Thursday, April 7, 2016

Gay Marriage : Just Because Marriage Has Been Defined, Doesn't Mean it Can't Be Redefined

It wouldn't be the First Time

Going back thousands of years, marriage is defined as one man, one woman. It would seem then that Henry VIII missed that memo. And heads had to come off for marriage to be redefined. As silly as this current debate is, we shouldn't have to go so far to allow the new definition to catch up to the movement of society.
Of course, if we choose not to do that, we must first clean the mess that Henry left behind and acknowledge that society has long run past the standard set by the Catholic Church. With 50% of marriages ending in divorce, the practice is obviously accepted as the norm today. And leading the way, right behind the cafeteria Catholics with their annulment indulgences, are the Christian Churches that rolled out of the Defender of The Faith's sharpened sense of succession issues.
The slippery slope has long been in place. It's called polygamy, and all those who have remarried will stand behind Henry with their excommunications papers at the gates of Hell. Whether you adhere to such fairy tales, it doesn't apply among the living because we don't live in a theocracy. But for those who wished we did, why does the sin of homosexuality take precedence when polygamy puts so many more souls at risk.
You just have to ask yourself what Jesus would spend the majority of his time preaching to. Nonetheless, it can only be concluded that these religious figures who claim to hate the sin but love the sinner are much more about hate than love --especially on this particular one.
Either way, even the most ardent opponents of gay marriage are far ahead of where we once were on homosexuality. Of course, until 1973 it was considered a psychological condition. More concerning, though, the common place perception When Father Knew Best was that homosexuals were largely child molesters.
That has clearly changed. We have moved on, and again, since this isn't a theocracy, society has no choice but to move in the direction that it is rightly going. Otherwise, if we go against the flow of history maybe the real slippery slope heads in the other direction, and we'll have websites listing the known homosexuals among us.
You know that might not be all bad. It would decimate the Republican Party and the religious leaders who "dost protest too much."

No comments: