eddiegriffith.net

This Tuesday, people in the state of North Carolina will go to the polls to vote on whether or not we should define marriage as between one man and one woman. As I have listened to each side of the debate over the years, I sense that we might need to step back and define the word “define.” Maybe we need to look at how one goes about creating a definition before we embark to create a definition for marriage.

Philosophically, there are two vastly divergent schools of thought on this. Modern philosophy tends to treat the definition itself (the language, thoughts, and ideas) as reality. Since the definition itself is reality, reality cannot be defined. This is self-defeating and, therefore, false. Classical philosophy, however, sees language as a set of symbols we use to describe reality. Reality is not determined by the thoughts and ideas in our heads, but is outside of ourselves and can be apprehended using our senses. Creating a definition, then, is to describe reality as best we can with language.

How, then, do we determine what marriage is in reality? I mean it is rather easy to define what a baseball is for instance, but marriage is a complex interaction between two individual human beings. There are plenty of complex interactions between individual human beings, so what makes this marriage thing so different and so important that we need to codify its definition into law?

Defining a thing is not only describing its existence, but also describing its use, its purpose. So we have this complex interaction between two individuals, but for what purpose? What does marriage do that nothing else does as well? We can think of lots of different things that marriage does, some of which are used in defense of gay “marriage,” but I’m going to submit that marriage does one thing better than any other human relationship. It’s perfectly suited for raising children.

Before I get all beaten up by those who are unmarried with children or want to be married to someone of their own gender and raise children, hear me out. Children need parents of both gender to be involved in their lives, so they know how adult human beings are supposed to treat the opposite gender and so that they have a complete picture of what it means to be a human being from both genders. Plus, if you’re not going to mess with nature, having children in the first place requires both genders. Children also need the stability that the public commitment of marriage, when followed through, provides.

Further, If we look into the purpose of intimate relations, despite the other purposes of pleasure and intimacy, we find that the act’s ultimate purpose is to create children. This, alone, is enough to condemn homosexuality and it is also enough to condemn extramarital heterosexual relations. If the act creates children and children need to be raised by both genders in a stable home, marriage between one man and one woman is the only thing that fits the bill and should be defined as such.

It is absurd that our society has arrived at the point where this needs to be codified into law. It is obvious from the nature of things that this is our design even if it is debated by whom or which process we were designed. Why should we have to write this into law when it is naturally observable to the point where the common definition should be able to be looked up in any dictionary? I assume this was the mindset of our founding fathers and why marriage has had no need to be codified until now.

I have intentionally left out any religious argumentation because I want all to see that this is not just a religious issue. This is not just a conservative Christian issue. This is not just a Catholic issue. This is not just a Protestant issue. This is a human issue. This is a societal issue. This is a truth issue. That is why it is so important that one man, one woman marriage be made into law.

UPDATE: A more in-depth journal article regarding this argument can be found here.