Excellent point that our whole problem is derived from the fact that the government issues the marriage license, and thus gets to define the definition of marriage (at least under that government).thrombomodulin wrote:If we return to the situation where the state does not issue marriage licenses, then marriage becomes a religious ceremony defined by the church alone. There would be no civil rights violations involved for churches which only conduct heterosexual ceremonies, for homosexuals remain free to arrange and hold whatever ceremonies they wish at their own expense.
That raises an interesting question. What do we mean by the "definition of marriage"? Is there such a thing as a single definition that applies across national boundaries and is language independent. A single definition for "marriage/matrimonio (Spanish)/결혼 (Korean)/γάμος (Greek), etc.". Of course these words are not 100% exact translations of each other, but the basic idea is the same.
I'll suggest that the answer used to be "Yes". Virtually every language and culture would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman into a family; and this family unit would be essential to raising the biological children of the pair. Even cultures that allowed polygamy would accept this definition; they would just allow one man to have multiple marriages, but each of the marriages would be one man with one woman. Some cultures have more elaborate family structures involving the "extended family", but the biological parents are still involved with their children.
This universal definition of marriage arose because that is what people did. A man and a woman had a child, and raised that child. No king, legal system, or religious authority had to create a "definition of marriage". If a society chose to create more specific rules or laws, it would still be based on the same universally understood definition of a marriage that was a union of one man and one woman who would care for their biological children.
If this basic definition is no longer considered valid, will it ever by replaced by a new definition that will have such universal acceptance, short of massive pressure by big governments and other such powerful forces to conform to the new way of thinking?