I think Andrew Sullivan defined "marriage" very eloquently when he described it as
"The essential meaning of contemporary marriage is a lifetime legal commitment between two unrelated, consenting adults to take responsibility for each other (and their children, if any) and to share their lives and home together."

LINK

(He also does an admirable job of demolishing the "traditions" of marriage)

Im not sure that it is meaningful to speak of "the essential meaning of contemporary marriage." Does this not reduce to "how one proper subset of contemporary culture wishes to understand marriage"?

It sounds reasonable and all to speak of "two, unrelated, consenting adults...." But I strongly suspect that the emphasis upon couples is a vestige of heterosexual unions that form the basis of families: mom, dad and baby. The importance and function of monogamous and lifelong commitment is animated by the natural connection found between marriage and family. Remove that connection--as is done in gay relations--and it would seem to be no holds barred (if you'll pardon a possible pun). Once the traditional understanding of marriage is abandoned, I can see no principled reason for thinking of it as a sort of mirror image of the ideal heterosexual relationship--except for differences in the plumbing. So far as I can tell, the only arguments for the validity of homosexuality begin with the observation that certain desires are present, that they were never consciously chosen, and that, therefore, they must be valid (This was precisely how the pseudo-scientist Kinsey reasoned, supposing that any observed behavior or preference was as valid as any other, since all are manifestations of a diverse human repertoire.) At any rate, as we see with "OS"--the new sexual orientation--precisely the same claims are made.

Nothing here amounts to a "slippery slope argument," for there is a difference between asserting "If you allow A then B is inevitable" and observing that any argument that would justify A would also, in principle, justify B. Perhaps three is nothing inevitable about the emergence of the dreaded B--whatever it is. But the reasons may, nevertheless, be arbitrary and idiosyncratic.

Actually, noting, as one of these columnists does, that an attempt to redefine marriage to include homosexuality is a radical departure from all historical and cultural precedent does not constitute hatred for homosexuals. Neither is there cultural precedent for people, with any regularity, marrying bridges and monuments. Though there are clear attempts to shift the burden of proof onto the "traditionalists," it is is squarely upon those who would seek to swerve from both natural and cultural history to accomodate those who have, of late, become particularly noisy and insistent.

___________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

Im not sure that it is meaningful to speak of "the essential meaning of contemporary marriage." Does this not reduce to "how one proper subset of contemporary culture wishes to understand marriage"?

It may or may not reduce to your "proper subset" argument, but I am unclear as to what impact it has if it does. Are you implying that a proper subset does not necessarily reflect the views of the majority?

I agree with you that the traditional nuclear family has been husband, wife and baby. That is an important....probably THE most important function of a marriage. By the same token, though, it is not the exclusive foundation for a marriage. If we were to judge "successful marriages" by that yardstick, then childless couples would be judged as "failures" due to infertility.

In doing some reading about the history of marriage, I'm more convinced that "marriage" is defined largely within the context of the times. Formal betrothals among commoners is a relatively new concept within the overall history of man. As Sullivan pointed out, social norms once permitted arranged marriages, marriages to some as young as ten years of age, royal bloodlines inbreeding, prohibiting non-whites from marriage, etc. In my own lifetime I've seen mixed-race marriage bans removed from lawbooks.

I think Sullivan has come up with a very defensible "current" interpretation of marriage. Your own tongue-in-cheek (hopefully) "OS" scenario fails the four-part test, as it only passes two of the four requirements: two (check) unrelated (check) consenting (???) adults (fail).

I think it's a subjective call as to whether recognizing gay unions constitutes a "radical" departure from the "norm". If we define "history" somewhat myopically as beginning with the founding of America in 1776, I suppose you could present a valid case. The history of marriage, though, along with it's cultural definition, predates America by many hundreds if not a thousand or so years, and has changed to keep up with the times.