I don’t accept the premise. The marriage issue we’re talking about is not the religious sacrament, but the granting and execution of caesar’s “marriage” license. Two very distinct things. Where American churches went wrong is by agreeing to be the unpaid facilitators of caesar’s licensing scheme. The license has never been required for churches to perform the religious marriage ceremony and still isn’t.
Churches that act as caesar’s willing and eager agent should not be surprised when caesar expects them to practice roman morality.
There is and has been a very easy solution to this for the churches: stop acting as caesar’s agent for solemnizing “marriage” licenses! There is a very easy solution for Christians who object to caesar’s twisted definition of what is “marriage.” Refuse to buy the license! Those who have the bad sense to get caesar’s license can have caesar’s judge do the paperwork. The church is not required to be involved.
Imagine a young teen girl saying to her boyfriend while they are parking, “We can’t. I might get pregnant. I’m not on birth control.”
Picture a second scene. Two guys in a car also desiring sexual release on each other.
Are they the same? Similarities include a car, some kind of privacy, and a physiological drive toward sexual release.
The differences are huge. Different types of body, different urges, different potentialities.
Is it irrational for those differences to result in entirely different cultural approaches and involvements?
In fact, can you name one culture that actively promoted homosexual marriage so that our western governments would have had the thought: “Oh we better not do marriage licenses for guys and gals. Who knows when 2 guys will come in wanting their piece of paper, too?”
Would that have been a thought that would have been taken seriously in 1800’s America, 1500’s Europe?
This, RKBA, is a NEW thing. The only knowledge we have with cultures that practiced homosexuality is that it didn’t last, and it was a bad idea.
So, at what point would the Church have said to the culture, “we can’t go along with government involvement in marriage”?