Hi Yuyutsu,
government already registers marriages.

You're welcome to argue that they shouldn't, as indeed GY has tried to do in bit of politically pragmatic hairsplitting, but that's not the issue being discussed.

In the original post to this thread, I asked:

"I'm still waiting to have a really good explanation of what the "consequences" are for Christians in allowing homosexual couples to regularise their relationships as marriage?

Marriage isn't a Christian exclusive. Do Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, or other faith groups who also marry in a faith tradition similarly cause consequences for Christianity?"

This is the 49th post in the thread and nobody has answered yet.

Surely one of the very passionate people (presumably some of whom identify as Christian) who oppose marriage equality can give me a reply to those questions?

Dear Craig,

I'm neither a Christian, nor opposing marriage equality, hence I'm probably not the person to ask. Yet you did ask me in your last post, so I gave you my answer.

As this discussion is already raging, I just see it as an opportunity to dissolve one of the unnecessary government functions, one of too many. If the marriage-equality people are genuine, then they should not object, nor should Christians.

CM: "Do Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, or other faith groups who also marry in a faith tradition similarly cause consequences for Christianity? This is the 49th post in the thread and nobody has answered yet."

Craig, maybe no-one answered it yet because it was so obviously a logical fallacy to compare Gay pretences to "marry" with the actually parallel marriage traditions of such faiths beside Christianity. Your comparison makes no sense.

So there's a short answer. Further explanation could include reference to an apparently profound alienation among those Gays and fellow travelers who yearn to be regarded as somehow equivalent to an oppressed and victimised group, as if in some marginalised and stigmatised minority religion. That would reveal an ulterior, personal motive arising from deep insecurities on the part of those pushing the Agenda.

In fact, the typically lavish and highly publicised Gay celebrations of such make-believe unions, with so many brainwashed joining in the futile "best wishes", flowers, cakes, etc., all point to a new and contrived elite backed by the media and regime apparatchiks, hardly any oppressed victims. Their censorious and aggressive attacks do the rest.

Another reason your comparison has no steam is that misses perhaps the most important and positive aspect of actual marriage: the other non-Christian religions of your attempted comparison all celebrate a measure of success marrying adults of the opposite sex, in the hope that such marriage will produce the ideal and exemplary balance and dynamism of a true effort towards life-affirming harmony and propagation of the Species.

By contrast, a Gay imitation would be a sham or mockery of such genuine marriage, as in the mock wedding between the pederast-fascist and the kidnapped boy depicted in Pasolini's 'Salo'. Besides actual mockery, it would also in effect be a celebration only of a quite fundamental failure to effect that genuine achievement recognised in actual marriage since ancient practice, and across all ethnic, religious and class divides. May as well celebrate divorce, or even a failed heart bypass.

Celebration of failure would be only another sop to those who deem themselves "Too Big To Fail".

Interesting Craig, that other eastern religion you did not mention: Taoism.

Now there's a very simple and direct answer from a non-Christian faith which expresses quite succinctly my essential points in one beautiful ancient symbol, no written language needed.

//Now there's a very simple and direct answer from a non-Christian faith which expresses quite succinctly my essential points in one beautiful ancient symbol, no written language needed.//

I'll see your Yin-Yang, and raise you the past phi-thousand years of Western philosophy.

I still think gays should be allowed get married. Got any better reasons why not than groovy symbols?

TL: "I still think gays should be allowed get married. Got any better reasons why not than groovy symbols?"

Yeah, a frequently apparent smug flippancy, with shallowness and superficiality in arguing their case. Not all gays, of course - Pasolini for example wouldn't have entertained such nonsense for a minute.

Got anything better to contribute, or is it just more "Cos I wanna"?