Me too. The hysteria about gay marriage is wholly based on the false dichotomy that either marriage is preserved as it is today or the entire institution is rendered meaningless. I don't think that's the case.
If marriage was extended to gays (which I'm not in favor of, BTW) the institution would simply encompass another 3% of the population with little noticeable effect on anyone other than gays themselves.
My problem with gay marriage is two-fold. First, the debate around it is solely over the "RIGHTS" and never about the "OBLIGATIONS". If one is to hear from both pro and con the entire debate is over rights. Well, if that keeps up then the concept regarding obligations wil fall by the wayside and marriage will be looked upon both legally and socially as a granting of rights. Such a one-sided confering of rights upon certain parties is not tenable under our concept of equality under the constitution. The end result of this entire process will be the watering down and complete destruction of the concept that marrieds have obligations to the state. In addition to the focus on rights having the consequence of destroying the concept of obligations and thereby destroying marriage as we know it, the second problem I have is the "sacred" part that marriage holds in our social constructs and our laws.
The meaning of sacred is to "set apart". It has religious connotations but even under our social, political, and legal constructs we have "set aside" this notion of marriage. We say to the parties that this label is sacred. One of the things that makes it sacred is that the "entry fee" is restricted. Not anyone two people can be married. We have some standards about it. By removing the "entry fee" we begin the process of removing barriers that actuall set marriage apart and make it sacred. The end result of this process will be that the concept of marriage will no longer be sacred, it will simply be a legal contract.
The combined effect of my two concerns is that we have set the wheels in motion to remove the concept that marriage is first and foremost and obligation and is viewed by society as sacred. In the end, the gays will find that the very thing they sought is unatainable.
The solution in my mind, before this process degenerates marriage further, is to establish the concept of civil unions.
You do know that this is essentially the first words out of a seminar caller's mouth when they speak to Rush or Sean.
Absolutely no one is personally effected by gay marriage except the gay couples who marry.
Here is why I have troubles accepting the "I am a Christian" preamble. There is one true definition of "marriage", it was defined six days after the beginning of the Creation of the Universe. So it precedes everything man has to say on the matter. So since God said "One Man and One Woman", and you say that it can be "Two Men" or "Two Women" or "One Man and One Transgendered" you are doing the same thing as Eve in the Garden when she decided to add and delete words from God's Command. You have rejected God's Word and have proclaimed your definition of marriage to be greater than God's. So before there is even one gay "marriage", I can see at least one who has been "personally effected by gay marriage". You. You have used your free will to choose to hate the things of God and worship yourself instead.
The institution of marriage is much more at risk as a result of no fault divorce
Strange enough, divorce was permitted because the people were stubborn. In Matthew 5:32 Jesus Christ recognizes "divorce" and says that those who marry someone who is divorced commits "adultery" (which is condemned in the Decalogue). In Matthew 19:3 the Pharisees were challending Christ on the matter of "No Fault Divorce" (Hillel) and "porneia" divorce (Shammai). Divorce Enthusiasts will read Matthew and ignore Mark and Luke, but that still doesn't say that homosexual "marriages" are OK, since marriage is still defined as "one man and one woman".
This means that you have invented your own definition of "marriage". At that point we have nothing to discuss because we can't communicate because you prefer to redefine words that don't fit your sinfilled thinking. You talk about your private definition of marriage, and I will talk about God's definition of marriage. God's hasn't changed. Yours could because you hijack words to fit your purpose. So today you may define "marriage" as a partnership with alleged long term commitments. How about one man marries two men and three women? How about one woman marries one woman and a male dog? Since you have rejected the clear and absolute definition of marriage, I guess you can make "marriage" mean anything you want.