When is a Sacrament not a Sacrament?

In their rush to be included everywhere that they are not, the Gay and Lesbian community, in the form of hysterical queen Perez Hilton and any number of advocates who are either gay or gay sympathizers, have pressed forward an astonishingly hostile and heartless assault on people who feel marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.

As offensive as a straight marriage can be (the very term "straight" is itself offensive.... apparently... I guess....) it has the benefit of having been lent some history. It's an institution that goes back for many hundreds of years. I will grant you that on the opposing viewpoint gays have been around for probably as long, but never in any cohesive form that an enterprising young Mulatto could whip into a political force.

But the prevailing attitude in the country favors the formerly disenfranchised and whether or not their arguments have merit is not a deciding factor. Simply having been against the last eight years of the same old failed policies (their words, not mine...) is enough to ensure that you will get treated far more fairly and equally than those conservatives.

So if being disenfranchised was such a bad thing, does it make sense that inflicting disenfranchisement upon others is a positive step toward reconciliation? Once again logical discourse falls on stupid ears.

You see, I have problems with two different issues lately. One affects me very personally because my son is 15 and has begun to sprout bodily hair at an astonishing rate, and so I am trying very hard to understand the modus operandi and the whole point of Lycanthropy. Let's face it... when you look at it, Werewolves simply do not make any sense at all.

What do Werewolves want? Why do they automatically attack others and disembowel them? Food? Not likely. Bloodlust? Granted, that would be protected under the current administration, but again, not very likely. So I can't understand what the hell is the point to being a werewolf.

The other problem is really more of an academic one as it does not affect me anywhere near as directly. I have one lesbian friend for whom I'm quite fond, and she puts up a compelling argument for Gay marriage based upon fact and logical progression.

Which of course means she would likely be ostracized by the rest of the gay and lesbian community.

Making sense after all is anathema to their approach.

So the idea of gay marriage mystifies me.

Let me explain it. Marriage is one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic church. Its function was for a way to formalize and provide a civilized form of approval over intimate relations in order to encourage reproduction. In the heady days before Anno Domini (heathens may prefer to Google that term...) people tended to get stoned with real stones for any little offence such as adultery. In fact it was so bad it reminds of the current political climate.

Anyhow, as I was saying, marriage is a sacrament. That kind of makes it a religious issue. Unions that occur under a civil circumstance I have no issue with. After all, that's just the government saying "sure, you can shack up... we don't care". But the government isn't God. And this is what pisses liberals off.

Because there is a God, and he/she/it/whatever doesn't have an interest in marriages that do not have a biologically ordained function (i.e, maintenance of the human race...) any union that occurs outside of the Church becomes roughly akin to two raccoons sharing a bed and a hot latte extra skinny. God really has had no say when having his words transcribed into text in the writing of the bible, as to the comings and goings of raccoons or other four-legged critters. In fact it is a matter of record that historically raccoons have only ever been invited to the kinds of parties that the cool kids DON'T throw, so they have very limited social lives.

My point is, the Church has no interest in gay marriage because it makes no sense to them. It's like me marrying a 1998 Plymouth Voyager SE... the parts don't fit together and after the first year or so the conversation begins to get a bit one-sided. People just don't have intimate relations with minivans or indeed, automobiles of any kinds (although the Prius is thought to be making inroads in this area....). Gay marriage will not result in children being born. Therefore it has no bearing on the church.

Now the argument that gay people have feelings to is not something I'm unsympathetic to. Apart from my previously mentioned shallow nephew-in-law, I believe that gay people have the same types of feelings anyone else does. This includes a strong desire to be united under the law.

But I take the same viewpoint as noted Bi-Sexual actor John Barrowman (an excellent singer and a truly handsome man... y'gads... ) who last year got married in England. He was quoted as saying that he did not want a religious ceremony because why would he want to be married by an organization that does not accept his lifestyle. This is an honest and straightforward answer.
And I approve of it.

I only have an issue on the subject of religious gay marriage. It has no place in society, makes no sense whatsoever.

If the shrill histrionics of Perez Hilton are to be listened to, he has no desire to have anything to do with God or Church. He is offended by them and places more faith in the changing whims of public policy than in the gravitas of two thousand years of unchanging religious doctrine.

So why should he care if the Church doesn't want to med a Buick and a Lemur in holy matrimony?

And yet he does.

Y'see, that's three things I just don't get... but if I ever do start to understand Ms. Hilton I think it'll be a very cold and horrible day.

I'm Dr. Calamity and I approve this message.