How do supporters of so-called "same-sex marriage" define marriage?

[Gwendolen]

“Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between (adult) people called spouses that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union is often formalized via a wedding ceremony”

Wikipedia definition. This would be my civil definition of marriage, or something close to this. As I said on another thread, don’t think we should fight the “gay marriage” on the civil/political front until we at least make an honest attempt to clean up some more pressing issues that are undermining marriage and family, namely divorce, remarriage, cohabitation, etc.

My definition of the sacrament of marriage would be very different, and encompass the whole “male and female He created them, leave and cleave one flesh” concept.

 

[Student09]

I’m not sure if I agree yet. The very reason that we are having a ‘same sex marriage’ argument today is that christians failed to recognize and defeat the 20’s-60’s redefinition of marriage that took procreation out of the identity of the relationship.

In 1960, people would have utterly mocked you for saying that if you rationalize a contraceptive mentality (marriage divorced from procreation in identity), you will eventually lose any rational basis to oppose two gay men from ‘marrying.’ Nobody would have believed it. But here we are.

I will agree that I don’t see any direct path between ‘gay marriage’ and pedophilia or bestiality. But I really do think that once this is normalized, polygamy will be next. The signs are all there, and based on today’s Disneyized marriage definition, the restriction of it being between merely two people is just as arbitrary as the restriction that it be between one man and one woman.

I agree that procreation (the potential for it) should be part of the definition of marriage.

When you say “nobody would have believed it” (that gay marriage would follow on the contraceptive mentality) I think you strike at my discomfort with the slippery slope argument. It’s not that the slippery slope argument is invalid or implausible; however, I never found it convincing as a pro-gay non-Christian, and I don’t know any gay marriage supporters who find it convincing; rather, it’s an object of ridicule. What did eventually convince me of the Catholic view was reading Bl. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. From an apologetic standpoint, if our aim is actually to change people’s minds on the matter, I think it would be more effective to get back to the roots of marriage and the fullness of the Catholic definition than to try to convince same-sex-marriage supporters that if they are allowed to marry, the next step will be adults marrying children, etc. A positive approach as opposed to fear-mongering, even if the fears are valid.

That’s what I was trying to say. Of course this is only my opinion based on personal experience and could be wrong. But I do sometimes wonder whether Christians who start debates like this about same sex marriage are actually interested in changing the minds of the people who support it, or are only interested in finding new ways to insult them.

 

[manualman]

Well argued, Student. You have a point that people often forget that witness should be about persuasion, not righteous chest-thumping. But prophecy has always been a part of christian witness. Prophecy isn’t future telling so much as it is telling the truth about something people are unwilling to face up to.

You may not convince people right now with a prophetic argument about the fruit of ‘gay marriage.’ But the prediction becomes out there in the record, so that when it comes true, people start to reconsider. That’s beginning to happen right now with contraception and the prophecy in Humanae Vitae. A protestant author in First Things just last week admitted that Paul VI precisely predicted what would be the fruit of contraception (rampant infidelity, divorce, government coercion, objectification of women) and that track record made him consider for the first time the catholic argument he had long considered peculiar and irrelevant at best.

 

[Stephen168]

When you say “nobody would have believed it” (that gay marriage would follow on the contraceptive mentality) I think you strike at my discomfort with the slippery slope argument. It’s not that the slippery slope argument is invalid or implausible; however, I never found it convincing as a pro-gay non-Christian, and I don’t know any gay marriage supporters who find it convincing; rather, it’s an object of ridicule.

It is the ridicule and name calling we are trying to defend ourselves from.

But I do sometimes wonder whether Christians who start debates like this about same sex marriage are actually interested in changing the minds of the people who support it, or are only interested in finding new ways to insult them.

That is why this thread was started. Same sex supporters ridicule the ancient, rational, consistent understanding of marriage supported by the Catholic Church, YET they seem to have no rational definition of marriage to support of their own.

 

[livingwordunity]

“Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between (adult) people called spouses that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union is often formalized via a wedding ceremony”

Marriage has always universally been defined as between a man and a woman until just recently being challenged by politically motivated “gay” activists. The only cultural variation of marriage in human history has been forms of polygamy which still involve heterosexuals. Wikipedia is wrong for only focusing on the past 10-30 years for its definition of marriage while ignoring the rest of human history and ignoring the fact that the original definition of marriage was one man and one woman. We Christians recognize this first marriage as being between Adam and Eve, a marriage that was brought together by God. We are here because of this historical definition of marriage without which the human race would have gone extinct. We can’t as Christians believe that God is the one who made marriage as Adam and Eve and at the same time believe that another kind of “marriage” invented by man is just as good. God knows best, and he gave us Adam and Eve as our model for marriage.

 

[Student09]

You may not convince people right now with a prophetic argument about the fruit of ‘gay marriage.’ But the prediction becomes out there in the record, so that when it comes true, people start to reconsider. That’s beginning to happen right now with contraception and the prophecy in Humanae Vitae. A protestant author in First Things just last week admitted that Paul VI precisely predicted what would be the fruit of contraception (rampant infidelity, divorce, government coercion, objectification of women) and that track record made him consider for the first time the catholic argument he had long considered peculiar and irrelevant at best.

That’s a good point. I guess it’s just a matter of when and how to say it. Thank you for your thoughtful contributions to the discussion.

It is the ridicule and name calling we are trying to defend ourselves from.

I don’t think we should be in the defensive on this issue. We have the fullness of truth. Those who ridicule the Church may feel superior, but in fact they need something from us and it’s our responsibility, having received the gift of faith, to do what we can to facilitate its reception by others. That’s best done by charity and by a willingness to listen, genuinely listen, to the arguments of those who disagree with us. It’s OK to concede points to an opponent; in fact one ought to when possible.

I think I’ll respectfully bow out of this discussion now. God bless.

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t think we should be in the defensive on this issue. We have the fullness of truth.

I’m not defensive at all, because we have the truth. The Church has called us from the beginning to defend the truth, many have died for it.

Those who ridicule the Church may feel superior, but in fact they need something from us and it’s our responsibility, having received the gift of faith, to do what we can to facilitate its reception by others. That’s best done by charity and by a willingness to listen, genuinely listen, to the arguments of those who disagree with us.

Again, the purpose of this thread is to listen. Listen to what the same sex marriage supporter’s definition of marriage is.

It’s OK to concede points to an opponent; in fact one ought to when possible.

Only if it is true; otherwise it would be a lie to call a lie the truth.

I think I’ll respectfully bow out of this discussion now. God bless.

Maybe some day the truth will mean enough to you that you would be willing to defend it.

 

[Hokomai]

I think Catholics, instead of criticizing other people’s definitions, should be defending their own, and loudly proclaiming in the midst of the debate on same-sex marriage that marriage outside the Church for baptized people is not in the definition of marriage, or for divorced people of any belief, or for people who do not intend to have children, and so on. The Catholic definition, if actually stated, would probably be more widely opposed than same-sex marriage.

 

[BodiBatt]

That’s one of the guns they stick too yet if you mention that using their own logic one can justify adult-child relationships or incest relationships then you are “sick” and that’s “disgusting”. Why? They all are wrong and fall way short of the law of marriage so who are the progressives to “deny” pedophiles out there if they find willing underage kids (if its consensual than who cares right?) But their hypocrisy and double standards won’t allow them to accept that. Those are all still wrong and sick but homosexual relationships are ok because it’s two adults who love each other. Ignore the fact that that kind of relationship falls into the same depravity as my other suggestions. We’ll just pretend that never happened.

Yeah, it’s just like how when the laws were changed so that just being gay and performing gay acts (like going to gay bars or having gay sex) were no longer legal, the very next day pedophilia was legalized.

Oh wait, that never happened.

That’s actually the argument that was used during the women’s suffrage movement, you know. Oh, let WOMEN vote, what’s next, we’ll be letting 5 year olds and animals vote! If we extend this right to women, then all of a sudden every kook will come out of the woodwork demanding rights for THEIR pet group of people.There were lots of parody essays from that time perioc making fun of how women’s suffrage would surely lead to animal suffrage or baby suffrage.

Yet after a century of women voting, we’ve yet to see the legalization of turkeys and toddlers voting.

Funny thing, that.

Why would letting homosexuals marry lead to children being allowed to marry? We don’t let children do the things adults do because they are children. Is there a big push to allow children to volunteer for the army, now that openly gay people can do so? If Saudi Arabia suddenly starts letting women be allowed to drive, is your contention that the only possibly conclusion is that ten year olds will start being allowed to drive?

 

[Stephen168]

Funny thing, that.

Funny thing is you didn’t give us your definition of marriage. What is it?

 

[Publisher]

I think Catholics, instead of criticizing other people’s definitions, should be defending their own, and loudly proclaiming in the midst of the debate on same-sex marriage that marriage outside the Church for baptized people is not in the definition of marriage, or for divorced people of any belief, or for people who do not intend to have children, and so on. The Catholic definition, if actually stated, would probably be more widely opposed than same-sex marriage.

Friend…I think you hit on an important truth here…there would be an outcry of protest if those who do not fit under the Catholic definition of marriage were suddenly declared “not married”…nor would the vast majority of people want to be “burdened” with the “Catholic definition” of marriage since a large substantial group of adults are on their second and third marriages…also not “approved” by the Catholic church…civil divorce…even among Catholics is pretty constant across the board…yet the time and effort to curb the divorce and remarriage of adults pales in comparison of the time, energy and money to oppose same-sex marriage.

 

[Stephen168]

I think Catholics, instead of criticizing other people’s definitions, should be defending their own, and loudly proclaiming in the midst of the debate on same-sex marriage that marriage outside the Church for baptized people is not in the definition of marriage, or for divorced people of any belief, or for people who do not intend to have children, and so on. The Catholic definition, if actually stated, would probably be more widely opposed than same-sex marriage.

Supporters of same-sex marriage want to include same sex couples which would change the definition mankind had used since day one. Yet, they also what to exclude other people from marriage. We are just curious what this new definition would be that would rationally include same sex marriages but which would exclude pedophilia, polygamy, or incest.** I would assume that is why you missed post #9**;

 

[Stephen168]

Why would letting homosexuals marry lead to children being allowed to marry? We don’t let children do the things adults do because they are children. Is there a big push to allow children to volunteer for the army, now that openly gay people can do so? If Saudi Arabia suddenly starts letting women be allowed to drive, is your contention that the only possibly conclusion is that ten year olds will start being allowed to drive?

Supporters of same-sex marriage want to include same sex couples which would change the definition mankind had used since day one. Yet, they also what to exclude other people from marriage. We are just curious what this new definition would be that would rationally include same sex marriages but which would exclude pedophilia, polygamy, or incest. I would assume that is why you missed post #9; or provide your own definition.

 

[interestedman]

Supporters of same-sex marriage want to include same sex couples which would change the definition mankind had used since day one.

Really? Maybe it wasn’t day one, but pretty close after that Abraham’s marriage didn’t seem to fit into your definition of marriage.

 

[Stephen168]

Supporters of same-sex marriage want to include same sex couples which would change the definition mankind had used since day one. Yet, they also what to exclude other people from marriage.

Really? Maybe it wasn’t day one, but pretty close after that Abraham’s marriage didn’t seem to fit into your definition of marriage.

You don’t know my definition of marriage, if you did you would know I would have no problem with Abraham’s marriage.

2 people that love and care for each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together.

It seems like you would have a problem with Abraham’s marriage. Because you didn’t provide a purpose for marriage, you limiting it to two people seems arbitrary.

 

[interestedman]

Because you didn’t provide a purpose for marriage, you limiting it to two people seems arbitrary.

What about someone who can’t have kids for some biological reason? They can’t get married according to your definition?

 

[Stephen168]

Supporters of same-sex marriage want to include same sex couples which would change the definition mankind had used since day one. Yet, they also what to exclude other people from marriage. We are just curious what this new definition would be that would rationally include same sex marriages but which would exclude pedophilia, polygamy, or incest.

What about someone who can’t have kids for some biological reason?

2 people that love and care for each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together.

Are you saying that the two people can be sterile by design?

They can’t get married according to your definition?

Again, you don’t know my definition of marriage. I’m trying to understand yours.

 

[interestedman]

Are you saying that the two people can be sterile by design?
Again, you don’t know my definition of marriage. I’m trying to understand yours.

So stop beating around the bush. What is your definition of marriage?

What do you mean can someone be sterile by design? I know that some people are born sterile for some reason or another or end up sterile due to injury or even menopause.

 

[Stephen168]

What do you mean can someone be sterile by design? I know that some people are born sterile for some reason or another or end up sterile due to injury or even menopause.

I didn’t say someone, I meant the relationship is sterile by design. Same sex unions and pedophile unions are sterile by design. Should those relationships be included in your definition of marriage?

 

[interestedman]

I didn’t say someone, I meant the relationship is sterile by design. Same sex unions and pedophile unions are sterile by design. Should those relationships be included in your definition of marriage?

What is your definition of marriage? You sit here and try to attack my definition and refuse to give your own.