[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Knalus

...But I don't want those people changing the definition of something that is a defining part of my life. I don't trust them - partly because they don't believe it is important, or they wouldn't be trying to change it.

Originally Posted by Knalus

...I guess people don't really put that much importance in their own marriage anymore, which is a shame.

It is pretty presumptuous of you to think that those in favour of changing the definition of marriage have a lower level of respect or regard for the institution and its importance. I absolutely reject the supposition, as I am enthusiastically committed to my own marriage, and a strong proponent for marriage generally, but am also very much in favour of refining it.

It is interesting, because you and I have crossed paths on this same issue at least once before, in which I offered the following assertion about the beneficial changes in the definition of marriage that are ongoing:

Originally Posted by Textcritic

...I agree with you that definitions are important, but in this statement you have mis-spoken about what marriage "has always been", and seem to think that it is somehow arbitrary. The fact of the matter is that marriage has been culturally shaped since the beginning of time, and this will continue until the end. I believe that marriage is a sacred institution, but my understanding for why this is is most certainly different from what marriage was for many thousands of years in a variety of different cultures.

Marriage in the modern world is an expression of relational affection, and has become a contract to ensure the exceptional status of that relationship. In my mind, this is a much higher ideal than that which we inherited, in which marriage was a contract between families for the purpose of ensuring progeny. You complain about cavalier attitudes that have developed towards the institution of marriage, but I fear that you fail to recognize that this is an unfortunate consequence for how the definition of marriage has in fact changed for the better in time. Ancient divorce rates were low, and marriages were permanent not so because they were so much better, but because their function was much more sustainable, if less noble. By shifting its purpose away from procreation and towards companionship, this has created a considerable amount of instability for the institution itself. Let's be clear here: marriages fail more frequently in the modern world because it is extremely difficult to find, cultivate, and maintain meaningful companionship with just one other person for a lifetime. It is a credit to you and your spouse for surviving modern marriage; the fact that so many others cannot is not a blight on the current state of the institution, but rather a consequence for how lofty an ideal it has become.

So, I will remind you again. I am convinced that the current vintage of marriage is easily the most superior expression of the ideal in human history, and this is demonstrated in part by how difficult it is to actually succeed in marriage. The current divorce rates are in many ways tragic and ultimately disappointing, but they do point to how noble and extraordinary the relational premises of modern marriage have become. In my mind, if homosexuals want the same rights to celebrate the same institution that heterosexual couples strive to perfect, are there really any good reasons for their exclusion?