Redefining Marraige

[dwayner79]

(This is stemming from the conversation about the updated KJV and some discussions I have had about the term marriage - I did not want to derail the other thread, so here goes.)

I have been thinking about the redefining of marriage. Since, as a culture, we seem to be heading in the direction of marriage no longer meaning one woman and one man, we are presented with a problem.

As words change meaning, the literature that uses those words ends up unclear. I am not trying to turn this into a KJV debate, so lets leave scripture out of it (for now).

Should we think about a new term that makes the distinction between marriage as the traditional definition says and marriage that we have today? As literature is brought up to date, should that term be used. In other words, is the fact that marriage is leaning toward inclusion of same-sex couples, does that constitute a large enough shift to warrant a clarifying term (like traditional marriage, or covenant marriage, or heterosexual marriage, whatever).

Then, assuming it does, would you be for updating the bible to include that term instead of just marriage?

[zealyouthguy]

Man... that's just so "1984".


Doubleplusgood.

I think we fight for, retain and keep the word marriage to stand for what it has.

The best way to do it, is for Christians to stop getting divorces...

[dwayner79]

Man... that's just so "1984".


Doubleplusgood.

I think we fight for, retain and keep the word marriage to stand for what it has.

The best way to do it, is for Christians to stop getting divorces...

I get that, but it certainly seems that homosexual marriage is coming (already is in Massachusetts). I agree that fighting for the definition to stick is the way to go, I simply am not convinced that it will. Even if its 10 years from now, what then?

The problem is with verses like "Better to marry then to burn"* will mean something different then they do now if "Marry" is ambiguous.



*just the most common verse with some form of marriage... Insert the marriage verse of choice.

[Guest Guest]

Well, if you want to get technical.. the act of becoming a married couple would be the consummation of that marriage. Of course there should be a public ceremony before men (and God), where the husband and wife make vows to each other, and a legal marriage doesn't have anything to do with the physical consummation anymore, but that physical part is important to the definition of marriage.

A man can't properly consummate a marriage with another man, and the same with a woman and another woman. I know the sodomites would say otherwise, but it's just plain obvious in nature that a man and woman are made to be together as one flesh. We have to stop letting the sodomite crowd push this "civil union" agenda, saying it's the same thing for a man to be married to a man as it is for a man and woman to be married. It can't and never will be the same, even in the world's perverted way of doing things.

If things do get real bad, and they change the definition of marriage in our dictionaries and everything else... the Bible's definition of marriage will never change. If the Lord tarries till 2050 and all of the world doesn't recognize the real definition of marriage anymore, someone can still read a King James Bible and find that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

[MilkmanDan]

Should we think about a new term that makes the distinction between marriage as the traditional definition says and marriage that we have today? As literature is brought up to date, should that term be used. In other words, is the fact that marriage is leaning toward inclusion of same-sex couples, does that constitute a large enough shift to warrant a clarifying term (like traditional marriage, or covenant marriage, or heterosexual marriage, whatever).

Then, assuming it does, would you be for updating the bible to include that term instead of just marriage?

1.We shouldn't think about a new term. Leave the term marriage as is.

2. Were the term changed no it should not be included in the "new" bible. If after 369 years (1611 to present) we still retain the term then why should theses circumstances be any different than those faced in that era (s)?

[IM4given]

As Ron Paul says we do not need legislation to tell us what "marriage" is - all we need is a good dictionary!!!

Marriage:
The act of uniting a man and woman for life... Marriage was instituted by God himself. . . . "Marriage is honorable in all. . . ." Heb. 13.

[John81]

If and when what is accepted as marriage changes, the publishing companies will be quick to change their definitions in their dictionaries as well.

Dictionaries have already changed greatly over the years with regards to how they define words; which is why many Christians and homeschoolers prefer the early Websters and/or some other older versions of dictionaries.

Two words that have already greatly changed in contemporary definition are "gay" and "family".

[DaveW]

When a place I worked for was re-working their policies they made out a draft and circulated it for staff to make suggestions.

As "Same sex couples" were something of an issue at the time (and has only gotten worse) they included a reference to "Same sex marriage".

I pointed out to them that this was a contradiction in terms and submitted several dictionary references and the term was changed. I think they used the word "relationship" instead.

The point is that the word Marriage will only change it's meaning if good people sit down and let it happen.

However in the even that it happens context will still make the Bible standard clear.

It does amaze me that in our society today the only people who heavily seek after marriage seems to be the homosexual crowd!
They deny God outright, but insist on the importance of a God given institution.

Is that what they call irony?

[Trish]

'nothing new under the sun ' comes to mind here. Sodom and Gormorah happened before 'marriage is honorable in all', so I think the biblical context is enough to prove what marriage is.

Another thing that I thought of is that if we go redefining marriage, eventually we will have to redefine other things as well. Standard basises for one.

[5dumplings@home]

The re-definition is occuring no matter how hard we fight. Here in Oregon, we have the referendum method. That is, things always go before the voters. We voted to keep the old-fashioned definition. The next thing we know, the legislature is coming in another way. Forcing the redefinition. We signed petitions to get it back on the ballot, but too many signatures got thrown out. However, the signatures are being proven to be legit. The judges are not letting them be recounted.

[bzmomo7]

Man... that's just so "1984".


Doubleplusgood.

I think we fight for, retain and keep the word marriage to stand for what it has.

The best way to do it, is for Christians to stop getting divorces...

I think instead of jumping on some bandwagon to redefine marriage (& then think you have to fix the Bible use of the word) when it gets down to it we need to fight for the word "marriage" and push for THEM to define whatever it is they think they are trying to accomplish with a legal paper declaring formally that they are living in sin. Already, in the workforce you hear the word "domestic partner" when referring to insurance and such......Christians should start their own term for this nonesense that sounds politically correct so it will catch on.....then we will not have to fuss so much!

[Kubel]

I agree with Trish. I think there's sufficient context to define marriage as male + female. I don't believe it's the duty of translators to include in their translation what wasn't there originally, even if we all agree 100% that the term or statement is true. It's sort of like scribal errors introduced to a particular passage of scripture in some texts due to harmonization. That added error may make sense and we all agree with it 100%, but it doesn't mean it's right to keep it in there if it wasn't there to begin with.

Perhaps my opinion is skewed because I know what marriage is. But I still feel that even with the corruption of marriage today, there is sufficient context in the Bible to support male + female marriage, and to show that the homosexual 'lifestyle' is contrary to the God's way.