The Definition of Dog
Suppose there was a little girl who had a cat. It had long fur, feline grace, and purred when pleased. Her brother, meanwhile, had a dog. It was a miniature schnauzer, had a militant bearing, and barked quite proudly at visitors.
One day, the young lad had some friends over, and was boasting about his dog. His sister, sitting nearby with her cat in her lap, picked her up and said, "I have a dog too".
“That's not a dog, it's a cat,” her brother declared.
“It's a dog just like yours,” his sister declared, waving one of her cat’s paws in the air, “See it's got four legs.”
The obvious problem with the young girls’ theory is that while a dog may be an animal with four legs, not all animals with four legs are dogs. While having four legs may be part of the definition of dogs, it is not the entire definition.
‘Dog’ is not a broad category that includes cats, chipmunks, giraffes, and elephants. The word dog has a definition which excludes those other animals.
Marriage
Let us turn to marriage. The debate over gay marriage is often framed in terms of whether we are going to ‘allow two men to marry’. But two man can no more marry then the sister’s cat can be a dog. The sister may think she’s a dog, call her a dog, and even win an argument with her brother. But the cat is still not a dog.
The history basically went like this:
Only men and women could marry.
This was seen as unfair.
So the Supreme Court ruled that men could marry men.
Or, at least, that’s the history on the surface. But ignores one big thing: the definition of marriage.
Definition
MAR'RIAGE, noun [Latin mas, maris.]
The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Hebrews 13:4
1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage
The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matthew 22:2.
2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Revelation 19:7.
Webster’s 1828
Suppose there was a bakery. A place that sold cake, bread, and buns. They bought the flour and eggs and milk and sugar and chocolate… all of the ingredients. And then they put them together and baked them and put them out on display cases, and people came and bought them.
Now suppose that this bakery had, for years, enforced a rule: Only red-haired people could buy their goods. It was called ‘The Red-Haired Bakery’, the owners all had red-hair, and there were enough red-haired people in the town for customers.
And then suppose, one day, they decided to sell to blond-haired people too. Question: was it still a bakery?
The question is silly, and easily answered, because having red hair has nothing to do with being a bakery. Indeed most bakeries never inquire about your hair, or make you take off your hat to ensure it is a proper form of redness. The definition of bakery has nothing, literally nothing, to do with having red hair.
If a court decision had said, “All bakeries must accept blond-haired customers,” the issue would have been the same… because the definition of ‘bakery’ has nothing to do with hair colour. It may, or may not, be right for courts to tell bakeries who they must serve as customers, but the definition of ‘bakery’ is not involved.
But now suppose they had ruled, instead, that chess clubs must include checker players. And must teach checkers, and print checker’s books, and allow a checker player to be elected president. Is that the same thing?
Well, no, because there is nothing about checkers that fits in a chess club. Checkers go against the definition of a ‘chess’ club. There is no law against checkers, or even in having a club that includes both (altho there no doubt should be), but if they do, it’s not a ‘chess’ club… its a ‘game’ club or something.
From the Beginning
The modern Encyclopedia Britanica, in a kind of backhanded way, recognises this problem. In its definition of ‘Marriage’ (in its modern version) it mentions that marriage is
“Marriage, a legally and socially sanctioned union, usually between a man and a woman,”
and then goes on to say,
“By the 21st century the nature of marriage in Western countries—particularly with regard to the significance of procreation and the ease of divorce—had begun to change. In 2000 the Netherlands became the first country to legalize same-sex marriages;”
While they mention in the history section that the idea of ‘same-sex marriage’ is new, they skip that part in the definition part. When one reads the 1973 Britanica (which I happened to have lying around) the idea that it is a relationship between a man and a woman is so strong that you have to read several paragraphs down before it is even brought out. And even there it reads as if you knew the whole time that a ‘husband’ was a male and a ‘wife’ was a female.
IOW the Britanica it only bothered to say ‘a man and a woman’ when the definition started to change.
Bait and Switch
So let us change our summary of what happened, historically.
Marriage is a permanent sexual covenant between a man and a woman.
Our modern society hates marriage.
Thus, it started calling things that weren’t marriages as if they were marriages.
IE
Marriage has a definition, set at creation, by God. It has been recognised all throughout history.
That definition excludes men marrying men
So let’s pretend we’re changing who is ‘allowed’ to marry, when we’re actually changing the definition. Which we can’t do.
The Role of Government
The other part of the bait and switch is this: we have pretended that government, not God, defines marriage. We have confused the government saying ‘you are eligible for Social Security’ with it saying ‘you are married’. The government created Social Security, it can end Social Security, it can change who is eligible.
But the government didn’t create marriage, God did. The government can’t end marriage. And it can’t determine who is married.
Even if you believe in evolution, the idea is silly. Think of all of human history, and all cultures in the world. Are you going to start using the word ‘married’ only for those people who the modern American government caused to be married? Only for those people whose own government caused to be married? Are you going to insist that people who live in areas without a government that governs marriage… aren’t married?
Conclusion
No two men have ever been married. No two men can ever be married. What has happened recently is we have started using the word ‘married’ to refer to people who aren’t married.
From the dawn of time everyone has recognized marriage as a sexual relationship between a man and a woman. As the saying goes, “If you call a horse’s tail its leg… it still only has four legs.”
Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!
Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.
If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!
If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.
Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,
Von
Links
Marriage Discussion
I write a lot on the subject of marriage, and one of the most important threads has been a letter exchange with
. Our question in that thread was ‘What Is Marriage?”.Ryan Short also contributed.
What Is Marriage #1B (Von) Asked and answered “Is Marriage Real?”
What Is Marriage #2B (Von) Marriage is a sexual union. That’s not all it is (by a long chalk), but that is its core.
What is Marriage #3B (Von) “Marriage is… ordained by God for the purpose of producing a Godly seed…”
What is Marriage #4B (Von) Marriage is a covenant. Also, post more scripture!
What is Marriage #R1B (Von) A bit of a discursion deeper into covenant
What is Marriage #5B (Von) Marriage is Obedience.
What is Marriage #6b (Von) Marriage is Leadership, Marriage is Jurisdictions
What is Marriage R2B View from a Height, a reply to Ryan regarding covenant.
What is Marriage #7 (Von) Marriage is a Blessing
What is Marriage #8B // Podcast version Discussing Dichotomies
What is Marriage #9B // Podcast Version No Personal Goals
Patriarchy Discussion
and I are discussing patriarchy. I’m in favour and think it inevitable. J.S… not so much.
The Inevitability of Patriarchy: Laying some foundation.
The Blessings of the Breast and the Womb: // Podcast Version The role of pregnancy, lactation, and raising children in the inevitability of patriarchy.
What is Marriage: Adding the issue of marriage, and discussing meritocracy and inheritance.
Differences Make Differences: // Podcast Version Given the differences between men and women, could it be that boys are wired to do their jobs and girls are wired to do theirs?
Not in the letter exchange, but on subject:
This book you keep citing is nothing but a collection of short fiction compiled over the years. Not a single word of it is true. It does contain mythology and legends about our past which may be accurate parables about us learning things like “don’t eat rotten meat” and “don’t trust other humans for we are a race of killer monkeys”. But as a guide for life you’d be better off using “trust the government” or “sign up to go to war and get killed” than believe any of the bullshit in the book.