Since Wednesday, there has been a lot of chatter regarding marriage in this country. The principle proposed by the pro "gay marriage" side is that you should be allowed to marry whomever you love.
What a splendid idea! This will solve so many problems, not only in our obviously bigoted American society, but in our Catholic Church as well. Many have noted the declining number of clergy in our parishes. Some of the more progressive elements in the Church have said that the ban on marriage among priests is one of the root causes. It is important to note that in our sexually liberated modern culture, we understand that life loses an essential joy without copulation. The past 1000 years of priestly celibacy combined with overflowing seminaries and rectories was, of course, a millennia-long fluke that has now self corrected.
And now since we have set the precedent that marriage can be re-defined, the solution stands before us:
Let priests marry each other.
Finally, we will have a solution to the problem of who will get the dying priest's property, since there is no way for a non-married person to go to legalzoom.com and make out a will.
Finally, we will have somebody who has the right to visit a priest in the hospital, since there is no other way they could make a list of people who could come and say hello.
And finally, priests will be able to share each other's insurance benefits. If a priest is a chaplain in the military and he is killed in the line of duty, his fellow priest will now get the widow's compensation.
Now, I already hear some narrow-minded people saying, "But the Catholic Church condemns homosexual sex as sinful. How can this be a solution." But as the arguments by people like our president have made, there is a separations between civil marriage and religious marriage. If there was not, then the president would not have said that he wouldn't force churches to marry homosexuals. (Of course, as Mark Shea pointed out, note how he said "wouldn't" instead of "couldn't") So the Catholic Church should simply have its priests engage in civil marriages. When this happens, they will have finally achieved the equality they have been lacking denied them by all of the haughty married Americans.
So what are we to do about the Church's condemnation of homosexual acts? Nothing.
The two priests will be married and not have sex. Statistically speaking, most of them will be heterosexual, after all. Again, I can hear the unsophisticated objecting, "But marriage is about romantic love!" Well, who made you the judge of what love is important?!? After all, LOVE IS LOVE! So two men want to get married because they have a deep and abiding friendship. Are you going to discriminate against them because they don't hold to your narrow, bigoted pointed of view as to what love should and shouldn't be? That sounds too much like the haters who opposed "gay marriage." They argued that marriage was naturally between a man and a woman because of the natural facts of procreation and family. But we were told that love was bigger than procreation. Well, if that is true, then love is bigger than sex! And marriage should be too.
In fact, we can now apply this principle to entire religious communities. Think about it. If marriage is such a good thing, whose definition is only improved by the expansion of it, then the more the merrier. Wouldn't it be great for a young lady entering the convent to not only not give up marriage, but on the day of her entrance, gain 30 spouses? And they will all live together and share benefits and visit each other in the hospital and enjoy other rights that would be denied them by the bigoted supporters of binary marriage. And this would of course include the raising of children.
Herein is another benefit to the Church regarding the declining numbers of priests and religious. Now that whole communities will be married, they should now adopt children and raise them in their rectories, convents, or monasteries. If one parent raising a child is enough, and two is an improvement, regardless of gender, then dozens and dozens of mothers or fathers should be even better. What a loving environment this child will live. And what kid would not like the peaceful accommodations, the chanting, the wool blankets, and of course Vespers! I haven't met a child who said that they hated Vespers.
Now I know that some of you are thinking that this would not be fair to the child because they will feel all kinds of pressure to grow up and be a priest, nun, or monk. Well, first off all, that is unsubstantiated view. Just because all of a child's parents live a lifestyle that is outside of the norm does, therefore, determine that the child will be oriented toward said lifestyle. Every single self-reported study from parents contradicts that, and there is no reason a parent should lie about how good of a parent they are.
Second, if this is such a big deal for some people, then they should encourage cross-gender adoption. There you would have priests and monks raising girls and nuns raising boys. That way, the children will be free of the pressure to be exactly like "Daddies" and "Mommies." Instead, they will grow, develop, and mature in an environment surrounded by communities of adults who have heterosexual attractions. What in the world could possibly be wrong with that?
So in conclusion, the expansion of marriages definition can only have positive benefits in our society, with absolutely no downside. People who do not see that fail to grasp that when something can be defined as anything, it essentially means nothing.
And we will never have to worry about marriage controversies again, because supporters of expanding marriage definitions will have achieved the ultimate goal:
Marriage means nothing.