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”