HQ

When marriage is debated the disagreement comes down to definition. I don't mean what the definition of marriage is (that is what we disagree about). I mean how we get a definition in the first place. Is there some independent standard by which our definitions are proved good? Can we point at some authoritative definition and say, “see, there, that’s what marriage is.”? Can we look at a couple and say, "marriage is that" ? Or is marriage something we purely stipulate? Does the Supreme Court have the power to construct a definition from scratch or should they merely recognize a preexisting entity and enshrine it in law? And is there any form of relationship that is called marriage that would be immoral? If so, should that figure into how we define marriage legally? Some people think that the term, ‘marriage,’ refers to an entity with a particular essence. Marriage is the covenantal union between one man and one woman for the purpose of child rearing because that is ...

There are points in debates when arguments get left behind and emotions take over. Perhaps the national debate over marriage has reached that stage. It is not good when debate descends into a slagging match. There are arguments to be made and we should keep our heads. If we do this perhaps we can reason better with each other. Much has been written in the defense of traditional marriage. And I, because I agree with traditional marriage, think those arguments are good arguments. However, it is not as if those who disagree with me don't have any arguments. They do. So, why legalize same sex marriage? As far as I can tell there are four main arguments in support of a different definition of marriage. The following is an attempt to show why they don't convince me:

For the actor,  Ethan Hawke , who left his wife to marry the nanny, monogamy is inappropriate to the human species: "People have such a childish view of monogamy and fidelity. "He's cheated so he's bad, she's cheated so she's bad", as opposed to a recognition that our species is not monogamous."

If we are going to discuss marriage, then we should have a go a defining what marriage is before deciding on who might take part. Defining marriage should, at the very least, seek to define marriage. It is no good arguing about whether one might marry one person or two, whether it is okay to marry someone of the same sex or whether it is somehow immoral to exclude a coupling based on age, gender or quantity if one does not actually talk about what it is that unites someone in marriage.

Pastor, Kevin DeYoung writes: "at present, one of the worst heresies is to be in the same zip code with someone who takes a firm stance on homosexuality" (see here ). Heresy, Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek claims, is no longer deviation from dogma or even reason, but deviation from the crowd. If holy text and universal truth go the way of the dodo, then the crowd is all that we have left. And, although no one is quite ready to burn the heretic (in this country, at least), there are many ready to silence him.

In his latest comments on same-sex marriage, Jeffery John, Dean of St Albans, argues that the church (in this case John refers to the Church of England) should be ignored and that God is in favor of gay marriage. Pitting the church against God is a clever tactic. It makes the church look like a kill joy, preventing a loving God from getting his way. This is the stuff of Hollywood - God backs the little guy against a group of powerful, obstinate traditionalists. In fact, it sounds a lot like the protestant reformation. And, perhaps, that is why so many are attracted by it. For Jeffery John, as in the days of the reformation, the church is holding on to something rather than giving it away; God has given us marriage and now the church is just hogging it like a child hogging a toy, refusing to share.

In the debate over marriage it is so easy to forget what we Christians mean by marriage. We do not mean a contract over rights, but a covenant with God. I recommend you read my Pastor's comments here .