Our language with the homosexual “marriage”

I recently had a quick exchange with someone on a thread; we both found the homosexual “marriage” to be wrong, however we had a disagreement whether it is OK to consider a woman to be related as a wife to another woman, if such is her official status.

First, here is the definition of marriage according to the Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary, which is close to the biblical definition (emphasis mine):

The act of uniting a man and a woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and a woman for life. (...). Marriage was instituted by God Himself (...). “Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled” Hebrew 13.

Click to expand...

Let's say that I know of a christian man that is getting married with a non-christian woman. I would not agree with their union, as not being done in obedience to God, because He commanded us not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, as if righteousness could have fellowship with unrighteousness and light communion with darkness (2 Cor. 6:14). However, although I disapprove the union, it still fits the above biblical definition of marriage, so that I will recognize its validity. Then, when I'll speak about this union, I will call it a marriage, and in consequence, I will consider the man to be a husband to the woman, and the woman to be a wife to the man.

Now, if someone considers a woman to be related as a wife to another woman, this implies that he considers their relationship to be a marriage. He may disapprove such a “marriage”, just as I disapprove the above marriage between a christian man and a non-christian woman, but his language shows, that their union must be in accordance with his definition of marriage. I may not know what exactly his definition of marriage is, but in my view it must contradict the biblical definition of marriage in either way:
1) Marriage wasn't instituted by God but by men, therefore men have the liberty to change this institution as they see fit
2) God didn't institute marriage to be exclusively between a man and a woman

“Marriage is honorable in all” (Heb. 13:4): this verse also imply that we must use a language that honors marriage, but if our language calls a relation against nature (Rom. 1:26-27), which is an abomination to God (Lev. 18:22), to be a “marriage”, then we dishonor marriage with our language!

More than that: marriage belongs to the things that God says to be very good as He made them (Gen. 1:28,31). Aren't we causing a great confusion, when we use the same word for naming what God says to be very good as for naming what God says to be an abomination? Or if God told us that light has no communion with darkness, how can we put good and evil under the same denomination? Should we then wonder if our children grow into confusion and rebellion against God, if they hear us speak like that?

com7fy8 said:

But if you look at the Greek wording for "the god of this world", you might agree that our Apostle Paul used the same term "o theos" for our Father and for Satan. So . . . this could mean we can be expected to get the correct understanding of words and terms when the same ones are used in more than one way.

Click to expand...

Indeed, per definition the word “god” can refer to any deity to which men submit, which doesn't only include the God of the Bible. Marriage, on the other hand, was instituted by God, so there is only one marriage: the union of a man with a woman.

com7fy8 said:

And yet we do call unsaved people married . . . if they are.

Click to expand...

I already wrote that it doesn't play any role whether the married people are saved or not to make their marriage valid, because the definition of marriage doesn't speak of any requirement about their salvation, so what are you trying to say?

com7fy8 said:

Actually, in my case, if I know a man and woman have stayed with each other and have taken care of their kids, all along, that to me is enough to mean they are married, even if they never were pronounced.

Click to expand...

It is indeed better than sexual encounters without strings attached, but it still falls short of what God has established for humanity. In the relationships between an employer and an employee or between a landlord and a lodger there is a stronger commitment than in such a free relationship, because such a free relationship doesn't have any commitment at all! the man or the woman can anytime freely leave his/her partner, without being held accountable to anyone. It's no wonder, that such uncommitted relationships are much less stable that marriage relationships.

By the way, Jesus doesn't see it the same way as you do: he indeed said to the Samaritan woman that she had had 5 husbands but that the man she now then had isn't her husband (John 4:17-18), and she was not such a self-righteous person to deny that fact!

com7fy8 said:

They possibly have been more faithful and honorable than some number of "born-again" people have been. So . . . you could make this interesting by asking if unfaithful and failed evangelical unions were "false marriages".

Click to expand...

This is wrong to so much focus on men as to lose the focus on God. The failures of other professing Christians give no license to disobey God. Everyone has to respond to God for his own transgressions. At the day of judgment, nobody will be able to excuse himself for his bad choices by pointing the finger at the bad choices of some christian people, because his life will be measured by the perfect law of God, not by the examples he saw in other people.

com7fy8 said:

But instead of giving such emphasis and attention to what labels to use . . . broken people in their broken relationships need attention of compassion to them . . . more than such attention to protecting "institutions" and words . . . I think, though I do care about what we say about people.

Click to expand...

If you'd like to speak about the compassion for the broken people, let's speak about the compassion of Jesus: it is a compassion of a physician to the sick people that acknowledge to be sick; it is a compassion of the Savior of the world to call to repentance those that know themselves not to be righteous but sinners (Lk 5:27-32); yes it is a compassion for sinners that can receive the call to repentance (Matt. 21:28-32; Lk 7:28-30). For such people has Jesus grace and compassion to give, but not for the people that want to continue in their rebellion against God with their sinful lifestyle. Indeed repentance precedes the receiving of grace, just as it was necessary that John the Baptist first preached repentance, so that people could receive the salvation of Jesus afterwards (Lk 3:3-6), which includes his compassion and grace. But it looks like to me that your understanding of compassion for broken people hides to them their condition of sinners and their need of repentance. Such compassion is not the compassion of Jesus which aims to make people come to God the Father (see John 14:6), which implies the necessity of repentance.

com7fy8 said:

. . . more than such attention to protecting "institutions" and words . . .

Click to expand...

So isn't marriage an institution worth to be protected according to you? Does it leave you cold, that it was instituted by God Himself for humanity? Where is than the fear of God? Can't you see the evil that came on our nations since people began to openly dishonor marriage and promote free sex? How many divorces, confusing family constellations, broken childhoods? how much increase of mental health issues, on criminality, etc?

You seem to imply that we can't both have compassion for the broken people and endeavor to protect the institution marriage, but don't you see that a lot of the brokenness that you witness comes just from the failure of protecting the institution of marriage, even if by your use of quotation marks you seem to deny it to be an institution?

com7fy8 said:

If you bring them up to have understanding . . . they won't be stupid and confused and misinformed.

Click to expand...

And how will you bring children up to have understanding, unless you teach them the Bible? There is no understanding when there is no fear of God and no honor for what is holy (which includes marriage):

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. (Prov. 9:10)

Click to expand...

com7fy8 said:

And they will be able to communicate with and understand what different people are saying . . . so they can communicate with compassion about each one's need for Jesus.

Click to expand...

As I said: nobody needs Jesus unless he recognizes himself to be a sick person needing a physician, a sinner needing a savior, an enemy to God needing reconciliation with Him, and a subject of the power of darkness needing to be “translated into the kingdom of his [the Father's] dear Son” (Col. 1:13).

com7fy8 said:

Bring them up to be competent communicators, so they can not be at the mercy of confused and self-righteous people who care about words and their own lifestyles more than they care about the people Jesus died for.

Click to expand...

As Christians we are called to watch our words and our lifestyle in accordance to God's commands: loving God just implies that (1. John 5:2-3)! Read your Bible, it is full of such exhortations. But it looks like to me that your view of Christianity can't reconcile the commands of “loving God with all your heart” and “love your neighbor as yourself”. It looks like to me that you want us to stop caring about loving God, because we presumably couldn't otherwise love our neighbor. What kind of godless Christianity is that?

And don't you see that the greatest part of the self-righteous people, is not to be found among the Christians (against which you seem to have a strong negative bias and animosity) but among the people of the world calling good evil and evil good (Isaiah 5:20), so that they could pursue an evil lifestyle while being righteous in their own eyes?

Hello Peter,

peter2 said:

i'm not sure uncommitted relationships are easier to abandon

Click to expand...

For most people I guess that would be a moral and a conscience issue to leave his/her unmarried partner with their children. However, as people can easily find some justification why they would be right with cheating their spouse, then I see no reason why they could not do the same as well with leaving their unmarried partner, so that they could abandon their uncommitted relationship quite easily.

peter2 said:

Therefore, to give an answer to your thread, i'd say, as christian, if invited to such a ceremony as godless commitment, i would politely decline invitation, arguing i believe my christian duty is to testify God's not superfluous in a commitment between 2 persons and any true fulfilment does consist in allowing God in the commitment

Click to expand...

I not sure if you mean here the marriage of a man and a woman that are both unbelievers? I believe that a marriage doesn't need to be religiously celebrated by a pastor in order to be valid, otherwise the great majority of the marriages in the world would be invalid. The Muslim man that married the Muslim woman are joined together by God, even if they didn't invoke the right God in their ceremony of marriage. Therefore God is involved in the commitment of a marriage even if the married people are not aware of that.

That's said, I believe that anyone should be free to accept or not to participate in such marriage ceremonies where God isn't acknowledged in the commitment.

peter2 said:

I don't see any alternative for a christian that would like to prevent himself to testify the idea God is superfluous when invited to a godless commitment.

Click to expand...

If I would be invited to a wedding party where the people are not Christians, then I would be there to celebrate their marriage but I won't think that I would be testifying by my presence to the idea of God being superfluous, but I will simply see the ignorance of these people not knowing that God is part of their commitment.