Post by Cerb on May 26, 2010 12:27:02 GMT -5
I don't believe marriage implies a union between a man and a woman. My latin isn't so good but I believe it merely implies joining two things together. It's possible that a feminine or masculine usage could imply what is being married together, but that's not my present interpretation.
Overall though when it comes to the Bible the translation of marriage can simply be referred to as joined. Much like the latin can imply being grafted together.
I think it's only in the last 500 years or so that the word marriage has taken a more religious spin. I was personally married to my wife by a judge, so in that context it certainly had no theological background (we tried to get a priest to do it but he wouldn't and that's a long story!).
I think the term "christian marriage" doesn't apply to what is being argued for. It is the request to perform civil unions or have a state / country reckognized union.
I think in most Christian ceremonies the priest will refer to it as holy matrimony, the word marriage is rarely used (in my experience). We are here to witness the joining of x and x in holy matrimony... I now pronounce x and x man and wife.
Here's the thing, from my religious standpoint. I am not saying that the Lord should accept the unions, merely that the state should. I don't look at couples either hetero or homo sexual and think "they are married". I think hey, theres Lori and Will, or hey theres David and Steve.
My personal take is this. If the word marriage by definition implied a man and a woman, I could support the cause to prevent the word's usage being changed. I strongly dislike word definitions being changed to suit popular usage.
Overall though when it comes to the Bible the translation of marriage can simply be referred to as joined. Much like the latin can imply being grafted together.
I think it's only in the last 500 years or so that the word marriage has taken a more religious spin. I was personally married to my wife by a judge, so in that context it certainly had no theological background (we tried to get a priest to do it but he wouldn't and that's a long story!).
I think the term "christian marriage" doesn't apply to what is being argued for. It is the request to perform civil unions or have a state / country reckognized union.
I think in most Christian ceremonies the priest will refer to it as holy matrimony, the word marriage is rarely used (in my experience). We are here to witness the joining of x and x in holy matrimony... I now pronounce x and x man and wife.
Here's the thing, from my religious standpoint. I am not saying that the Lord should accept the unions, merely that the state should. I don't look at couples either hetero or homo sexual and think "they are married". I think hey, theres Lori and Will, or hey theres David and Steve.
My personal take is this. If the word marriage by definition implied a man and a woman, I could support the cause to prevent the word's usage being changed. I strongly dislike word definitions being changed to suit popular usage.