Yep, because England recently changed their statutes to allow gay couples to marry publicly and establish civil unions, Elton John and his long term lover, soul mate, friend tied the knot in the same place Prince Charles married his long term mistress. Is the sky about to fall? Is God going to smite the British for accepting two people who love each other might want to live together openly, have a regular home life, and with the community not ready to tar and feather them or worse?
There is a movie out soon in the US, well I guess in some cities, it's already out-- Brokeback Mountain. It's about the same kind of situation with a different ending. Two people meet, fall in love, have sex, but can't be together openly because they are the wrong gender in the wrong lifetime. So they hide their love, get married to unsuspecting mates, even have children and meet when they can for the true passion of their life. The end result is what some would call just desserts -- tragic.
What is the logic that makes this such a fearsome issue to some? Most of it is religion if we discard the fear some heterosexuals have that it might be catching to have gay couples near them. I do not know a lot about other religions but know quite a bit about Christianity and the scriptures used to justify keeping apart those who would naturally go together. Sodom and Gomorrah strikes fear into the hearts of fundamentalists. It's a slippery slope and boy you start down that and next thing you know your own sons will be kissing their soccer mates.
Except what was Sodom and Gomorrah? Was it simply about homosexuals? Not in my opinion. It was a place of debauchery where men raped others, where they would have sex with anybody they could and violently was best. The men there would have raped total strangers (who just happened to be angels with the power to zap the whole community-- these were obviously also not discerning men) but settled for Lot's daughters who they would have instead raped. This is not about an Elton John situation where two men desire to go home together, fix dinner (well probably not fix it in his case), watch some TV, make out on the couch and then head for the bedroom-- if they make it that far. Was that offensive? Not if it's describing a man and woman to most but when it's two men, a lot of people think it would cause our whole world to be destroyed.
Oregon last year voted to ban gay marriage with a lot of other states doing likewise. I was in shock and still am about Oregon. I understood some of the states in the more conservative areas, but Oregon is the most or one of the most unchurched states in the US. Out here it's been live and let live and unless you hurt someone with what you do, we mind our own business... or we did. All it took was seeing same sex couples kissing happily in the courthouse, and ack! People rushed to mark their ballots-- no, no, no!
Yes, homosexual couples are not complete as in they cannot have an egg and hatch it like in March of the Penguins but not all heterosexual couples marry to reproduce. Gays can already adopt babies and in the case of women have babies by the method some heterosexual couples must use.
This spiritual fear is bad enough-- especially for those who would use Jesus as their excuse-- but it's equally irritating to me when it's done by politicians purely to gain power. It amazes me that someone would want to ruin other people's lives for power-- of course, it did work last year once again as it has so many times-- guns, gays and greed (I added the last one). Yes, there was more than one issue that cost John Kerry the presidency but with the margin as narrow as it was, I suspect a significant one was homosexual marriage being thrust to the forefront. Wonder who benefited from that as it frightened people into a stampede to vote against what they saw as a road to decadence and debauchery.
What the homosexuals are seeking in being allowed to wed seems to be a normal family life with the respect of the community that so many other couples can have with no questions. When my daughter got married, she said she was surprised how much it changed who they were in the eyes of others. By blocking gay marriage, are we saying only decadence is possible for homosexuals? That they are so beyond the pale that they might as well just give it up-- or marry an opposite sex partner and pretend for the rest of their lives. Frankly, by denying them respect for who they are, we are not helping ourselves either.
I read Andrew Sullivan's blog on this and it listed two reasons for allowing gay marriage. One is that the government should not ban or sanction activities that are not harmful to another person. Regardless of the laws, gays are going to have sex with the person they desire. Sullivan's blog brought up all the possibly damaged lives because of this fear of homosexual unions.
All government and the culture can do with their bans on marriage is try to make gays feel guilty and deny them normalcy. I am not saying a pastor should be forced to marry someone they feel is living in mortal sin, but there are churches that don't feel that way and many others with the license to marry.
The second argument for allowing gay marriage was that it would let homosexuals live a normal life instead of having to hide and live with guilt or worse with promiscuity because they feel that is their lot and there's no other hope for them.
Sure some of them get married and find out it wasn't what they expected-- welcome to the family. :)