Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Define: marriage

drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 8:52:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
In the topic of SSM, many of the objections reference the changing definition of marriage.

Consider:
"They want to completely change the definition of marriage so that God is removed from the equation." - medic [1]
"You want to change the definition because of a small minority." - Lordknukle [2]
"Problem, marriage is a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. That's the definition. You can't just change the definition of something because you want to." - ConservativePolitico [3]
"To accept gay marriage would change the definition of marriage" - RedShirt [4]

Ok, so SSM requires an alteration to the definition of marriage. The question, then, is what is the definition of marriage? Simply saying "marriage is between a man and a woman" isn't a definition. It's a clarification or limitation, but it doesn't define what a marriage is to begin with; it simply asserts what it can apply to.

In the batch of quotes above, the closest thing is ConservativePolitico's but only if you understand what "union" means in this context, in which case, it is simply using the term "union" as a synonym for "marriage" and is really just restating the phrase "marriage is between a man and a woman."

So, for those that feel that SSM requires a redefinition of marriage, what is the definition you're using? Basically, what I'm looking for is a set of attributes which are necessary and sufficient to judge whether something is or is not a marriage. The "one man and one woman" goes without saying. What else?

[1] - http://www.debate.org...
[2] - http://www.debate.org...
[3] - http://www.debate.org...
[4] - https://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 9:14:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think it all goes back to Aquinas. Eliminate the (either implicit or explicit) Thomistic framework and the normative-definitional approach of anti-SSM philosophy falls apart.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 10:17:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 9:14:47 AM, Noumena wrote:
I think it all goes back to Aquinas. Eliminate the (either implicit or explicit) Thomistic framework and the normative-definitional approach of anti-SSM philosophy falls apart.

Since I have no idea what you just said, would it be possible to provide a bulletted list of Thomistic framework?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 11:34:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 10:17:43 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/2/2013 9:14:47 AM, Noumena wrote:
I think it all goes back to Aquinas. Eliminate the (either implicit or explicit) Thomistic framework and the normative-definitional approach of anti-SSM philosophy falls apart.

Since I have no idea what you just said, would it be possible to provide a bulletted list of Thomistic framework?

Sorry. I've gotten to the point that I'm writing more as a way of going through my own thoughts than for anyone else's viewing. Thomism is basically the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas which could be summarized as Aristotle + Christianity. In this context I'm talking about his realism/anti-nominalism concerning the problem of universals. In this context he could be thought to say that marriage has some independent referent which we strive for on Earth. When one sees that such a referent is merely a fictive structure of our own doing (for various pragmatic reasons unsubstantiated by divine will or Platonic structures), it falls apart. At least that's the immediate connection I made. It may or may not be substantiated by actual literature. It could be totes coincidence that anti-SSM people usually just happen to be Thomists lol.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 11:37:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 11:34:07 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 10/2/2013 10:17:43 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/2/2013 9:14:47 AM, Noumena wrote:
I think it all goes back to Aquinas. Eliminate the (either implicit or explicit) Thomistic framework and the normative-definitional approach of anti-SSM philosophy falls apart.

Since I have no idea what you just said, would it be possible to provide a bulletted list of Thomistic framework?

Sorry. I've gotten to the point that I'm writing more as a way of going through my own thoughts than for anyone else's viewing. Thomism is basically the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas which could be summarized as Aristotle + Christianity. In this context I'm talking about his realism/anti-nominalism concerning the problem of universals. In this context he could be thought to say that marriage has some independent referent which we strive for on Earth. When one sees that such a referent is merely a fictive structure of our own doing (for various pragmatic reasons unsubstantiated by divine will or Platonic structures), it falls apart. At least that's the immediate connection I made. It may or may not be substantiated by actual literature. It could be totes coincidence that anti-SSM people usually just happen to be Thomists lol.

If I interpret this correctly, basically we're talking about the idea of a sphere (an object in 3D space made up of all points equidistant from a center point) and the real-world representations of a sphere which, for practical reasons, can never be a true sphere. Except replace sphere with "marriage."

And, if that's their tact, fine, I'd just like to know what the criteria for this ideal marriage is.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 3:03:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Interesting thread. Didn't read the 4 ddo references. I understand Noumena's point as that being that marriage outside of heterosexual union is "unnatural". I'm sure there's a lot more to it, but that's my own interpretation.

I think the definition of marriage is not nearly as important as ascertaining the purpose of marriage.

I can think of a couple purposes:

1) encourage procreation within a society that recognizes the marriage
2) add some sort of ordered structure to hereditary institutions
3) attach clear lines of responsibility in regards to child-rearing

Out of these objectives, SSM does not accomplish #1, and can easily fall in line with #2 and #3.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 3:25:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 11:37:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/2/2013 11:34:07 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 10/2/2013 10:17:43 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/2/2013 9:14:47 AM, Noumena wrote:
I think it all goes back to Aquinas. Eliminate the (either implicit or explicit) Thomistic framework and the normative-definitional approach of anti-SSM philosophy falls apart.

Since I have no idea what you just said, would it be possible to provide a bulletted list of Thomistic framework?

Sorry. I've gotten to the point that I'm writing more as a way of going through my own thoughts than for anyone else's viewing. Thomism is basically the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas which could be summarized as Aristotle + Christianity. In this context I'm talking about his realism/anti-nominalism concerning the problem of universals. In this context he could be thought to say that marriage has some independent referent which we strive for on Earth. When one sees that such a referent is merely a fictive structure of our own doing (for various pragmatic reasons unsubstantiated by divine will or Platonic structures), it falls apart. At least that's the immediate connection I made. It may or may not be substantiated by actual literature. It could be totes coincidence that anti-SSM people usually just happen to be Thomists lol.

If I interpret this correctly, basically we're talking about the idea of a sphere (an object in 3D space made up of all points equidistant from a center point) and the real-world representations of a sphere which, for practical reasons, can never be a true sphere. Except replace sphere with "marriage."

Sure close enough. I think there are a lot of subtleties that would be better off being elucidated but time constraints + laziness isn't allowing for that currently. I'll get back to this later when I'm more attentive.

And, if that's their tact, fine, I'd just like to know what the criteria for this ideal marriage is.

Why's that?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 3:37:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 3:25:10 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 10/2/2013 11:37:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/2/2013 11:34:07 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 10/2/2013 10:17:43 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/2/2013 9:14:47 AM, Noumena wrote:
I think it all goes back to Aquinas. Eliminate the (either implicit or explicit) Thomistic framework and the normative-definitional approach of anti-SSM philosophy falls apart.

Since I have no idea what you just said, would it be possible to provide a bulletted list of Thomistic framework?

Sorry. I've gotten to the point that I'm writing more as a way of going through my own thoughts than for anyone else's viewing. Thomism is basically the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas which could be summarized as Aristotle + Christianity. In this context I'm talking about his realism/anti-nominalism concerning the problem of universals. In this context he could be thought to say that marriage has some independent referent which we strive for on Earth. When one sees that such a referent is merely a fictive structure of our own doing (for various pragmatic reasons unsubstantiated by divine will or Platonic structures), it falls apart. At least that's the immediate connection I made. It may or may not be substantiated by actual literature. It could be totes coincidence that anti-SSM people usually just happen to be Thomists lol.

If I interpret this correctly, basically we're talking about the idea of a sphere (an object in 3D space made up of all points equidistant from a center point) and the real-world representations of a sphere which, for practical reasons, can never be a true sphere. Except replace sphere with "marriage."

Sure close enough. I think there are a lot of subtleties that would be better off being elucidated but time constraints + laziness isn't allowing for that currently. I'll get back to this later when I'm more attentive.

And, if that's their tact, fine, I'd just like to know what the criteria for this ideal marriage is.

Why's that?

Because I find it hard to believe that the gender of the participants is the only attribute that is relevant, yet it appears to be the only attribute for which laws and constitutional amendments are being proposed to enforce and I'd like to see if any have an explanation for this apparent discrepancy.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 5:18:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 3:37:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/2/2013 3:25:10 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 10/2/2013 11:37:54 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/2/2013 11:34:07 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 10/2/2013 10:17:43 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/2/2013 9:14:47 AM, Noumena wrote:
I think it all goes back to Aquinas. Eliminate the (either implicit or explicit) Thomistic framework and the normative-definitional approach of anti-SSM philosophy falls apart.

Since I have no idea what you just said, would it be possible to provide a bulletted list of Thomistic framework?

Sorry. I've gotten to the point that I'm writing more as a way of going through my own thoughts than for anyone else's viewing. Thomism is basically the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas which could be summarized as Aristotle + Christianity. In this context I'm talking about his realism/anti-nominalism concerning the problem of universals. In this context he could be thought to say that marriage has some independent referent which we strive for on Earth. When one sees that such a referent is merely a fictive structure of our own doing (for various pragmatic reasons unsubstantiated by divine will or Platonic structures), it falls apart. At least that's the immediate connection I made. It may or may not be substantiated by actual literature. It could be totes coincidence that anti-SSM people usually just happen to be Thomists lol.

If I interpret this correctly, basically we're talking about the idea of a sphere (an object in 3D space made up of all points equidistant from a center point) and the real-world representations of a sphere which, for practical reasons, can never be a true sphere. Except replace sphere with "marriage."

Sure close enough. I think there are a lot of subtleties that would be better off being elucidated but time constraints + laziness isn't allowing for that currently. I'll get back to this later when I'm more attentive.

And, if that's their tact, fine, I'd just like to know what the criteria for this ideal marriage is.

Why's that?

Because I find it hard to believe that the gender of the participants is the only attribute that is relevant, yet it appears to be the only attribute for which laws and constitutional amendments are being proposed to enforce and I'd like to see if any have an explanation for this apparent discrepancy.

Yeah it's definitely interesting, not as much as something to critically evaluate (I don't take those kinds of positions remotely serious anymore) but as a phenomenon to explain. Keep me posted with the results of yer investigations sir.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 4:44:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 8:52:25 AM, drafterman wrote:
In the topic of SSM, many of the objections reference the changing definition of marriage.

Consider:
"They want to completely change the definition of marriage so that God is removed from the equation." - medic [1]
"You want to change the definition because of a small minority." - Lordknukle [2]
"Problem, marriage is a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. That's the definition. You can't just change the definition of something because you want to." - ConservativePolitico [3]
"To accept gay marriage would change the definition of marriage" - RedShirt [4]

Ok, so SSM requires an alteration to the definition of marriage. The question, then, is what is the definition of marriage? Simply saying "marriage is between a man and a woman" isn't a definition. It's a clarification or limitation, but it doesn't define what a marriage is to begin with; it simply asserts what it can apply to.

In the batch of quotes above, the closest thing is ConservativePolitico's but only if you understand what "union" means in this context, in which case, it is simply using the term "union" as a synonym for "marriage" and is really just restating the phrase "marriage is between a man and a woman."

So, for those that feel that SSM requires a redefinition of marriage, what is the definition you're using? Basically, what I'm looking for is a set of attributes which are necessary and sufficient to judge whether something is or is not a marriage. The "one man and one woman" goes without saying. What else?

[1] - http://www.debate.org...
[2] - http://www.debate.org...
[3] - http://www.debate.org...
[4] - https://www.debate.org...

I don't even know how to start a definition. It all depends upon the frame one is defining from. Are we talking a Christian view point or any view point?

Just some questions that would need to be answered to create a full definition of it.

1. Is marriage secular or a sacrament?
2. Is it for two people or more people?
3. Can it be dissolved or not dissolved? (If can be who can initiate it and for what reasons?)
4. Are there financial obligations to a marriage partner?
5. Are there emotional and/or other behavioral obligations to a marriage partner?
6. Is there an obligation to have and/or raise children in a marriage?

Simple fact of the matter is that one could not even get Christians to agree on the above questions. How is one suppose to create a definition when including an even more diverse group of people making it?

I might suggest first determining if different definitions can coexist within a secular nation like the US that can still support the religious definitions. If the answer is yes then create a secular based definition for the gov to enforce and the religions can create their own.

It also makes further sense to separate out a secular definition because gov has very different interests and requisites to start and dissolve a marriage than the religious institutions. Could you imagine using a Christian church as a mediator to define who gets what and visitation rights for the kids? We would be in a theocracy if we did.

A secular nation needs a secular definition and only the overall pros and cons for society should be used in generating that definition, which eliminates arguments of, "because God".
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 6:34:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 4:44:16 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/2/2013 8:52:25 AM, drafterman wrote:
In the topic of SSM, many of the objections reference the changing definition of marriage.

Consider:
"They want to completely change the definition of marriage so that God is removed from the equation." - medic [1]
"You want to change the definition because of a small minority." - Lordknukle [2]
"Problem, marriage is a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. That's the definition. You can't just change the definition of something because you want to." - ConservativePolitico [3]
"To accept gay marriage would change the definition of marriage" - RedShirt [4]

Ok, so SSM requires an alteration to the definition of marriage. The question, then, is what is the definition of marriage? Simply saying "marriage is between a man and a woman" isn't a definition. It's a clarification or limitation, but it doesn't define what a marriage is to begin with; it simply asserts what it can apply to.

In the batch of quotes above, the closest thing is ConservativePolitico's but only if you understand what "union" means in this context, in which case, it is simply using the term "union" as a synonym for "marriage" and is really just restating the phrase "marriage is between a man and a woman."

So, for those that feel that SSM requires a redefinition of marriage, what is the definition you're using? Basically, what I'm looking for is a set of attributes which are necessary and sufficient to judge whether something is or is not a marriage. The "one man and one woman" goes without saying. What else?

[1] - http://www.debate.org...
[2] - http://www.debate.org...
[3] - http://www.debate.org...
[4] - https://www.debate.org...

I don't even know how to start a definition. It all depends upon the frame one is defining from. Are we talking a Christian view point or any view point?

I'm talking about whatever viewpoint it is that suggests that legal acceptance of SSM consitutes a change in the definition of marriage. Based on your post below, seems like you're on my side.


Just some questions that would need to be answered to create a full definition of it.

1. Is marriage secular or a sacrament?
2. Is it for two people or more people?
3. Can it be dissolved or not dissolved? (If can be who can initiate it and for what reasons?)
4. Are there financial obligations to a marriage partner?
5. Are there emotional and/or other behavioral obligations to a marriage partner?
6. Is there an obligation to have and/or raise children in a marriage?

Simple fact of the matter is that one could not even get Christians to agree on the above questions. How is one suppose to create a definition when including an even more diverse group of people making it?

I might suggest first determining if different definitions can coexist within a secular nation like the US that can still support the religious definitions. If the answer is yes then create a secular based definition for the gov to enforce and the religions can create their own.

It also makes further sense to separate out a secular definition because gov has very different interests and requisites to start and dissolve a marriage than the religious institutions. Could you imagine using a Christian church as a mediator to define who gets what and visitation rights for the kids? We would be in a theocracy if we did.

A secular nation needs a secular definition and only the overall pros and cons for society should be used in generating that definition, which eliminates arguments of, "because God".
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 8:30:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 12:17:37 PM, drafterman wrote:
No takers?

The Fool: No offense, but it sounds, like a bigoted question. That is a sarcastic question, from someone who has no sincere plan on recognizing anything, but what they have already, created for themselves, to believe to themselves, to be the case.

But perhaps, I'm reading too much into this. I mean, you sound like a fairly reasonable man, most of the time, with a good head on your shoulders.
But on this topic, and few others, I cannot tell you apart from your proposed Ideological adversaries; My foolish monkey tells me that you have not really attempted to see the other point of view, but rather do so, dogmatically. But he is often mistaken.

Perhaps subjecting yourself to a little foolish inquiry on the topic will show, that your position, is an honest, and Just one..

How about it?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2013 8:36:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 8:30:41 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 10/4/2013 12:17:37 PM, drafterman wrote:
No takers?

The Fool: No offense, but it sounds, like a bigoted question. That is a sarcastic question, from someone who has no sincere plan on recognizing anything, but what they have already, created for themselves, to believe to themselves, to be the case.

But perhaps, I'm reading too much into this. I mean, you sound like a fairly reasonable man, most of the time, with a good head on your shoulders.
But on this topic, and few others, I cannot tell you apart from your proposed Ideological adversaries; My foolish monkey tells me that you have not really attempted to see the other point of view, but rather do so, dogmatically. But he is often mistaken.

Perhaps subjecting yourself to a little foolish inquiry on the topic will show, that your position, is an honest, and Just one..

How about it?

Sure.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 7:14:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Definitions change all the time. Oh they don't?

So you will get really confused on two points when I call you a f*g*t:

1) You'll be wondering why I cannot post a word to describe a bundle of sticks without censoring the vowels and:

2) You'll be really confused as to why calling people a bundle of sticks is an insult.

The answer? Definitions change! All the time. At current:

noun
1the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:

a happy marriage

the children from his first marriage

[as modifier]:
marriage vows
(in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex.
[mass noun] the state of being married:

they were celebrating 50 years of marriage

2a combination or mixture of elements:
her music is a marriage of funk, jazz, and hip hop

http://oxforddictionaries.com...

That is the most trusted dictionary around for English, guys. So it can actually be either.

QED.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2013 8:18:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/4/2013 6:34:04 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/4/2013 4:44:16 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 10/2/2013 8:52:25 AM, drafterman wrote:
In the topic of SSM, many of the objections reference the changing definition of marriage.

Consider:
"They want to completely change the definition of marriage so that God is removed from the equation." - medic [1]
"You want to change the definition because of a small minority." - Lordknukle [2]
"Problem, marriage is a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. That's the definition. You can't just change the definition of something because you want to." - ConservativePolitico [3]
"To accept gay marriage would change the definition of marriage" - RedShirt [4]

Ok, so SSM requires an alteration to the definition of marriage. The question, then, is what is the definition of marriage? Simply saying "marriage is between a man and a woman" isn't a definition. It's a clarification or limitation, but it doesn't define what a marriage is to begin with; it simply asserts what it can apply to.

In the batch of quotes above, the closest thing is ConservativePolitico's but only if you understand what "union" means in this context, in which case, it is simply using the term "union" as a synonym for "marriage" and is really just restating the phrase "marriage is between a man and a woman."

So, for those that feel that SSM requires a redefinition of marriage, what is the definition you're using? Basically, what I'm looking for is a set of attributes which are necessary and sufficient to judge whether something is or is not a marriage. The "one man and one woman" goes without saying. What else?

[1] - http://www.debate.org...
[2] - http://www.debate.org...
[3] - http://www.debate.org...
[4] - https://www.debate.org...

I don't even know how to start a definition. It all depends upon the frame one is defining from. Are we talking a Christian view point or any view point?

I'm talking about whatever viewpoint it is that suggests that legal acceptance of SSM consitutes a change in the definition of marriage. Based on your post below, seems like you're on my side.


I reckon we are on the same side of this issue. I however think trying to get a definition of those who follow the church is fruitless. It is not the church that has the responsibility to mediate the civil contract of marriage when it fails. The state grants them the ability to hold a nice ceremony and initiate the contract, but the church has zero responsibility on anything after that point. As a result the church should have zero say in defining what a marriage should or should not be.

Notice the Catholic church does not recognize divorce. The state dissolved the civil marriage agreement, but the church will not nor will they remarry the individuals again as they believe the marriage is eternal.

This just shows there is already different state and church definitions. One might say the individuals are discriminated against from being re-married in the Catholic church, but there are ample other places where they can get remarried with other partners if they wish.

Anyone who is disputing the allowance of SSM just does not truly understand the separation of church and state and how it protects them and their belief.


Just some questions that would need to be answered to create a full definition of it.

1. Is marriage secular or a sacrament?
2. Is it for two people or more people?
3. Can it be dissolved or not dissolved? (If can be who can initiate it and for what reasons?)
4. Are there financial obligations to a marriage partner?
5. Are there emotional and/or other behavioral obligations to a marriage partner?
6. Is there an obligation to have and/or raise children in a marriage?

Simple fact of the matter is that one could not even get Christians to agree on the above questions. How is one suppose to create a definition when including an even more diverse group of people making it?

I might suggest first determining if different definitions can coexist within a secular nation like the US that can still support the religious definitions. If the answer is yes then create a secular based definition for the gov to enforce and the religions can create their own.

It also makes further sense to separate out a secular definition because gov has very different interests and requisites to start and dissolve a marriage than the religious institutions. Could you imagine using a Christian church as a mediator to define who gets what and visitation rights for the kids? We would be in a theocracy if we did.

A secular nation needs a secular definition and only the overall pros and cons for society should be used in generating that definition, which eliminates arguments of, "because God".