Sadly, in this country at least, we are far from being in a post-Christian world, unless you mean that we are because it’s not a theocracy.

This would automatically impose a two-tiered system of marriage. First, in which people receive a civil marriage before the eyes of the state–which would not sanctioned by the Church, and second, a sacramental marriage before the eyes of God which can only be obtained from the Church (and as long as it complies with Church teaching).

Guroian says that this two-tiered system might prove to be only temporary until the various denominations can get their respective ecclesiastical houses in order on the question of marriage (which would include divorce). Episcopalians and Unitarians could very well interpret this to mean that “homosexual marriage” should be allowed in their denominations, however, it is not a far stretch to assume that as more traditional denominations are on the rise in the Global South (Africa, Asia, South America) these more progressive churches will eventually implode due to their incoherent and chaotic theological doctrines and continued decline in membership.

By allowing the traditional churches to step back and define marriage for themselves according to the Scriptures and Tradition, and by separating sacramental marriage from civil marriage, religious bodies will be able to defend their “Christian self-identity.”

This, however, fails to solve the problem of cultural decadence which would inevitably result from allowing the state to continue to redefine marriage. Then again traditional Christians have to ask themselves, aren’t we already in a post-Christian world and with what institution should our loyalties lie, the state or the Church?

In which said lunch (and Palin) will be quickly digested, pooped out and flushed by the American voter.

And it used to be a marriage between a man and several women. Or between a man and woman, each chosen by their parents. In our part of the world, it’s not those things any more. Your first sentence is a fact. Your second one is an opinion, one that is fine.. if you’re defining it for yourself. A marriage is whatever it is in society at any given time, not one static definition.

What if parents never get around to deciding that topic? What if a parent fills the kid’s head with a bunch of disturbing lies and nonscientific, hateful crap? It’s part of the intricate cultural fabric that makes the tapestry of our society, not just private parts of the same kind touching each other. With the critics, it always comes down to the sex act. They think about gay sex more than gay people do , fer chrissake.

Palin is done…Huckabee will eat her lunch in 2012.

AS to the religious liberty, I don’t have time to get into detail, so take a look at this link that gives some examples of the problems.

You are totally off base about Bob. I admit he is not articulating his points well, but it’s not about threatening his sense of privilege.

For one, it is about what I talked about above. This concept is very difficult to fully explain here, but it has to do with the schools. Exposing kids to concepts about sexuality and sexual preference before they are ready is harmful.

Also, the idea that gay marriage weakens marriage is not about it weakening individual marriages. I am not sure I agree with the argument, but I have taken the time to try to understand it, at least.

Basically, marriage is a thing that exists. It is a union between a man and a woman. If someone suddenly decides to change the definition of the thing, it undermines the tradition. I am not a big traditionalist, so I have a hard time getting this, but it has nothing to do with harming individual marriages. It’s about the institution itself.

Although, I will say that politicizing the institution of marriage and reducing it in conversation to “two people who love each other” I think really cheapens it. It a heck of a lot more than two people who love each other. There is a lot more than love involved in having a successful marriage, which probably is why so many fail.

Religious liberty has not been violated, as no one is forcing churches to perform or even sanction gay marriages. The very concept that religious belief is so prominent in this day and age offends me, but I’m not trying to outlaw it. I hope I’m misunderstanding you, but it seems you’re coming from the point that allowing gay marriage is somehow violating someone’s religious freedom. Please tell me I’m wrong. I hope so.

“Tell me again where in the Constitution is says you have a right to have your lifestyle accepted. You certainly don’t accept my lifestyle.”

It doesn’t , but two things. It’s really demeaning to reduce gayness to a “lifestyle” as though it’s like drinking chai tea, feng shui or listening to jazz. It is who people are. You,having a gay brother should know that. Sure, I think your lifestyle borders on insanity, but I’m not trying to get people who claim to hear God or think Sarah Palin is bright committed to mental hospitals, entertaining as that might be.

What it comes down to, and what I take issue with in Bob’s “argument” (and calling it that is being generous) is that he pulls the typical tool out of the conservative toolbox- that of privileged victimhood to make it seem that somehow gays getting married is victimizing him. It’s bullshit, and I suspect you know it. Don’t tell me it’s not about intolerance. That’s exactly what it is, a textbook definition. He thinks gays are icky, and somehow his sense of privilege (heterosexual marriage) is being threatened by it.

But hey, at least we get gafftastic Joe Biden as the VP! I’m sure he is a geography expert.

Incidentally, did you know that Australia is both a country and a continent? I don’t think that Palin was unaware that Africa is a continent. If that accusation is true at all, she probably thought it was one country and the different countries were states or provinces or something. It’s not that big of a mistake. Well, you know, if Joe Biden made it, anyway.