I believe that you have made my point for me. Marriage, properly understood, is a reflection of the relationship between Christ, the Bridegroom, and His bride, the Church. That is, ultimately, why it is utterly indispensable. Homosexual “marriage” can never, ever reflect that. It is, at its root, antichristian. The demand for the recognition of same-sex “marriage” has little or nothing to do with civil-rights, persoal fulfillment or any of the other arguments commonly advanced. It is all about either the acknowledgement of the absolute necessity of Christ as the sole mediator between God and man, the facilitator of “companionship” between God and man or the utter rejection of Christ as in any way important to or necessary for the survival of the church and, by extension, of humanity as a whole. It is, at its root, profoundly and implacably anti-christian.
Venner’s concerns, however superficially laudable, appear to be wholly earth-bound and only coincidently congruent with those of God’s people.
You are right, I think, annalex, that his attitude seemed to have been more classical/pagan than Christian in origin. It would seem that he never fully grasped or considered important the full Christological significance of marriage as an institution.
Thank you for furthering this topic.
It is true that marriage is a model of both the bride-groom ecclesiology and also the Holy Trinity, where the third person, the child, is a necessary element.