One of the unintended, but real consequences of the acceptance of homosexual "marriage" is that the state will end up so inflating the concept of marriage that it will eventually become meaningless (at least in official parlance and practice).
Here is an example of the inflation to which we refer: The Guardian reports that a homosexual marriage campaigner is arguing that heterosexuals are going to be face discrimination in the UK--but not for reasons that you might expect:
Meanwhile, the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said that under the new law, heterosexual couples would have fewer rights than gay couples.He said: "Despite proclaiming that the legalisation of same-sex civil marriage is driven by the principle of equality, David Cameron is expected to retain the inequality of the current legal ban on heterosexual civil partnerships.This will leave everyone wondering what would be the difference between a "civil partnership" and "marriage". The answer, nothing. What's the difference between de-facto relationships and marriage and civil partnerships? Nothing--of any substance. It's only about style preference. Some people prefer to live in a town house, others a bungalow. What's the difference? Just style and matters of personal taste.
"Opposite-sex couples are legally prohibited from having a civil partnership and David Cameron intends to keep it that way. This will mean gay couples will soon have legal privileges over heterosexual couples. "There will be two forms of official state recognition for lesbian and gay couples: the present system of civil partnerships and the new system of civil marriages. Heterosexual couples will have only one option: marriage. They will be subjected to legal inequality and discrimination. This is very wrong. I support straight equality."
All of which reinforces a point made here previously: the imposition of homosexual "marriage" will take the next step to destroying the distinctiveness of marriage as a God-ordained and defined institution that it will increasingly become meaningless in the modern secular western world. This in turn will provide a wonderful opportunities to the Church to draw still more sharply the lines between Belief and Unbelief. Mere cultural Christianity is going to be less and less viable. The likely result will be, firstly a winnowing and reformation within the Church itself (a process now well underway), and secondly, a repentant return to God by thousands upon thousands. Why? Because within a few generations it will become clear that the way of Unbelief is the way of human degradation, suffering and profound unhappiness.
We also want to remind readers that we have made the point before that the watershed decision taken that began society's attenuation of marriage itself as far as Unbelief was concerned was the introduction of no-fault divorce in New Zealand in 1981. Now, thirty years later (roughly a generation) we are faced with the legal recognition of homosexual "marriage". Along this devolving journey marriage, in the mind of Unbelief, has become a progressively meaningless construct. But not to God, not to His ordination of the institution, and not to human beings. Rather, Unbelief is becoming more and more inhuman and inhumane.
It was not until the Prodigal Son faced up to the degradation of his life that he began once again to think longingly about his father's house. These are the things for which we should be praying as mad, febrile politicians attempt to lead us to their dystopian version of a Promised Land.