Gay "Marriage"

[Jac3510]

I'm curious as to what everyone's thoughts are on gay "marriage". (I'm giving away my own argument against it with the quotation marks, but I'll save further details for later.) I suspect that most of us here are opposed. I'm very familiar with the arguments in favor of it: it's a normal civil rights case. So I'd also be curious as to what you would or do say in response to that position as well.

As for the motivation for this thread, there are two:

1. Concerning occasion, you may or may not know that Proposition Eight supporters are on trial right now in CA to decide whether or not their religious views are "appropriate." That, by itself, is a MAJOR issue. It's truly a scary day when people are not allowed to vote according to their conscience. But rather than discuss the trial, I thought it would be far more beneficial to talk about the issue in and of itself:
2. Concerning the benefit, I have found most of the arguments against gay marriage to be completely non-persuasive. Yes, the Bible condemns it, but I have full sympathy for gay-rights advocates who reject that as a basis for legislation.

A final note, while I can't and won't say how you should or shouldn't respond, note that I placed this in the philosophy forum and not the political forum. I'm not interested in the politics of the issue. I'm interested in the underlying philosophy (even if it is religious) for the position you take.

My own argument, which I can flesh out later, is two fold:

1. Ontologically, gay marriage is not marriage, regardless of what it is labeled.
2. Teleologically, it logically forces us on a slippery slope to absolute Statism.

So again: what is your basis for opposing (or supporting, I guess) so-called gay-marriage?

[willevjas]

I say let them. I understand the bible calls homosexuality an abominable sin, but I see their sin as no different as two liars or two drunkards or two thieves getting married. It just gets us closer to the return of Jesus. Bring it on! P.S. I get what you are saying as not calling it "marriage" though. I must agree with you on that.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I'm still in the process of determining why I think homosexual marriage is wrong. I've been doing some reading here and there and found this gem from none other than Freud*:

It is quite conceivable that the separation of the ego cannot be borne for long either, and has to be temporarily undone. In all renunciations and limitations imposed upon the ego, a periodical infringement of the prohibition is the rule; this indeed is shown by the institution of festivals, which in origin are nothing more nor less than exesses provided by the law and which owe their cheerful character to the relese they bring.

Freud either ignored or forgot that God instituted festivals in the Bible as events of worship and thanksgiving...anyway, Freud continues,

The Saturnalia of the Romans and our modern carnival agree in this essential feature with the festivals of primitive people, which usually end in debaucheries of every kind and the transgression of what are at other times the most sacred commandments.

Freud is right in the second part: parties and festivals often degrade into debaucheries. Christmas office parties are one example. If a God-given festival can be perverted, why not a God-given institution like marriage?

FL

*S. Freud, Group Psychology and Analysis of the Ego, XI; A Differentiating Grade in the Ego.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I'm back.

Here's another gem from one who is not always a friend to Christians:*

The domestic relations are founded upon the natural reciprocity or intercommunity of the sexes.≠ This natural union of the sexes proceeds according to mere animal nature, or according to law. The latter is marriage, which is the union of two persons of different sex for life-long reciprocal possession of their sexual faculties.

Kant wrote the above in the late 1780's. Notice the words «natural union» and his definition of marriage being «the union of two persons of different sex» for a life-long relationship. Evidently, a person can be very smart - like Kant - and considered an oracle in his day, but if a writer were to put Kant's words on marriage to paper today, he'd be taxed as backwards. The Encyclopædia Britannica calls Kant «the foremost thinker of the Enlightenment and one of the great philosophers of all time...» Really?! read the footnote ≠ below that accompanied the text above. How many homosexual activists would be comfortable with this enlightened thinker today?

The more I examine this question Jac3510 asked, the more I understand how perverted our society is.

FL

*I. Kant, The Science of Right, Section III, Conjugal Right. (Husband and Wife) 24. The Natural Basis of Marriage.

≠ Kant continues in this footnote: Commercium sexuale est usus membrorum et facultatum sexualium alterius. This «usus» is either natural, by which human beings may reproduce their own kind, or unnatural, which, again, refers to either a person of the same sex or to an animal of another species than man. These transgressions of all law, as crimina carnis contra naturam, are even «not to be named»; They cannot be saved, by any exception or exception whatever, from entire reprobation.

[zoegirl]

From a matter of definition, if we are to consider granting rights to homosexuals because they are capable of the same love and commitment as heterosexual couples, then we have clearly redefined marriage as simply a relationship, involving sexual relationships between those who claim a love and commitment towards each other. In which case, it would only be right to establish that ANY set of sexual relationships between ANY set of people who love each other and are willing to be committed to each other can be called marriage.

AS such, we should legalize polygamy, group marriage of any kind...as long as they claim a love and commitment within a wedding ceremony or a "civil union" ceremony.

Critics of this claim that a "group" of people cannot love each other....and yet we are willing to give a license to plenty of couples who claim love and commitment. THere is, after all, no "love" test for marriage.

If we are open to changing the definition of marriage, then we cannot discriminate against any group that is willing to proclaim love and commitment.


I don't think people realize who opening the definition of marriage means...it is inherently unfair and contrary to the "rights" to now limit marriage to only couples.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

My own argument, which I can flesh out later, is two fold:1. Ontologically, gay marriage is not marriage, regardless of what it is labeled.

Regarding #1 above:

Agreed. «Marriage» is between two humans of different gender and nothing else. You may label a man/man* relationship a «marriage» but it remains something else. This isn't «just» the opinion of the Bible's Author but the opinion of all the «great thinkers» I've consulted on this question over the last week.**

Whoever goes in search of anything, must come to this, either to say that he has found it, or that it is not to be found, or that he is yet upon the quest. ***

I don't think very many people are interested in finding out what marriage is beyond what we think we know. Besides that, as Bavarian Wheels said on the other gay marriage thread, «...we heteros have probably desecrated the sanctity of marriage far beyond what adding a few more to the statistics would show...» indeed! not only are we poised to accept anything as «marriage» and see it as «good», we - paradoxically - support & understand divorce as necessary.

2. Teleologically, it logically forces us on a slippery slope to absolute Statism.

We have been on that slope for quite a while. Gay marriage is probably just one more deadweight added to our sled. And,

How much more docile and easy to be governed, both in the laws of religion and civil polity, are simple and incurious minds, than those over-vigilant and pedagoguish wits that will still be prating of divine and human causes?***

FL

*or man/animal or man/4 wives and any perversion you can think of.
**Aristotle accepts man/man and man/boy sexual relationships but does not call them «marriage».
***Montaigne, Essays II. 12

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
Do we not agree that there are different types of LOVE?

Agape - Unconditional

Eros - Sexual

Phileo - Brotherly

Can there not also be different types of MARRIAGE in the same thinking?
(Please understand that I see the Gay Marriage issue as a STATE issue totally void of religion.)

As Christians we have not made our marriages an Agape Marriage. Just look at the statistics of divorce among Christians. Some marriages are based upon an initial eros love and never began as "God inspired" in the first place. Have some survived this to become an Agape love? Is this any different to the place we are putting Gay marriage? Yet there's no HUGE controversy on this type of "eros" based marriage. (difficult to pinpoint as it may be anyway, yet the point, I believe, has some weight on the issue at hand)

It is my opinion that there can be different marriges (again, in the sense of STATE). There are those that are both Church and State endorsed, we could call these "Agape" marriges. Then there could be Phileo marriges that are simply State endorsed. There will be shadings and mixtures from Agaperos and Phileros marriages, but that's what we accept already anyway in "traditional" marriage now.

-I used "Agape" as the Christian endorsed marriage, this does not imply that a gay couple cannot experience agape love.
-I'm just throwing out an idea...I reserve the right to play with the details as I think more on it. Hope I made sense. =)
.
.

[Jac3510]

Do we not agree that there are different types of LOVE?

No, we don't.

Lust is not love. Love between a man and a wife is no different than the love between to friends or family members. The differences is not in love, for love is always love; the difference is in the relationship between the two individuals, and therefore, how that love is expressed.

Likewise, marriage is marriage. There are not different kinds of marriage. For people to think they can redefine the term is simply absurd. We can no more define "marriage" than we can "yellow." You can call "yellow" another name, but yellow is still yellow. You can call red yellow, but red will never be yellow. Now, let's put aside the Christian argument that God defined marriage as between a man and a woman (which should be enough for any believer); still more, that marriage is between a man and a woman is evident in reality itself, just as the wrongness of murder and the rightness of kindness are evident in reality itself. Biologically, male and female produce children. The purpose of sex is to produce children. Its byproduct is pleasure. We, in our perverted society, have reversed those two, making the purpose of sex pleasure and the byproduct children.

Likewise, the purpose of marriage is to produce a family. The byproduct is companionship. Again, in our perverted society, we have reversed those two, making the purpose of marriage companionship and the byproduct the production of the family. That misunderstanding, like the misunderstanding about sex, has been the source of much of society's ills.

Considering these two, we see that sex and marriage are absolutely intertwined in their fundamental purpose. Thus, we see that sex is only for marriage, and this is NOT a religious issue. It is a matter of pure reality.

"Gay marriage" doesn't exist. It is to marriage what lust is to love. Lust takes the pleasure of love and disregards its purpose and intent. It exists solely for itself. "Gay marriage" robs marriage of its purpose and intent and seeks solely marriage's biproduct: sexual gratification and companionship. By definition, gay marriage cannot embrace love or be based on it, for gay marriage is focused on the self rather than on the other, rather than on reality.

With that said, I don't see "gay marriage" as the problem. It is the symptom. We, as a society, lost the debate the day we accepted the idea that sex is really about pleasure with "the one," and that marriage is about companionship. Any gay or lesbian can do that. But that's not marriage. It's a perversion. It's lust lived out. Nothing more.

Further, it leads to statism.

The foundation of any society is the family (as the family is the basic unit and building block of society). The foundation of the family is marriage. If the state is allowed to redefine marriage to mean whatever it wants it to mean, then "marriage" as a concept is actually meaningless. Remember, any word that can mean anything actually means nothing! As such, the society that embrances "gay marriage" rejects the foundation of the family as being based in reality, but rather as being defined and created by the state. It follows necessarily that if the state defines the foundation of society, then the state cannot be based on society, but rather the society is based on the state. The state, then, is both prior and superior, and it is the state who decides to give us our rights.

In a very real sense, to be intellectually honest, to adopt gay marriage as a real possibility is to call the state God.

[BavarianWheels]

Do we not agree that there are different types of LOVE?

No, we don't.

Reading the first few posts (I'll go back and read it in more detail later) it seems the question there is CAN we experience/give Agape love...it doesn't answer the question I asked.

Lust is not love. Love between a man and a wife is no different than the love between to friends or family members. The differences is not in love, for love is always love; the difference is in the relationship between the two individuals, and therefore, how that love is expressed.

You're right, lust is not love. That's not my thought. It is simply how people perceive "love" in different ways, however I don't love my friends or family the same way I love my wife...as you mention the expression of love. So then it seems we do agree that there are differnt types of love. Agape love expresses love in it's most pure manner, where eros love expresses love of the touch, feel, sight...but this really isn't my point or the topic. I was simply stating that there are different 'loves'. Whether they are expressed, felt, or acted on.

Likewise, marriage is marriage. There are not different kinds of marriage. For people to think they can redefine the term is simply absurd. We can no more define "marriage" than we can "yellow." You can call "yellow" another name, but yellow is still yellow. You can call red yellow, but red will never be yellow.

I'm not trying to redefine marriage as anything different than what God might say a marriage is. I believe it is of no relevance when it comes to matters of STATE. I think you're missing this entirely. We do not live in a Theocracy that would then make this argument a religious point of contention. This government is doing all it can to remove God from itself. I believe Church and State SHOULD be separate. I don't think the STATE should decide what a "marriage" is based on the Christian belief through the Bible/God's Word. Just like there are State Grants and Private Grants. Sometimes certain institutions cannot get State Grants because of their purpose or whatever be the reason, yet they can still get Private Grants. A grant is a grant, but one is differnt from the other from where it originates and who is GIVING it. No one is trying to redefine "marriage". Hense the reason they try and use "civil union" among others.

Now, let's put aside the Christian argument that God defined marriage as between a man and a woman (which should be enough for any believer);

Who's arguing that, being Christians? I agree whole-heartedly.

...still more, that marriage is between a man and a woman is evident in reality itself, just as the wrongness of murder and the rightness of kindness are evident in reality itself. Biologically, male and female produce children. The purpose of sex is to produce children. Its byproduct is pleasure. We, in our perverted society, have reversed those two, making the purpose of sex pleasure and the byproduct children.

I'm not sure I agree totally with this. To believe this is to believe Adam didn't find Eve attractive enough to WANT sex.

Likewise, the purpose of marriage is to produce a family. The byproduct is companionship.

Not sure I agree totally with this as dogma either. Gen. 2:18

Again, in our perverted society, we have reversed those two, making the purpose of marriage companionship and the byproduct the production of the family. That misunderstanding, like the misunderstanding about sex, has been the source of much of society's ills.

Considering these two, we see that sex and marriage are absolutely intertwined in their fundamental purpose. Thus, we see that sex is only for marriage, and this is NOT a religious issue. It is a matter of pure reality.

I disagree. "Marriage" as we know it today, didn't exist in the Garden. There was no ceremony (that we are told about) and this "marriage" didn't come with any STATE advantages that the gay community is seeking for. It's purpose (Gay Marriage) is to gain the same STATE rights afforded married couples.

"Gay marriage" doesn't exist.

It does. I have a couple of friends that are "married". They just don't have the same STATE rights a traditional married couple have.

It is to marriage what lust is to love. Lust takes the pleasure of love and disregards its purpose and intent. It exists solely for itself. "Gay marriage" robs marriage of its purpose and intent and seeks solely marriage's biproduct: sexual gratification and companionship. By definition, gay marriage cannot embrace love or be based on it, for gay marriage is focused on the self rather than on the other, rather than on reality.

Again, I disagree for the same reasons mentioned already above.

With that said, I don't see "gay marriage" as the problem. It is the symptom. We, as a society, lost the debate the day we accepted the idea that sex is really about pleasure with "the one," and that marriage is about companionship. Any gay or lesbian can do that. But that's not marriage. It's a perversion. It's lust lived out. Nothing more.

To some extent I can agree here. However are you saying that no one should marry out of lust? There's no "love at first sight"? One cannot instantly know the person standing in front of them is their life-long wife/husband? Once again, this is assuming the gay lifestyle is a chosen lifestyle. I believe it is a perversion of life stemming from sin. I believe there are gays that are genetically "gay" as a result of the perversion of life due to sin. (and there are those that choose it as one would an article of clothing to 'say' something)

Further, it leads to statism.

From Dictionary.com - I'm not as learned as most of you. I need help understand a lot of things here at EGS.
1. the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.
2. support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying to give in to gay 'marriage' is to lose individual liberty? I'm not sure at all what you mean by this.

The foundation of any society is the family (as the family is the basic unit and building block of society). The foundation of the family is marriage.

Agreed

If the state is allowed to redefine marriage to mean whatever it wants it to mean, then "marriage" as a concept is actually meaningless.

I disagree respectfully. The point is not to redefine marriage. The point is to redefine WHO all get the perks of a 'marriage' from the STATE.

Remember, any word that can mean anything actually means nothing! As such, the society that embrances "gay marriage" rejects the foundation of the family as being based in reality, but rather as being defined and created by the state. It follows necessarily that if the state defines the foundation of society, then the state cannot be based on society, but rather the society is based on the state. The state, then, is both prior and superior, and it is the state who decides to give us our rights.

In a very real sense, to be intellectually honest, to adopt gay marriage as a real possibility is to call the state God.

I had a thought here, but it escaped me...maybe I'll think of it in a bit. =)
.
.

[zoegirl]

Jac,

One point that I might ask you to clarify or to quibble about.

I will turn 39 soon. Even if I meet the man I will marry tomorrow, realistically it would be two year from now that I would marry. The women in my family start menopause early.

I would in all probability never have a family. (I am certainly not discounting acts of God, but on the whole, if we look at age and fertility, I will not have children).

So, considering that you have stated that the purpose of marriage is to have a family and the purpose of sex is not bear children, should I not marry? I cannot have children (or will not in all likelihood when I marry). It is, after all, the logical conclusion from your statements. The purpose of marriage, sex is to bear children/create family. I can do neither, so I shouldn't get married.


From what I have learned/heard, marriage, although an instituion to create families and produce children, is to love/cherish/commit to the other person. To develop that relationship as Christ with the church.

In other words, I don't think we can separate the two functions as "primary" or "byproduct".

Just some thoughts.

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
Zoegirl, I don't know how Jac will answer, but as you may already realize, it is my opinion that Gen. 2:18 answers this for you and I would assume most every woman or man, no matter what age, dreams of a certain someone that throughout life, will always be by their side physically, emotionally, and spiritually.

Who is it that counsels the men to marry if they can't control their urges?? I can't find it off hand. Does this go against what Jac has stated above?
.
.

[Jac3510]

Zoe,

The short answer is that there is nothing in my position that would say that a person should not marry who cannot have children. Remember that I am making an ontological, not a practical, argument for the definition of marriage. I am talking about what it is, not what it achieves. Let me give you an example not related to marriage so the distinction is clearer.

Why is it wrong to murder? Most would answer that it is wrong because it hurt someone else. In other words, they are appealing to the results of the action to decide that it is wrong. But when you put it that way, it becomes immediately obvious that something is wrong with that idea, because we all know that the end doesn't justify the means (either positively or negatively). There are a whole host of problems with teleological ethics (that is, those that determine the rightness or wrongness of an action based on result) that I won't go into here. In reality, you either have to say that murder is wrong in and of itself (perhaps because God commanded it, which would be a deontological system) or that it is inconsistent with God's character in that it is an action rooted in hatred (which would be virtue ethics, which I think is correct).

Notice that murder is wrong because of what it ontologically is, not because of its harmful effects. However, does that mean that its effects are not important? Of course not! The effects are very important. Murder causes much pain. I am just saying that the pain that it brings about is not the cause of its wrongness.

Thus, we see that there is a distinction between what something IS and what something PRODUCES. So with that distinction in mind, let's return to my argument about the purpose of marriage and people who cannot have children.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman (ontology) because the purpose of marriage is to produce children, and the union of a man and a woman is the only means by which children are produced (teleology). It does not follow, however, that if a man and woman cannot have children that they cannot be married. Just because a marriage does not fulfill its primary purpose does not mean it is invalid. If I buy a car and never drive it, is it still not a car?

But then why cannot the gay couple make the same argument? Can they not say that they are not in the same boat as you? No. For the reason you cannot have children and they reason a gay couple cannot have children is fundamentally different. Even if you were barren from birth, it would be fundamentally different. Gay couples cannot have children because they do not have biological design to produce children. Notice the intent there! You and a man do, even if in your case, that design is frustrated by whatever reason.

As such, we see that gay "marriage" and heterosexual marriages that do not produce children are different on a fundamental level. Your bodies fit the intended design for the purpose of marriage, even if there is . . . how shall we say . . . equipment failure. Their bodies do NOT fit the intended design for marriage, and thus, cannot in any way begin to meet the basic requirements for marriage.

Put simply: even in your old age, your marriage is theoretically capable of fulfilling its intended design. Theirs is not, and thus, the difference.

With regard to your final point, while marriage can certainly teach us a lot about our relationship with Christ, and while it may ILLUSTRATE His relationship to the Church, there is no basis for saying that is its fundamental purpose. We do see, however, that marriage is the foundation of the family and the means by which it is produced. That God can use that primary institution to teach us something about Himself tells us something about God, not about the institution itself.

[zoegirl]

I getcha....I agree....

I would still say; however, that they two purposes don't have to be in some sort of hierarchy...

For example, it certainly is not in God's purpose to have a loveless marriage, simply because you fulfill the purpose of having children. It certainly isn't a business relationship.

I'm not sure we can tease apart the purposes and say this purpose is the primary.

[Jac3510]

Bav,

Reading the first few posts (I'll go back and read it in more detail later) it seems the question there is CAN we experience/give Agape love...it doesn't answer the question I asked.

Read my responses in particular. There is no distinction between agape and phileo in the Bible. That distinction may make for good preaching, but it's just wrong.

You're right, lust is not love. That's not my thought. It is simply how people perceive "love" in different ways, however I don't love my friends or family the same way I love my wife...as you mention the expression of love. So then it seems we do agree that there are differnt types of love. Agape love expresses love in it's most pure manner, where eros love expresses love of the touch, feel, sight...but this really isn't my point or the topic. I was simply stating that there are different 'loves'. Whether they are expressed, felt, or acted on.

Eros, which does not appear in the Bible, is better rendered lust than love. You said that was another view of love. I am offering you a more precise explanation.

Next, you are confusing the expression of love with love itself. Just because you express your love for you wife differently than you do your family and friends does not mean the love itself is different. Love is simply that which seeks to best interests of its object, regardless of the cost to self. Forgive me for not being uber romantic about what "love" is. Don't confuse "romance" with "love," Bav.

I'm not trying to redefine marriage as anything different than what God might say a marriage is. I believe it is of no relevance when it comes to matters of STATE. I think you're missing this entirely. We do not live in a Theocracy that would then make this argument a religious point of contention. This government is doing all it can to remove God from itself. I believe Church and State SHOULD be separate. I don't think the STATE should decide what a "marriage" is based on the Christian belief through the Bible/God's Word. Just like there are State Grants and Private Grants. Sometimes certain institutions cannot get State Grants because of their purpose or whatever be the reason, yet they can still get Private Grants. A grant is a grant, but one is differnt from the other from where it originates and who is GIVING it. No one is trying to redefine "marriage". Hense the reason they try and use "civil union" among others.

I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with the comment you replied to. I expressly said in my last reply that we should set aside arguments from Scripture on this. I am making a non-religious argument. The specific example I used that you are replying to is red vs. yellow. You can call anything you want "yellow." The word is just a sound with no inherent meaning. I can call a cloud, car, country "yellow." I can call red "yellow." My point is that the meaning I assign to the sound "yellow" has no bearing on reality. If I choose to look at the color we call red and label it "yellow," that doesn't mean that real yellow stops existing, or that, in reality, red and yellow are now the same thing. That is called the fallacy of inverted intentionality (read Henry Veatch's Two Logics for more on that).

In the same way, you can call a gay couple's relationship "marriage" all you want. That doesn't make it marriage, nor does it mean that it is the same thing my wife and I have. People who want to say that gay marriage and marriage are the same thing are in absolutely no way different from people who look at red and yellow and say that they are the same color. It's an idiotic and absurd idea.

Who's arguing that, being Christians? I agree whole-heartedly.

Nobody. That's my point. I'm making a non-religious argument, so let's not argue about the separation of church and state.

I'm not sure I agree totally with this. To believe this is to believe Adam didn't find Eve attractive enough to WANT sex.

Hardly. The purpose of a car is to get me from A to B quickly. Does that mean that it must be ugly or that I can't actually WANT to drive it? Of course not. The fact that Eve could have been beautify and Adam could have actually wanted sex has nothing to do with the fact that its purpose was and is to produce children.

Let me use a silly analogy. Suppose my daughter gets sick and needs to take medicine. Suppose the doctor gives her a liquid antibiotic. Must the antibiotic necessary taste bad to be effective? Of course not. Could the pharmaceutical industry not make it taste wonderful? Why would they do that? Would it not be to encourage my daughter to take the medicine? But if so, that doesn't mean the purpose is no longer to make her better, does it? Again, of course not. So there is simply no relationship here. God made sex fun to encourage people to engage as He intended it.

Not sure I agree totally with this as dogma either. Gen. 2:18

Which comes after Gen. 1:26-28. Further, Gen 2:24 says the express purpose of marriage is sex, and since the express purpose of sex is to produce children, it follows that the purpose of marriage is to produce children, which is perfectly consistent with Gen 1:26-28.

In any case, why are you bringing up Scripture? I thought you believed in the separation of church and state? Leave the Bible out of this, unless you believe that people who don't have Genesis are unable to understand the purpose of marriage.

I disagree. "Marriage" as we know it today, didn't exist in the Garden. There was no ceremony (that we are told about) and this "marriage" didn't come with any STATE advantages that the gay community is seeking for. It's purpose (Gay Marriage) is to gain the same STATE rights afforded married couples.

What makes you think I equate marriage with a ceremony? Further, why are you appealing to Scripture again? I thought you believed in the separation of church and state?

I have said that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, created by God for the purpose of producing and raising children. This institution has other benefits, of course, both to the individuals and society, but that is its primary function--and note AGAIN that function doesn't create the definition. The teleology (function) simply must be consistent with the ontology (definition).

It does. I have a couple of friends that are "married". They just don't have the same STATE rights a traditional married couple have.

If these friends are in a homosexual relationship, then no you don't. State's don't decide what marriage is. Reality does. States can CALL their relationship anything they want, just like I can call you anything I want. I can call you zoegirl, but that doesn't mean you and she are the same person. They can give whatever legal benefits they want to your friends, but since legal benefits are not the definition of marriage, that has no bearing on our conversation. If it did, then you would have to concede that blacks were not human in the 1800s, since they did not receive the same legal rights as whites in America.

To some extent I can agree here. However are you saying that no one should marry out of lust? There's no "love at first sight"? One cannot instantly know the person standing in front of them is their life-long wife/husband? Once again, this is assuming the gay lifestyle is a chosen lifestyle. I believe it is a perversion of life stemming from sin. I believe there are gays that are genetically "gay" as a result of the perversion of life due to sin. (and there are those that choose it as one would an article of clothing to 'say' something)

There is no one reason why someone SHOULD marry. If lust is what drives you to marry, then fine. For example, suppose I jump off a high dive board and fall to the water. Does my motive for jumping have any bearing on the fact that I am now falling into the pool? In the same way, one's motivation for marriage has no impact on the definition of marriage.

Second, there is no love at first sight. There is certainly lust at first sight. No, a person cannot instantly no that the person standing in front f them is their spouse. That kind of "the one" philosophy has no biblical or philosophical basis at all, and it brings with it much damage.

Further, my argument isn't affected if people are born gay or not. My argument is completely and totally decided based on the biological purpose of sex and marriage and the relationship between the two in a societal context.

From Dictionary.com - I'm not as learned as most of you. I need help understand a lot of things here at EGS.
1. the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.
2. support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying to give in to gay 'marriage' is to lose individual liberty? I'm not sure at all what you mean by this.

Yes, that is what I am saying. I am saying that to give in to gay marriage is to make the state the SOURCE of your liberty. In that view, you really have no liberty at all. You only have that which is delegated to you by another human (or collection of them).

I disagree respectfully. The point is not to redefine marriage. The point is to redefine WHO all get the perks of a 'marriage' from the STATE.

Wrong. It is the point exactly. Marriage has always had a definition, which is a union between a man and a woman. The perks of marriage is a fairly recent innovation. If the state wants to give the same legal perks to gay couples as it does to married couples, it has that right, since the state is the one who gives those perks in the first place. The state does not, however, have the right to say that gay couples are married anymore than they have the right to call yellow red, or to call you zoegirl. The state, like you and me, abides by reality. It does not create it.

I had a thought here, but it escaped me...maybe I'll think of it in a bit. =)

Let me know when you remember it. The point I made at the end is very important, so I will repeat for emphasis:

A word that can mean anything actually means nothing. If the state defines the word "marriage" to mean anything it wants, it is empty of meaning, which destroys the foundation of both the family and society.

God bless

[Jac3510]

I getcha....I agree....

I would still say; however, that they two purposes don't have to be in some sort of hierarchy...

For example, it certainly is not in God's purpose to have a loveless marriage, simply because you fulfill the purpose of having children. It certainly isn't a business relationship.

I'm not sure we can tease apart the purposes and say this purpose is the primary.

I agree that the function of a thing ought not be separated from its reality. But we are having a very strict conversation here about what marriage IS. Obviously, I agree that there are many, many benefits it provides society and individuals that we are morally obligated to maximize in every possible way. That, however, is a separate conversation and should not be confused with what marriage actually IS.

So, by all means, Zoe, get married! There are lots of perks--physically, emotionally, spiritually, and even legally. When you do, give me an invite, and I'll drive across the country to be there!