of Christ and the church fusing into a single organism so that Christ might pursue his objective of conquering the world and producing children.
‘Love’ as we think of it in the modern world is only tangentially mentioned: people who struggle with ‘love’ ought to seek marriage out so that they have a legitimate avenue in which to pursue their passions, just as people who struggle with a need to blow things up ought to seek out a job in a demolition company so that their destructive tendencies might have a constructive channel. But ‘love’ is not the purpose of marriage. The purpose of marriage is to fill the earth and subdue it. First, to reproduce, and then, to achieve mastery over some corner of creation in the name (originally) of Adam and (now) of Christ.
Now, this definition excludes, by definition, gay marriage, which is non-reproductive, as well as marriage to pre-adolescents, to horses, and to French architecture. The definition puts a soft limit on incest, as the closer you push the relationship between the two partners the less effective their reproduction will be. It rules out marriages between Christians and non-Christians because the couple by definition would not be unified in their effort to subdue or achieve mastery. It does not rule out polygamy, which I personally find distasteful; but I cannot find a single good argument that polygamy is wrong.
But look at your instinctive reaction to that definition! Did you not cringe? I did. Did you not feel it impoverished for its lack of romance? Did you not think it very misogynistic and oppressive? Isn’t there some part of you — even if it’s a part that you’ve rejected — that is angry at me for saying what I’ve said?
That is why the fight against gay marriage is doomed. Not because the Supreme Court has decided to play king, but because we as a nation have accepted and internalized a wrong definition of marriage. Because according to that definition, there is no actual logical argument against gay marriage, and they only thing we can say in response to their main argument for, “But Bob and Henry are in loooove!” is “Eww.”
And they rightly view our rebuttal with contempt.
The place to start is not railing against the tyrants. The place to start is by making babies and indoctrinating them with the doctrine of God and not Disney. Gay marriage is a sign of cultural collapse — a sign, not a cause — and the medicine is not to oppose the symptom, but rather to convince as many people as possible to start planting good seeds for the next civilization’s culture.
This civilization, quite frankly, is done.
But that does not mean we are defeated, for we can see farther into the future than our enemies. Even to eternity.
*Which it is, but that’s a symptom, not the disease.