Definition of Marriage

The definition of terms always determines the shape and conclusion of an argument, case, statement, or policy, assuming that it unfolds logically. Thus, the definition of marriage is the central concern in the debate about so-called gay marriage.

However, as soon as the issue is referred to as “gay marriage” its definition is influenced by the preposition “gay.” To consider “gay marriage” at all is to assume that there are various types of marriage, “gay marriage” being one of them. But such thinking contradicts common dictionaries, common traditions, common practices, common law, and common sense.

To define a thing requires going to its root or genesis. Where did the thing come from? What is its purpose? What has been its history? And lastly what is the common understanding of the thing in contemporary society?

Marriage finds its origin in the Bible. Of course, people are free to disregard the Bible, but in doing so they disregard the historic traditions of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and the foundation of America’s legal system (at least its first 200 years). In the United States the combined adherence of these religious traditions represents a very healthy majority opinion, should majority opinions count for anything in America. So, if this majority is to discuss the issue of “gay marriage,” they should call it by its biblical and historic name — sodomy.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines “sodomy” as “1. Anal copulation of one male with another. 2. Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex. 3. Copulation with an animal.” The same dictionary defines “sodomite” as one who engages in sodomy. The long history of sodomy is dark and full of deceit.

To engage in sodomy is to use a thing (sex) in a manner that is contrary to its fundamental purpose (procreation). Sodomy, then, has no social purpose or function. It is simply an activity of personal sexual self-gratification. And consenting adults are free to engage it in the privacy of their own homes, unless they claim biblical fidelity or children are involved.

The purpose of biblical — and, therefore, traditional — marriage, on the other hand, is procreation within families. Thus, the normal product of marriage — family — has been called the cradle of civilization. Children are best raised in healthy families composed of a mother and a father (to provide a balance of normal sexual role models) who have covenanted together in the promise to remain together for life for the sake of the betterment of their children and their society.

How does biblical marriage contribute to the betterment of children and society? By modeling normal (procreative) sex roles, representative government and the importance of the integrity of social contracts.

Biblical marriage, however, is not merely a social contract between two people. It involves a contract with God, who forbids sodomy. Similarly, civil marriage (a relatively recent invention) involves a contract with the state. The state is a party involved in civil marriage because the state claims an interest in the welfare of families.

But does the state have an interest in personal sexual self-gratification? Recent court decisions have already redefined the family in an attempt to legitimize sodomy. But what interest does the state have in sodomy, since by definition it cannot produce offspring? Does the state consider sodomy a legitimate form of birth control? Does the pursuit of happiness guarantee the right to engage in sodomy? And if so, why should children be exempt from such a right? Does the state have the right to undermine and destroy traditionally biblically-based families?

Families are biologically related social units. Of course, adoption is a legitimate element of family constitution, but it is the exception rather than the norm. Definitions ought to be based upon norms, while allowing for exceptions, and not based upon exceptions to the norm.

To accept state sanctioned sodomy will drive a serious wedge between biblical government (instituted in part through families) and civil government that will have very serious consequences for society because at the point that the state legitimizes (encourages) sodomy the majority of citizens (those claiming adherence to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and the historic foundation of the American legal system) will find themselves in an irreconcilable disagreement with their own government. They will be threatened by the fact that their government will actively and intentionally undermine and destroy the very foundations of biblical society — the biblically defined and regulated family.

It almost appears that someone’s behind-the-scenes strategy is to cause the American people such distress with their government that they will abide the dismantling (or redefining) of the Constitution. Sodomites have always been political pawns in the game of dismantling nations.

The problem is not the Constitution, but the ongoing failure to abide by it. Similarly, the problem is not the legal definition of marriage, but the failure to abide by it. More broadly, the problem is not the traditional biblical perspective, but the failure to abide by it.

Welcome to the age of American anarchy.

2 comments for “Definition of Marriage

  1. August 17, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    While the debate rages, it misses the central issue — jurisdiction. What jurisdiction has the authority to define marriage? To give that jurisdiction to the state (civil government) is to take it away from God (church government).

    The issue is not whether same sex couples have the right to marry. The issue is whether the federal (civil) government has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case and define marriage. Regardless of the outcome, if the Supreme Court is allowed to dictate marital definition, it will ignore and deny God’s historic and central role in marriage. And that will be a tragedy of biblical proportion.

    Marriage is not between one man and one woman, but is between God and one man and one woman — always has been and always will be. The church has either abrogated its authority in this matter or the state has usurped the authority of the church. But in any case, to have the federal government define marriage will be a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

    However, that argument is not likely to get much traction in federal court because the precedent of such violation has already been set through tax law. When churches submit to the 501(c)(3) tax status, they put themselves under the jurisdiction of the state. It’s hard to understand how people don’t see this, except that it is all terribly threatening.

    –http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2010/08/liberty_counsel.html

    This issue breeds confusion because of the jurisdictional confusion at its root. The issue is not whether gays have the right to marry, but whether the state (read: federal government or Supreme Court) has the jurisdiction to define marriage.

    If it is determined that it does, it must usurp that authority from God, who is the originator of marriage. Never mind that the that church has long ago abandoned this responsibility and given it to the state, because the church does not have the authority to abandon it.

    The confusion comes because marriage is not between one man and one woman, but is between God and one man and one woman. The only interest that the state has is that marriage produces citizens. Prior to the state usurpation of the authority to marry, marriage was in the jurisdiction of the church. That usurpation by the state is a violation of the separation of church and state.

    If the state is allowed to define marriage it will write God out of marriage, which will be equivalent to a kind of divorce from God, or the formal breaking of God’s covenant with man. And this will not be a good thing. God will frown on it.

    –http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2010/07/us_judge_gay_ma.html

    Resource: How To Witness to Gays

  2. August 17, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    It is not that the straight church forces people to choose between their sexual orientation and God, but that God insists that everyone, straight, gay and eunuch, choose between their natural born orientation and Jesus Christ. Everyone is born with a natural inclination (preference, orientation, etc.) to sin, everyone. Therefore, homosexuality is not a greater sin than say, lying. But that does not mean that it is a small sin, rather it means that lying is as bad as homosexuality, which is as bad as murder. God doesn’t distinguish between sins, and neither should we. God doesn’t hate the sinner, He hates the sin.

    We must make that same distinction — between the sin and the sinner. And it is very difficult to do because we human beings tend to identify ourselves with our desires and preferences. The glutton comes to understand himself as being a fat person, fatness is part of his or her identity, etc. But God says “no, that’s not true.”

    When it comes to sexual identity, this is even more difficult because of our intimate connection to our sexuality. I’m a man, you’re a woman. But God said that none of these things matter (Galatians 3:28) with regard to salvation. Traditional, straight Christians and their churches are terribly guilty of misunderstanding these things. But we must not compound one error with another.

    All sin is forgivable, save one — the unforgivable sin: “And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven” (Luke 12:10). [βλασφημέω — From G989; to vilify; specifically to speak impiously: – (speak) blaspheme (-er, -mously, -my), defame, rail on, revile, speak evil.]

    So, what is blasphemy, and why is it unforgivable? It is simple disrespect for God. We all know it intuitively, but like pornography it’s hard to define with words. So, I won’t try. Rather, let’s look at the results of blasphemy and work backwards. Blasphemy is unforgivable, so those who blaspheme are not saved. Why are they not saved, when God’s grace and mercy are sufficient for the most vile sinner? Because God’s offer of salvation is refused. And there are at least two ways to refuse it: 1) say “no.” 2) redefine salvation into something that God says it is not. This second way is tricky, because in doing this we might think that we are saved when we are not, like the Christians in Matthew 7:21-23.

    Unrepentant homosexuals, like unrepentant liars who call themselves Christians, are guilty of blasphemy because they claim salvation, but refuse repentance. They want to claim salvation and hold on to their sin at the same time. But there is no salvation apart from repentance, where repentance is defined by God in Scripture through Christ.

    It is for this reason that James said, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1).

    –http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/?p=388&cpage=1#comment-262

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *