Wanted: Alternate Definition of Marriage

            There's one question that I would like someone to answer for me, please. It's not a rhetorical question, it's quite serious.
            In our country, a lot of people have been arguing about whether we should legalize same-sex "marriage", but I don't know yet whether a single one of them has ever asked this simple question: "what is marriage anyway?" That's the question I want answered. How do the homosexuals and their supporters define marriage?
            Whether gay "marriage" advocates admit it or not, the definition of marriage is important. In fact, it's crucial. It may mean the difference between life and death--literally. In one of my earlier  articles, I dealt with a definition of marriage which appeared bad enough at first glance, but which, upon closer inspection, was clearly more dangerous than I had ever thought. It was dangerous because it labelled as marriage every sexual activity whatever (except for child abuse and rape) as long as it was legal. Since it allowed for so much, it rendered the meaning of the word "marriage" virtually meaningless.
            If homosexuals have no definition of marriage at all (and I don't know if that's not so), then they are no better off than the people who hold meaningless definitions of marriage. An undefined term can mean whatever the people who use it want it to mean.
            So I request for someone who knows the homosexual's definition of marriage to please step forward and propose it so that we can see whether it holds any water. If people are going to argue about marriage at all, shouldn't they first of all know what on earth they're talking about?
         

The Essence of Marriage: Part 4

X: Hi, Socrates. It's been a while since I've seen you.

Socrates: And it's been a while since I have seen you. We really must chat more often.

X: Sorry, Socrates. I'm low on time.

Socrates: Low on time? Do you mean that we'll have to cut our conversation short instead of letting it wander down its natural course? 

X: Er, yes.

Socrates: That is very disappointing. But since you are short on time, let's get started, shall we?

X: OK. Here's my question. What harm does homosexuality do to people and to society?

Socrates: Well, let's start with the most obvious answer. Isn't homosexuality sterile by nature?

X: Yes.

Socrates: So if everyone were homosexual, what would happen?

X: Man would die off. It's as simple as that.

Socrates: Exactly. So wouldn't it appear that homosexuality is not at all the way for man to fulfill his nature, since he does not even replace himself by it?

X: I think so.

Socrates: All right. Now, what is the basic building block of society?

X: The individual.

Socrates: Is that so?

X: No, Socrates. I'm just trying to provoke you to ask more questions.

Socrates: An interesting tactic. I don't need to be asked to ask. Well then, where does the individual come from?

X: A pair of parents, obviously. A man and a woman.

Socrates: And what do a pair of parents and their children together constitute?

X: A family.

Socrates: So isn't the family--and not the individual--the basic building block of society?

X: Yes.

Socrates: Then wouldn't it appear that whatever is changed here and whatever is taught here will affect the entire structure of society?

X: Yes.

Socrates: So if, for example, all children are taught and shown that they must love each other no matter what, then society as a whole is likely to be much closer to the ideal?

X: Correct.

Socrates: Now, let us apply this new principle to a less agreeable topic. What happens when children are taught and shown that homosexuality is "OK"? Won't children probably come to assume that sex is all about pleasure, and not about love and family?

X: Yes.

Socrates: Why, then, will these children--when they become adults--feel inclined to put the effort into raising a family if they are not taught that sex brings responsibility along with it? Won't they be inclined instead to not have any children--or very few--and wouldn't they use people as objects for their own gratification?

X: Yes Socrates. Homosexuality, like contraception, separates pleasure from procreation, which the Church absolutely forbids. The separation of pleasure from procreation causes people to treat each other as objects; it causes people to see other people as means to their own pleasure. But this selfishness would not be exclusive to sex. It would permeate every aspect of life. Therefore, the promotion of homosexuality leads to injustice in society, since people would now only use each other.

Socrates: Very true. You've become quite a logician.

X: That's practically the only syllogism I can crank out right now. Thanks a lot for the talk, Socrates. It was very refreshing and enlightening.

Socrates: You are leaving? This is all too soon. A philosopher like me is short on people with whom  to converse. Thank you for your time, all the same.

X: You're welcome. Next time I hope that we will finally accomplish our object. We were supposed to define Marriage, remember?

Socrates: Yes, and we began to stray down many other paths instead. But why should you see that as a waste of time? All those questions you asked helped us to come closer to the truth, and that is never a waste of time.

X: Very true, Socrates.

The Essence of Marriage: Part 3

X: Hello again, Socrates. I'm afraid that we'll be talking about some sticky subjects today. 

Socrates: Sticky subjects? Oh, don't worry about that. Most of the time, topics aren't what bother me--people are.

X: That's a relief to hear. Now for the topic. Socrates, once again I might sound dumb, but I know that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong, and I'm not entirely sure how to convince myself or others that it is so. What is wrong with it? Why must it be forbidden? What possible harm could it do?

Socrates: You've just asked a load of excellent questions. Now I'll ask some of my own. To begin with, what is the reproductive system for?

X: For producing new people, of course.

Socrates: (Sigh. How few people today know that.) Are married couples able to procreate children?

X: Yes.

Socrates: Does this give them both pleasure and responsibility? Are they responsible for caring for their children, and for feeding them and clothing them and educating them and giving them their time and love?

X: Yes to both questions.

Socrates: Do homosexuals inherit any of these responsibilities?

X: No. Their unions are sterile. They get enjoyment without responsibility. You know, this is all very well, Socrates, but I still don't have quite the strong argument that I'm hoping for.

Socrates: Don't worry; you're building lots of little ones right now. Let's move on. In nature, do we not observe that all animals follow the laws to which they are subjected?

X: They do.

Socrates: Does this not apply to their reproduction? There are no such things as "gay animals", are there?

X: No, of course not.

Socrates: Why, then, do men break the laws of nature, which even the beasts do not disobey?

X: Well, Socrates, men have the odd ability to disobey some laws at will, the moral and natural law.           You asked just a minute ago what the reproductive system is for. What is wrong with the way that homosexuals use their bodies?

Socrates: Well, first of all, we know that the primary purpose of the reproduction system is the procreation of children, correct?

X: Correct.

Socrates: The opposite sexes were created to complement each other for this purpose, were they not?

X: They were.

Socrates: And yet homosexuals do not use this system for its intended purpose?

X: No.

Socrates: What meaning can their "union" have then? Can we even call it a "union"?

X: Oh, I see that now. Neither male nor female homosexuals can call their activities "union" of the physical kind. In neither case do their bodies complement each other. They simply cannot unite at all. (Males would claim that they can, but of course this is not true. They only have union by unnatural means.) To say that they could unite is like saying that a key can be used to unlock a key or that a lock can be used to unlock a lock. Their acts are devoid of meaning. Why did I use the word "union" to describe these acts?

Socrates: You're not using it anymore; that's an improvement.

X: Sorry, Socrates. Gotta go.

Socrates: You're always so abrupt.

The Essence of Marriage: Part 2

X: So let's begin where we left off, shall we?

Socrates: Of course. I have a little observation to make. You never said whether marriage was a covenant.

X: Oh well, I'm sure that can wait. But you said that you had another definition to test?

Socrates: Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. While surfing the web--I'm the first ancient philosopher to do so and I did not find much joy in the experience--while surfing the web, I discovered another possible definition of marriage that your modern society supports. Some would make the claim that any legalized sexual union among adults could be considered marriage, as long as the partners consent. Tell me: is any legalized sexual union between consenting adults to be considered marriage?

X: Of course not! That's absurd.

Socrates: All right. Why is it absurd?

X: Because that definition allows for homosexual unions, and for polygamy in all its forms. Come to think of it, that would also allow for legalized fornication, adultery, prostitution... you name it. It allows for just about every kind of sexual union except for rape. The results could only be worse if the age limit was lowered and if the parties were not required to consent. Obviously, no one calls these things marriage because they know better. But wait; is this quite the definition that you found?

Socrates: Yes, as far as I can remember.

X: What if this definition was changed just slightly? What if the parties were required to sign an agreement to stay together for at least a while? Would anything be different?

Socrates: Could it be different unless the parties agreed to stay together till death?

X: No. If they agreed to do that, then some of the sins on the list would be cancelled out--prostitution and fornication. If they don't agree to do this, then nothing has really changed. This is a fascinating subject, Socrates, but I really have to go.

Socrates: Ah, time. You Americans just don't seem to have enough of it anymore, do you?