A Christian, intra-religious translating dictionary

Terms related to
same-sex marriage (SSM)

Sponsored link.

Same-sex marriage terms, phrases and slogans:

We compare here:

Definitions used by some of the larger fundamentalist, other evangelical and religiously conservative organizations, like the Roman Catholic Church, American Family Association, Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Promise Keepers, Traditional Values Coalition, etc.,

with

Definitions used by other groups and individuals -- including most progressive, mainline & liberal Christians, followers of other religions' liberal and mainline wings, persons who don't identify themselves with any religion, humanists, Unitarian Universalists, therapists and counselors, human sexuality researchers, social service workers, gays, lesbians & bisexuals, transsexuals, civil rights advocates, and others.

These definitions tend to reflect closely the group's or individual's beliefs about the nature of homosexuality: whether it is:

	A behavior or an innate nature,
	Chosen or unchosen,
	Changeable or fixed,
	A preference or an orientation,
	Intrinsically immoral or immoral under certain circumstances (like heterosexuality)

These definitions also reflect their beliefs about the nature of the family, the nature of marriage, and gender roles -- if any -- assigned by themselves or by their faith group:

	Whether only those families headed by one female and one male should be recognized by the state.
	Whether marriage is a civil institution, a religious ritual, a sacrament or sine combination.
	Whether SSM will have a negative impact on opposite-sex marriage.
	Whether the sole purpose of marriage is procreation.
	Whether allowing same-sex couples to marry will increase the number of homosexuals in the future.
	Whether parents must be of opposite genders in order for their children to develop properly into mature adults.

The terms that people use, and the precise meanings that they assign to terms, automatically bias the discussion in one direction or another. This often makes dialogue difficult or impossible.

Attitudes towards SSM In North America differ:

Canada: There is very little conflict among Canadians since SSM was legalized in its 10 provinces and three territories in mid-2005. The Globe and Mail -- Canada's national newspaper -- published a timeline of SSM in that country. They have 18 essays describing activities during 2005 and before. But the only entry for 2006 described an unsuccessful attempt by the Conservative Party to reopen debate on SSM. The only entry for 2007 described two marriages of gay politicians. There is no entry for 2008 and 2009. SSM appears to have become an integrated part of Canadian culture.

U.S.: Beliefs among Americans are in a state of flux -- similar to the divisions within religious groups in the 19th century about human slavery, in the 1960s about racial segregation, and in recent decades over equal rights for women. Perhaps the closest comparison to the current debate over same-sex marriage is the topic of interracial marriage: The first court to overturn an anti-miscegenation law was, predictably, the California Supreme Court in 1948. The U.S. Supreme court legalized inter-racial marriage across the U.S. in 1967 with its ruling in the ironically named case Loving v. Virginia. It wasn't until 1991 that those Americans opposed to same-sex marriage became a minority. Almost three decades after such marriages became legal, the controversy has largely died down. Whether the same path will be followed for SSM is anyone's guess.

Comparison:

See also conflicting definitions about
terms related to sexual orientation

Copyright © 2009 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2009-MAY-29
Latest update and review: 2009-MAY-29
Author: B.A. Robinson

Web ReligiousTolerance.org