Marriage has *always* been changing

[catholic1seeks]

Well, it’s pretty clear what it’s about throughout human history. You don’t’ seem to want to believe or accept it.
Just because a society tears down a historic belief, doesn’t make it justifiable. Many cultures thought they could re-write morals. Think “Roman Empire”. Look what happened to them. And they had plenty of dissenting opinions about marriage and sexual exploits.
I wasn’t talking about doctrine either, BTW.

I will use this post to respond generally.

What is clear is that marriage has historically been a male-female bond able to result in children. I am not denying that. I* believe* that; it’s obvious.

My initial concern in this thread was a certain argument often used when people talk about the definition of marriage – concerning what marriage really is, how same-sex unions make marriage something it really was never meant to be, etc. This argument often goes like: “We can see what true marriage is like by looking throughout all times in the past and throughout all cultures of the world.” But I see this at being a rather simplistic argument because the only similarity is the fact that men and women get together to have babies. That is the biological fact. Most people do this because their brains tell them to (i.e., most people are attracted to members of the opposite sex). An analogy I can think of is as if someone were to say “We can know what true photography is supposed to be like because throughout time, photos have been black and white.” This description of photography is simplistic and fails to see the various differences and uses of black and white photography. In addition, that an individual observes nearly all photos to be in black and white is due to the fact that that was common in the past. When people approach the idea of the universality of the institution of marriage in this way, they do not really take into account notable distinctions in how the institution has been expressed. Moreover, they consider marriage as always having been between a man and woman without considering the fact that this is just the natural and obvious result when the vast majority of guys are into the girls and the vast majority of girls are into the guys.​

 

[DanielJT]

I will use this post to respond generally.

What is clear is that marriage has historically been a male-female bond able to result in children. I am not denying that. I* believe* that; it’s obvious.

My initial concern in this thread was a certain argument often used when people talk about the definition of marriage – concerning what marriage really is, how same-sex unions make marriage something it really was never meant to be, etc. This argument often goes like: “We can see what true marriage is like by looking throughout all times in the past and throughout all cultures of the world.” But I see this at being a rather simplistic argument because the only similarity is the fact that men and women get together to have babies. That is the biological fact. Most people do this because their brains tell them to (i.e., most people are attracted to members of the opposite sex). An analogy I can think of is as if someone were to say “We can know what true photography is supposed to be like because throughout time, photos have been black and white.” This description of photography is simplistic and fails to see the various differences and uses of black and white photography. In addition, that an individual observes nearly all photos to be in black and white is due to the fact that that was common in the past. When people approach the idea of the universality of the institution of marriage in this way, they do not really take into account notable distinctions in how the institution has been expressed. Moreover, they consider marriage as always having been between a man and woman without considering the fact that this is just the natural and obvious result when the vast majority of guys are into the girls and the vast majority of girls are into the guys.​

I understand your qualms with the argument. As you said in your original post, the argument that marriage has historically been male and female is “simplistic”, and would not hold in court, as we have already seen.

The problem here is how you are framing your argument. You are saying that marriage has been a historic and social construct based on a biological trend. According to this way of thinking, over the passage of time, it society changes then the construct should be able to change as well.

In other words - society’s view + biology = marriage

But this argument needs to be reframed in order to approach truth. Society did not make marriage because it saw a trend amongst its members (most men like women and vice-versa). What happened was that the biology of human beings made it possible for a stable society to develop. Men and women followed their biological urges, created a family, and from that grew a society.

In other words - biology + marriage = society

Society sprang forth from the natural family. In attempting to redefine marriage according to society we are flipping the equation on its head. Society does not get to define marriage, because it is marriage that originally defined society. Society is the outcome, the final product.

To allow the product or final result to change or affect the mechanism that brought it about in the first place is to pull the carpet out from under the whole thing.

If you look further into how marriage has “changed” though out history you will also see how that society functions reflected in whatever kind of marriage was taken on at that time and place.

Polygamy is about building and maintaining power, and polygamous cultures often suffer from tyrannical rulers.

You mentioned that Paul was in a patriarchal society, but what you fail to see is how Paul is trying to redefine patriarchy through marriage. He does declare man the head of the household and the woman should respect him, but Paul also states that the man must give his entire life for the good of his wife and the family. Being the husband is not a position of power to Paul, but rather a position of great responsibility and leadership through service.

It is true that, historically, the majority of people have been attracted to the opposite sex. This may be simplistic, but it is important none-the-less. We were created biologically in such a way that a stable group could grow from it.

When we redefine marriage, we are stepping away from out natural and biological history that brought us together in the first place and redefining how our society will function, the values it will hold.

What I mean to say is marriage defines society. To turn that around is to step away from our natural inclinations and foundations of what it means to be human.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I understand your qualms with the argument. As you said in your original post, the argument that marriage has historically been male and female is “simplistic”, and would not hold in court, as we have already seen.

The problem here is how you are framing your argument. You are saying that marriage has been a historic and social construct based on a biological trend. According to this way of thinking, over the passage of time, it society changes then the construct should be able to change as well.

In other words - society’s view + biology = marriage

But this argument needs to be reframed in order to approach truth. Society did not make marriage because it saw a trend amongst its members (most men like women and vice-versa). What happened was that the biology of human beings made it possible for a stable society to develop. Men and women followed their biological urges, created a family, and from that grew a society.

In other words - biology + marriage = society

Society sprang forth from the natural family. In attempting to redefine marriage according to society we are flipping the equation on its head. Society does not get to define marriage, because it is marriage that originally defined society. Society is the outcome, the final product.

To allow the product or final result to change or affect the mechanism that brought it about in the first place is to pull the carpet out from under the whole thing.

If you look further into how marriage has “changed” though out history you will also see how that society functions reflected in whatever kind of marriage was taken on at that time and place.

Polygamy is about building and maintaining power, and polygamous cultures often suffer from tyrannical rulers.

You mentioned that Paul was in a patriarchal society, but what you fail to see is how Paul is trying to redefine patriarchy through marriage. He does declare man the head of the household and the woman should respect him, but Paul also states that the man must give his entire life for the good of his wife and the family. Being the husband is not a position of power to Paul, but rather a position of great responsibility and leadership through service.

It is true that, historically, the majority of people have been attracted to the opposite sex. This may be simplistic, but it is important none-the-less. We were created biologically in such a way that a stable group could grow from it.

When we redefine marriage, we are stepping away from out natural and biological history that brought us together in the first place and redefining how our society will function, the values it will hold.

What I mean to say is marriage defines society. To turn that around is to step away from our natural inclinations and foundations of what it means to be human.

But see, this is circular. Ultimately it is “marriage is a sexual bond between man and woman because man and woman form the sexual bond” And my observation is that man and woman form the sexual bond because most men and most women are heterosexual. Children naturally come from this bond, so procreation is naturally assumed into this definition of marriage. Children are the observed consequence of the male/female union that is impossible between male/male or female/female.

Perhaps we should not think of same-sex marriage as a re-definition in terms of making the old form null; rather, it is an expansion. Families come in all shapes and sizes; and to say that the familial expression that is heterosexual marriage is the proper expression is, I think, dependent on social interpretation of a biological norm.

As for Paul. There is no doubt that in Christianity, differences between man and woman mean something different than before as “there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, man or woman” (paraphrase). But to interpret Paul as only talking about sacrifice of husband for wife ignores the other passages of Paul that speak of woman coming from man and man being formed in God’s image, etc. Even if Paul did not have such a patriarchal view, the point would remain that in the past, there was a strong patriarchal view in the Jewish faith – as even you imply (since you say Paul was re-defining patriarchy).

 

[Jon_S_1]

But see, this is circular. Ultimately it is “marriage is a sexual bond between man and woman because man and woman form the sexual bond” And my observation is that man and woman form the sexual bond because most men and most women are heterosexual. Children naturally come from this bond, so procreation is naturally assumed into this definition of marriage. Children are the observed consequence of the male/female union that is impossible between male/male or female/female.

Perhaps we should not think of same-sex marriage as a re-definition in terms of making the old form null; rather, it is an expansion. Families come in all shapes and sizes; and to say that the familial expression that is heterosexual marriage is the proper expression is, I think, dependent on social interpretation of a biological norm.

As for Paul. There is no doubt that in Christianity, differences between man and woman mean something different than before as “there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, man or woman” (paraphrase). But to interpret Paul as only talking about sacrifice of husband for wife ignores the other passages of Paul that speak of woman coming from man and man being formed in God’s image, etc. Even if Paul did not have such a patriarchal view, the point would remain that in the past, there was a strong patriarchal view in the Jewish faith – as even you imply (since you say Paul was re-defining patriarchy).

So by your logic…

In 500 years people prefer to have a sexual bond with animals and most people enjoy having sex with their pets…therefore marriage is sex with animals.

The problem you are having is that you are redefining marriage.

You are calling pizza ice cream or at least saying ice cream is the same as pizza.

 

[catholic1seeks]

So by your logic…

In 500 years people prefer to have a sexual bond with animals and most people enjoy having sex with their pets…therefore marriage is sex with animals.

The problem you are having is that you are redefining marriage.

You are calling pizza ice cream or at least saying ice cream is the same as pizza.

Actually, that is not my logic. While I conceive that marriage is more than male + female for children, I do not thereby mean that marriage is defined by a union of a person and whatever that person is sexually interested in.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Actually, that is not my logic. While I conceive that marriage is more than male + female for children, I do not thereby mean that marriage is defined by a union of a person and whatever that person is sexually interested in.

Then what is it?

You seem to advocate it’s simply popular opinion.

Why is it hard to understand that our culture has decided to redefine marriage?

What limits are there in redefining words and who sets such limits.

My over arching point is that once you say “we can redefine marriage” then you open the door to marriage becoming whatever popular opinion seems it to be.

 

[Rau]

But see, this is circular. Ultimately it is “marriage is a sexual bond between man and woman because man and woman form the sexual bond” And my observation is that man and woman form the sexual bond because most men and most women are heterosexual. Children naturally come from this bond, so procreation is naturally assumed into this definition of marriage. Children are the observed consequence of the male/female union that is impossible between male/male or female/female.

Perhaps we should not think of same-sex marriage as a re-definition in terms of making the old form null; rather, it is an expansion. Families come in all shapes and sizes; and to say that the familial expression that is heterosexual marriage is the proper expression is, I think, dependent on social interpretation of a biological norm. .

Have you not noticed the anatomical and biological “pairing” of man and woman? That is not social - it is physical. On what possible basis can you argue that sexual acts have a role outside this pairing?

You may well ask “why do I desire sexual acts with one of the same sex”? But you know desire itself cannot be justification.

 

[DanielJT]

But see, this is circular. Ultimately it is “marriage is a sexual bond between man and woman because man and woman form the sexual bond” And my observation is that man and woman form the sexual bond because most men and most women are heterosexual. Children naturally come from this bond, so procreation is naturally assumed into this definition of marriage. Children are the observed consequence of the male/female union that is impossible between male/male or female/female.

This is almost circular because it calls for one thing which you latter allude to. “marriage is a sexual bond between man and woman because man and woman for the sexual bond which is ordered towards procreation.”

That last part, being ordered towards procreation, that is what builds society, and is what homosexual relationship can never have.

Perhaps we should not think of same-sex marriage as a re-definition in terms of making the old form null; rather, it is an expansion. Families come in all shapes and sizes; and to say that the familial expression that is heterosexual marriage is the proper expression is, I think, dependent on social interpretation of a biological norm.

Families come in all shapes and sizes because society allows for it. If society has not developed around the natural family, children that lost parents at a young age would be left to fend for themselves and most like would not survive.

You say that this traditional view of marriage is a social interpretation of a biological norm. But as I stated earlier, it is this biological norm which brought about the social environment in the first place. Before it was even called marriage, it was a man and a woman rearing the child that came from their relationship.

As for Paul. There is no doubt that in Christianity, differences between man and woman mean something different than before as “there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, man or woman” (paraphrase). But to interpret Paul as only talking about sacrifice of husband for wife ignores the other passages of Paul that speak of woman coming from man and man being formed in God’s image, etc. Even if Paul did not have such a patriarchal view, the point would remain that in the past, there was a strong patriarchal view in the Jewish faith – as even you imply (since you say Paul was re-defining patriarchy).

I hope to be explicit about this - just as God is the Father, the Pope is a man, so too is marriage patriarchal. But it is not a tyrannical patriarchy, not according to Paul.

I also want to point out the difference here in liberties of re-definition. Paul was re-redifining patriarchy in order to establish the marital relationship for what it was intended to be, a man giving his life to a woman and a woman respecting him for it. Part of this re-defining was to improve the whole of the community. What is happening in our age, what happened with the supreme court’s decision, was a re-defining of marriage to something it has never been and never really can be in order to appease the whole of the community.

Paul was looking to adjust the idea of patriarchy in a culture where men were abusing power. Paul did this in order to strengthen the core of society (family), thus strengthening the whole of society. The Supreme Court is looking to adjust the core of society in order to give power to an idea that is not in line with the society’s natural stability, which we see has grown out of the biological norm/necessity.

If you put the axle of a wheel in the center, it revolves forever. If you put the axle of the wheel anywhere else, it will wobble to its own destruction.