Friday, July 22, 2016

Marriage-equality and Defining 'marriage'

From guest blogger, Rachel.

Today in class we talked about the morality of Gay marriage and we briefly asked what is the historical definition of the word.


 a. The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony.

The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex (see gay marriage n. at gay adj.adv., and n. Special uses 2b)


a (1) :  the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) :  the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sexmarriage>

Thus, due to the objection that some have against gay marriage, that it is only between a man and a woman, it seems that these two dictionaries leave the definition to include both heterosexual and homosexual couples. I tried to find the definition throughout the ages, but I couldn’t find the right information. Many of us know marriage in the Catholic sense, between a man and a woman and blessed by God. Is this maybe where the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman came about? Or that without scientific intervention, offspring can only be produced by a man and a woman, thus, it is merely for species survival and practicality that man and woman are in a relationship/union/marriage.

I think another reason that the biblical argument against gay marriage, that the bible states that a marriage is between a man and a woman, is weak is that for this argument to be logical, those who propose it would need to follow all of the rules that God proposes. Is it moral to pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow? To adjust to your specific lifestyle but then condemn the lifestyle of others?

This leads me to one last thought: Is it moral to make laws based on a particular religion? Well, I guess according to Utilitarianism, yes, if it benefits the majority.

I really liked how the topics of marriage, family, and gender tied together, and I’m honestly surprised we didn’t have more discussion about it. I think more education can go a long way in the discussion of morality.

1 comment:

Olivia Millet said...

I agree with your comments and I think that vegetarianism needs to be more seriously considered. Unfortunately, morality has become an issue of convenience and culture. I do think its something that needs to be grappled with though because it is preventing people from treating animals properly.

Although it should be considered more, I do not think it is immoral because animals do not have the same moral standing as humans. However, if there is a systematic change in how we treat farming, that would still be a positive step.