In the debate over marriage, man-woman marriage is often referred to as “traditional marriage” by both liberals and conservatives alike. For example, it’s very common to hear conservatives speak of the need to “preserve traditional marriage.” Our use of language concerns me. What we call something, and how we refer to something reveals a lot about the way we think of that thing. In this case, the way we refer to marriage reveals a lot about the way we think of marriage, and the way we are arguing for our viewpoint. I submit to you that part of the reason we are losing the battle over marriage is the fact that we are grounding marriage in tradition rather than biology; in social norms rather than human nature – as evidenced by the way we speak of and describe man-woman marriage. I propose that instead of speaking of traditional marriage, we should start speaking in terms of natural marriage.
To describe man-woman marriage as traditional marriage connotes that marriage is defined by society, particularly society’s traditions. It puts the emphasis on social practice rather than the nature of marriage itself. “Traditional marriage” suggests that we are arguing for a particular form of marriage, based solely (or primarily) on the fact that this is the way it’s always been. But as detractors rightly point out, why should we ascribe such authority to tradition? Traditions change over time, so why can’t this tradition change too? Perhaps the time has come to dispense with tradition. Indeed, they argue that we need to dispense with this particular tradition because it results in discrimination.
If our only argument is that “marriage has always been defined as a man-woman union, so we need to keep it that way,” then I agree with our cultural and intellectual opponents that we don’t have a leg to stand on. But that’s not our argument – and I hope it’s not yours. Our argument is about the nature of marriage itself, not social practice. We argue that marriage has an intrinsic nature based in human nature and human biology, and cannot be changed by the whims or preferences of culture. Marriage is not a social construction that can be defined or redefined by society at will. Marriage is a comprehensive unity of two sexual opposites into a single sexual whole through the act of intercourse – an act which is inherently ordered to procreation, and hence family life. As such, marriage is a pre-political, biologically-based, natural institution that humans recognize for what it is. We describe it; we don’t define it or invent it. The phrase “traditional marriage” does not accurately describe the concept of marriage we hold to. It obscures it, and even capitulates to the notion that marriage is just a social creation and social tradition. “Natural marriage” is a much more apt term to describe our view of marriage.
The marriage debate is not about tradition (or love, equality, and the like). This debate is about whether we will continue to recognize the natural institution of marriage for what it is, or if we will ignore that natural institution in favor of a socially constructed institution that has no objective standard, and can be defined and redefined by society at will. Conservatives argue that we should continue to recognize the natural institution of marriage as one that is rooted in our shared human nature, and thus inalterable. We are opposed to those who want to pretend that other kinds of unions are marriages, or can be called “marriages,” when in fact they are not of the marital sort. While it’s possible to redefine a cat as a dog, the fact remains that it’s still a cat, and always will be.
I support natural marriage, not traditional marriage. I hope you will too.
Thinking to Believe 
September 23, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Hello Jason:
Are there any chinks of light at the end of your busy tunnel”? Indeed is there any “end” in the “tunnel”? lol
I enjoyed this article very much and I agree with your logic and sentiment wholeheartedly; nevertheless, the following caveat cannot be disclaimed.
Consummation or consummation of a marriage, in many traditions and statutes of civil or religious law, is the first (or first officially credited) act of sexual intercourse between two people, either following their marriage to each other or after a prolonged sexual attraction. Its legal significance arises from theories of marriage as having the purpose of producing legally recognized descendants of the partners, or of providing sanction to their sexual acts together, or both, and amounts to treating a marriage ceremony as falling short of completing the creation of the state of being married. Thus in some Western traditions, a marriage is not considered a binding contract until and unless it has been consummated.
These formal and literal usages support the informal and less precise usage of the word “consummation” to refer to a sexual landmark in relationships.
Within the Roman Catholic Church, a marriage that has not yet been consummated, regardless of the reason for non-consummation, can be dissolved by the pope. Additionally, an inability or an intentional refusal to consummate the marriage is probable grounds for an annulment. Catholic canon law defines a marriage as consummated when the “spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.”
Thus some theologians, such as Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., state that intercourse with contraception does not consummate a marriage.
Under section 12 of the English Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, a refusal or inability to consummate a marriage can be grounds for the marriage to be voided.
The “Natural” union of a man and a woman is the true concept of what the institution of marriage was built from but marriage IS a “Social Construct”. The “Natural Union”; that is, the consummation between a man and a woman is not marriage because marriage includes a social acceptance contract by third parties that give sanction to the consummation; the true sexual union is only between the man and the woman and no other third party, affiliation or approval is necessary.
In support of this idea, it is most noteworthy that under section 12 of the English Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, a refusal or inability to consummate a marriage can be grounds for the marriage to be voided; HOWEVER, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill introduced into the UK parliament in 2013 specifically excluded non-consummation as a ground for the annulment of a same-sex marriage.The effect of this Bill, at least in the eyes of the UK Parliament, renders same sex marriage firmly within the notion that the concept of marriage is indeed, “Traditional Marriage” and not “Natural Marriage” as your article argues but more aptly mirrors the the Alberta, Canada’s definition of comparable unions, (In some same sex pseudo-marriages a platonic relationship may exist and may even be between blood relatives and replaces the raditional common law(conjugal) marriage which union is now considered “adult interdependent relationship” meaning the relationship between 2 persons who are adult interdependent partners of each other with all the same legal rights, benefits and responsibilities as traditional (legal) marriage)
Having said that however, I do believe that if the “Natural Union” idea based on “consummation” had not become the basis of a social construct then I would agree that “Traditional Marriage” would have no value and therefore would not be an issue but since the social contract intruded into the privacy between a man and a woman’s sexual union, you are stuck with the term “Traditional Marriage” and your choice of “Natural Marriage” is already contaminated by using the word “Marriage”.(social construct of approval by third party)
Thus the most fitting phrase would have been “Natural Union” from the outset and would have been clearly defined as meaning “consummation”: ‘when the “spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.” ‘ and that, without the intrusion of social approval such that the ” theories of marriage (would be recognized) as having the purpose of producing legally recognized descendants of the partners…” (but not) “…providing sanction to their sexual acts together’, (but includes) and amounts to treating a marriage ceremony as falling short of completing the creation of the state of being married.” without consummation.
From a biblical perspective Jesus said there is no marriage in the kingdom of heaven: “Haven’t you read in your Bible that in the beginning man and woman were made for each other, male and female? And because of this, a man leaves father and mother and is firmly bonded to his wife, becoming one flesh—no longer two bodies but one. Because Nature created this organic union of the two sexes, no one should desecrate this art by cutting it apart.” (OR RENDERING IT AS A SOCIAL APPROVAL INSTITUTIONAL CONTRACT)
So despite the good intentions of your commentary and understandable logic, changing the “traditional phrase” is just a few millennia too late and the die having already been cast attests to the idiom: “you just cannot unscramble that ‘traditional’ scrambled egg”.
LikeLike
September 23, 2013 at 12:39 pm
As they say,spot on Jason, I could not agree with you more.
In fact I have argued that a lot of our communication problems stem from our use of words that really does not convey the correct message and the desire of some to keep it that way.
In science for instance, the word “species” has more than 10 different meanings. “Science” can mean different things and so can “evolution”. With so much wiggle room in word use it is a wonder that we communicate as well as we do.
It would be nice to see intelligent honest people forcing the issue of clarity in term usage.
Last April during an email dialogue with a PhD English professor, I pointed out his use of words that did not sufficiently express what he claimed to be expressing and his misconceptions about evolution which he claimed he saw no problems with though he acknowledged the fuzziness of the word. Needless to say he was quite ticked off. Funny thing is that he never gave me a hint that he was ticked off at me, he told others and even went and complained about me to the Provost.. Yet when I saw him in the hall or in my office, he smiled and greeted me as if nothing was ever wrong. Two months later i was going to his office to see a notice on his office door and while approaching I heard him inside his office complaining to someone about our email dialogue. Amazing that it was still on his mind two months later. To this day he does not know that I heard him.
I guess for some people any kind of correction is to much to handle. My point is that I believe it was my insistence to him that his use of fuzzy words as an English expert was a problem for me.
Thanks Jason, I hope enough people are reading and will commit to not tolerating misuse of words in their conversations. Who knows, it just might catch on.
LikeLike
September 23, 2013 at 10:05 pm
Jason:
LANGUAGE AND USE OF LANGUAGE IS AS SOCIETY IS: A LIVING AND CHANGING SOCIETY WITH LIVING AND CHANGING VALUES:
Eskimo languages would have a focal vocabulary with several extra words to describe snow. They deal with snow more than other cultures, just as artists have more words to describe the various details of their profession — what a non-artist calls “paint”, the artist identifies as “oil paint”, “acrylic paint”, “tempera”, or “watercolor”. This does not mean that these two individuals are observing two different objects, nor does it mean that the artist would be confused by the idea that oil paint and acrylic paint are related. Likewise in English, the words “blizzard”, “flurry”, “pack”, “slush”, “drift”, “sleet”, and “powder” refer to different types of snow, but all are recognized as varieties of “snow” in a general sense.
An interesting article in the Huffington Post on your topic puts it this way:
Defining ‘Traditional Marriage,’ Not Redefining It…..
BY Sarah Prager
Last week I heard another leader against same-sex marriage use the term “traditional marriage” and refer to “redefining marriage.” Thomas Peters of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) was on NPR arguing with Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry. Mr. Peters disagreed with the way Mr. Wolfson was framing the debate as about being for or against gay people. He claims it isn’t an even playing field if everything he says is immediately invalid because it is considered to be coming from a place of hate. He says he respects the institution of marriage and believes it worth fighting for and that it should not be redefined. I would like to respond to Mr. Peters in his framework, putting aside any discussion of bigotry. As a woman married to another woman, I have met many other people like Mr. Peters who say they don’t hate me as a person; they just believe in preserving the “traditional family.”
How these terms are so consistently misused is outrageous and an outrage, so it’s time for a history lesson. I care deeply about historical context, and, though I am not a historian, I am launching a mobile app about LGBTQ history this month and have been studying the history of marriage on my own for 10 years. I cannot continue to have this piece inside me and not write and publish it. What I’m going to say has been said before by others, but not nearly enough.
Marriage is a constantly evolving institution. You’ve probably heard by now how the Bible mentions many forms of marriage. For example, men must marry their brother’s widows, women must marry their rapists, and men may take multiple wives at once. The church did not get involved with marriages until after the collapse of the Roman Empire. It took several hundred years after that for marriage to become a sacrament because being single was considered holier than being married. Public weddings didn’t come onto the scene until the 16th century. At what point do we start saying the marriage customs of a certain time and place are the “traditional” ones? Are marriages from the year 1000 “traditional”? Or ones from the B.C. years? Or ones from 500 A.D. or 1800 A.D. or 1920 A.D.? They are all different from each other.
My parents are volunteering in a village in Cameroon right now and told me that the men there have multiple wives. One of the men asked my mom if she would be his fourth wife. She joked that he would be her second husband. (My father, her husband of 31 years, was translating this conversation.) The man laughed at such a ridiculous idea because that would not be traditional. This is just one example of how our ideas of “traditional marriage” are simply cultural, not anything officially set in stone worldwide or generation after generation.
Let’s look at U.S. law, since Mr. Peters is referring to marriage in this country. In the last 100 years marriage has changed immensely in the U.S., including the legalization of divorce as well as the use of birth control for married couples. We have even changed the gender roles by making women no longer the legal property of their husbands. In the 1800s certain states began to give married women the ability to own property in their own names until all American women were granted that right in 1900. Throughout the 20th century women gained more and more rights, such as being allowed to have credit in their own names, say no to sex with their husbands, and keep their last names if they wished. It wasn’t until 1933 that women were granted citizenship separate from their husbands.
We had essentially already made marriage genderless through the elimination of certain rights and responsibilities for husbands versus for wives, but then a new movement started in 1973 as states began passing laws redefining marriage as being between a man and a woman. Since these, there have been yet more laws about this institution that didn’t exist before, and I consider them to be against my cultural views that marriage is the union between two consenting adults, a definition that fits most of the iterations of marriage the U.S. has seen. State laws (and the now-invalid 1996 Defense of Marriage Act) that assign further restrictions based on sex don’t fit my interpretation of what marriage in the U.S. looks like for my parents’ and my generations.
In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Does Mr. Peters consider interracial marriages “traditional”? Or does historical marriage only refer to unions from the most recent 46 years? There were interracial couples raising children before 1967 even though their marriages weren’t legal, just like there were same-sex couples raising children where their marriages aren’t legal. If “traditional” just means “legal,” then many heterosexual married couples in recent decades have not been “traditional” by engaging in use of contraception before it was legalized or engaging in sodomy before it was legalized.
My wife and I, married in Massachusetts two years ago, consider our marriage to be “traditional.” We’re in our 20s and plan on having kids in a few more years. We had a “traditional” wedding with vows, dancing, family and friends, maids of honor, and a cake cutting. We share financial responsibilities and a home. We try to go out on date nights, but I have my own business, and she is a medical school student, so they’re not as often as we’d like. We don’t live “traditional,” boring lives to conform or to try to act like straight married couples, nor should a couple have to be or act “traditional” to have the right to marry; we’re just being ourselves.
I hope I have at least raised the idea that the place of terms “traditional marriage” and “redefinition of marriage” in the same-sex marriage debate should be reconsidered. It personally offends me to hear others talk about “traditional marriage” when they mean to say “monogamous opposite-sex marriage.” The kind of marriage that NOM is fighting to protect would be considered a radical redefinition of marriage to anyone from 1920s America. Remember that context when you claim you’re defending a time-tested institution.
SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-prager/defining-traditional-marriage-not-redefining-it_b_3581228.html
LikeLike