Whilst you’ve made good points about the importance of marriage, and the importance of considering the labels we apply to things, I’d like to suggest that even the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is a loose one.

As a Christian, I believe that marriage is between a man, a woman, and God. In this light, I struggle to stand against ‘gay marriage’, when, in effect, marriage between two unbelievers is considerably different from the marriage I see prescribed in the Bible.

At the end of the day, I don’t think clinging to the present definition of the word really achieves anything. It makes Christians seem almost bulldog-ish and blind in their defence. I think time would be much better spent highlighting a relationship between the man, the woman and God, instead of trying to hold on to the shadow that is merely “between a man and a woman”.

More broadly, Justin Taylor over at his blog on the Gospel Coalition website, linked to John Piper’s article on this topic, recently written in light of his state (Minnesota) legislature’s decision to send to a referendum an amendment to make it explicit that marriage is only recognised there as being between one man and one woman.

Piper’s thoughts are worth reading.

Justin Taylor also writes,

(For a compelling natural-law argument that “it is in the public interest for law and policy to take cognizance of [marriage] and support it,” I recommend this article by Robert P. George.)

Hello Brian, and I agree unbelievers would dispute whether Christian beliefs should have a bearing on their conduct.

Of course, my comments here are directed towards Christians, such as my friend, Fabian. I am attempting to persuade Christian people that the way God has wired up marriage applies to all people not just to Christians.

But when I am speaking into the public arena, as it were, I take a twofold approach:

(i) I openly admit that as a Christian my beliefs are shaped by the Bible, accepted as God’s Word, and that the Bible defines marriage as heterosexual and that the alternative to marriage is celibacy.

(ii) I also admit that I do not expect that non-Christians would be persuaded by that, although I might add that I think it wise for them to hesitate before dismissing the morality of the Judea-Christian worldview which has been such a positive force for good in our world.

However I try to argue that reserving marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman for life is good for our society on the basis that others might evaluate independently of their religious commitment. I did this the other day with a politician, and we had a very helpful discussion.

For example, I said…
1. Many people thoughtlessly claim all discrimination is wrong. But actually we discriminate all the time, for example, on the basis of age, children are prohibited from certain activities, men cannot claim certain benefits that apply only to a mother and so on.

2. In other words different situations may justify different treatment. I argue that marriage between a man and a woman is a different situation to a same-sex union, and this can justify some different treatments.

(Personally I think a relationships register to ensure just treatment in regards to inheritance, property rights, default powers of attorney, and so on, is a very appropriate response for same sex unions, as well as for other types of union, such as single brother and single sister who live together all their life.)

3. Whether we think our biology has come simply from evolution, or by design, most people agree we would be foolish simply to ignore our biology.

4. Allowing for exceptions of medical technology, it still requires a woman and a man to produce children, and that will remain the case for the vast majority of circumstances. Here is an obvious qualitative difference between a same-sex union and a heterosexual union. The former can never produce a child. The latter has that potential inherently. Here is a reason to treat such unions differently.

5. Acknowledging that there are exceptions for various circumstances such as single parenthood, and that individual homosexual parents may prove to be very good parents, most people would agree that it is still preferable for a child to be raised by a mother and a father, with the complementary strengths and natures they bring. That is the ideal we should aim for, though we may not always attain it. Here is an additional reason to privilege marriage between a man and a woman.

6. The state has no business legislating in regard to a whole range of personal relationship matters (including sexual relationships). The reason it legislates in regards to marriage is to encourage high standards in regards to the protection of children and because the family is the building block of society.

7. The fact that marriage - between a man and a woman - has been recognised as being in special category for treatment almost universally across cultures and through history should cause us to pause before removing that special treatment.

I realise these arguments are clearly not accepted by all people. I am aware of some of the objections to them. But this is a blog comment, not a scholarly article with footnotes. I am just sketching the sort of directions one might go in the public arena, as a Christian trying to persuade the public in general and lawmakers in particular that keeping the traditional definition of marriage is a good thing. 

The link to Robert George’s article gives more.

I don’t see it, Percy. I don’t see that a discussion on whether marriage is redefined so that two homosexuals can marry… “attack” on “traditional” marriage. But I fail to see it as an attack on MEN in any way. Opening marriage allows some men to enter into a legal contract (the idiots) that suits their way of life. So it expands the rights of some men.

Just a quick historical point, Peter - Modern Christians often point to the widespread use of the term ‘partner’ as evidence of changing attitudes to relationships. However the term ‘partner’ has a long tradition of use within marriage - I can point you to the loving letters of many eighteenth-century evangelicals who addressed their spouses as ‘my dearest partner’ etc. I think the meaning of the term has shifted since the eighteenth century, with the increasing use of that language in business - and undoubtedly it has been used for political reasons, as an alternative to husband or wife. However, it has a strong and meaningful history within Christian traditions of marriage - for good reasons, I believe, since it speaks to the shared duties of marriage - I would be reluctant to abandon it!