Not What We Meant

Secular Marriage is an Empty Vanity

One of the arguments used to confront homosexual "marriage" is that it makes true marriage meaningless.  Just as the concept of the family has been so degraded over many years of secularism--to where two women living together with a budgie is regarded as a family--so the secular form of marriage is now null and void.  True marriage, actual marriage as defined and delimited and ruled by Holy Scripture continues.  But the secular state has lost its moral warrant and integrity to rule over it and administer it.  Marriage, in the secular realm, has been eviscerated and rendered meaningless.

Homosexual marriage advocates, who declared they wanted to enjoy the special and enduring bond of marriage, based their argument on human rights and anti-discrimination laws. The upshot is they have inadvertently destroyed the secularist notion of marriage itself.  Or, to put it another way, they have inadvertently clarified the inanity and insignificance of secularist "marriage".  This, we believe, is good news for Christians and the Christian Church in a tactical sense, because it widens the dichotomy between belief and unbelief.  The true face of Baal is revealed even more clearly.  The Kingdom of Christ is made more glorious.  The profane has become more profane; the Church is forced to make a clear stand upon Scripture.  Epistemological and spiritual self-consciousness of both secularists and Christians consequently is growing.

What is the latest fruit of secularist "marriage"?  The NZ Herald tells the story:

Travis McIntosh and Matt McCormick wrote their wedding vows yesterday, brimming with"nervous excitement" about their big day.  The Dunedin men will marry tomorrow, but their move has horrified gay groups.  The pair are heterosexual best mates.

Engineering student Mr McIntosh, 23, and teacher Mr McCormick, 24, will tie the knot to win a The Edge radio station competition and a trip to the 2015 Rugby World Cup in England.  Mr McCormick said from Auckland yesterday opposition to the wedding was understandable but the pair never intended to offend anyone.  "We are not here to insult anyone. We are here to do our own thing and travel our own path." Mr McIntosh said the wedding was not mocking the institution of marriage.

Right.  Glad we have cleared that up.  Actually, McIntosh is telling the truth.  What these two are doing is certainly not mocking the institution of secularist "marriage".  They are perfect exemplars of the perversion.  Secularist "marriage", after all, seeks to recognise human beings who "love" each other and want to live together.  And that's all.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  Consequently, under New Zealand's secularist marriage law, McIntosh and McCormick will be legally married, though they will not engage in sexual relations.  They will remain "just friends".

The pair said their wedding vows would touch on their friendship and recall their time playing rugby together at King's High School in Dunedin.  They were undecided if they would take hyphenated surnames and who would walk down the aisle. . . . Mr McIntosh said he thought the marriage would last at least two years.

Mr McCormick, a teacher at Musselburgh School, said the friendship began after the two met at Pirates Rugby Club in Dunedin when he was aged 6.  His family, like Mr McIntosh's, was excited about the wedding.  "They're backing us 100 per cent," Mr McCormick said.

Homosexual groups are outraged.  Those who had fought to be married, pressuring all their fellow secularists in Parliament to recognise homosexual "marriage", had no idea (apparently) what would be let loose from  Pandora's Box.

Despite the apparently innocent enjoyment afforded by the competition, local gay rights groups are "horrified" by the move, according to the New Zealand Herald. A "queer support" coordinator from Otago University criticised the union, saying it was an "insult", and that it "trivialises what we fought for". 

Nah, mate.  It's a perfectly consistent expression of what you fought for.  Secularist "marriage" makes human wilfulness the bedrock of their perverted institution, and we know, if we are not blindly obtuse, that the wilfulness of the human heart is legion, and takes many, many forms.  Secularist "marriage" is a meaningless oxymoron.  Secularism cannot produce nor sustain "marriage" as an exclusive life-long bond.  It inevitably breaks upon the shoals of human lusts and idiocies.

Like Prufrock, the homosexual marriage advocates are learning that winning the prize of homosexual "marriage" comes at the cost of making the institution meaningless.  And so the empty vanity of secularist "marriage" is becoming plain.  They are left gnashing resentful teeth:

“That is not what I meant at all;
That is not it, at all.”

Welcome to the depraved world of secularist "marriage".  Welcome to the world where the glory and honour of Christ consequently shines more brightly than before. As the darkness deepens, the light becomes more radiant.