Take a good look at your equipment, Bryan. With very, very few exceptions it should be abundantly clear what it was and wasn’t designed to do. Marriage happens in the body as well as in every other aspect. No complementarity, no becoming one flesh, no marriage. Sorry for my bluntness.

What they want to do is redefine natural with gov’t law. Once you redefine any part of natural law , such as the beggining of life or he life can be ended or what is marriage you can control anything or anyone and create a slave State. This is the future of the US. Slaves to the gov’t. With a populace that is tired. Which ties to your other post of the tired America we live.

First, I think you have a misunderstanding of what Natural Law is.

Second, every citizen DOES have equal right to marry. A marriage (by it’s definition) is the union between a man and a woman. Every adult citizen has the same exact right under our laws to marry somebody (form this union with a member of the opposite sex). I’m not sure why that’s so hard to understand.

What you’re supporting is some kind of recognition of a commitment between two people of the same gender. That’s not Marriage. That’s something entirely different. If you’d like to advocate for that, go right ahead and make your case. But don’t get all upset when people don’t want to go against all logic and sense and call it something it’s not. It’s not Marriage. It’s something different. So call it something different. Very simple.

I followed that by what a secular marriage should be. If it’s secular (it is) it MUST provide equal rights.

14th amendment Section 1:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Preventing marriage between two citizens is directly abridging the privileges of a segment of the population. Marriage is a state law, therefore it’s a violation. This is our current “natural law”. Follow it or don’t.

Being open to life and having children are two different things. If you’d like to get into more of the specifics of why the traditional Church believes that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman and what constitutes a valid marriage please check out the posts linked to from this blog post above. Many of your assumptions are incorrect and questions have already been addressed and answered.

My definition of marriage is based on more than just the Bible or solely on teachings of the Catholic Church, but on the Natural Law.

There is no question that marriage has always and everywhere from the beginning of recorded history been exclusively between a man and a woman….even in cultures where homosexuality was widely accepted. That’s because they had the astuteness to still recognize the huge difference between the two very different unions.

These efforts are not about “rights” at the root. They are about trying to change everyone else’s definition of marriage. California is the perfect example. Same-sex unions have every single right that a marriage has. Yet they still protest.

All that said, it sounds like what you’re saying is that the definition of marriage is whatever you happen to think it is (based on your relative, subjective observations of the world). In that case, you should respect that the majority of Americans disagree with your definition based upon their own personal definitions. Is your own opinion supposed to trump the opinions of the majority? By what reasoning? That is the breakdown with your relativism. And it’s what’s ironic when you then insist that it shouldn’t be determined by a majority vote.

I see now. So our country’s definition of marriage shouldn’t be determined by a majority vote, it should be determined by what Bryan observes in the world around him. That’s a much better standard.

I, on the other hand, and traditional Christians (and many others) are not asking for majority rule to be used, much less our own personal opinions. We’re basing our definition on an objective natural law. We’re basing it on the objective, observable, verifiable differences between these two very different types of unions (therefore they should be called different things). We’re basing it on the definition mankind has used for thousands of years.

As Evan noted….THIS is the current standard. It’s a bit strange that you would suggest otherwise. What you’re asking is that the current standard be changed. But you can’t give a good substantial reason as to WHY it should be changed other than an entirely relative and subjective one that this is your “basic observation” of the world around you.

Since when is this the case ? Civil unions are not marriage. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. This whole article is about the debate over what society considers as a marriage so no, Bryan, your meaningless, secular definition is not the “current standard” except in societies that have been forcefully derpived of all cultural, traditional and spiritual ideas of community. Only a tiny number of US states agree with your secular definition of “marriage”, but most don’t, and this is the point of link posted by Matthew here.

Marriage is a legal, secular, contract between two people. I agree that this is not your biblical definition of marriage, but it is the current societal, legal standard of marriage. So why should the current standard, which includes Atheists, includes people who are childless, and includes people of different faiths, not include people with the “wrong” type of genitalia.

p.s. Merriam Webster defines marriage as a union between a man and woman OR a union between those of the same sex. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

I never suggested truth was determined by a majority vote. That’s certainly not the case.

And no, that’s not what I’m saying at all. But before we get to that, let’s start with your definition of marriage. Where do you get that from? Who says it is just about love and commitment regardless of gender or openness to life? Can you back that up?

So what you’re saying is that any relationship that doesn’t result in procreation is not marriage? People that are incapable of having children are also incapable of having a proper marriage? On the opposite end of the spectrum, people that have a one night stand and accidentally procreate have a more valid relationship than people that love each other?

Marriage is about love and commitment. Not procreation or the type of genitals you have.