It’s pretty easy to see that:
- Marriage has not been defined as “one man and one woman” since the beginning of human history
- The definition of marriage has always been based on culture
The Bible has some historical elements and, while the actual authenticity might be in question, you can glean a lot about ancient values from some of the narratives. People often got married during that time for political and economic reasons more than anything. It makes a lot of sense to have as many wives as possible so you can get as many children (hopefully males) as possible in order to gain an economic and strategic advantage over other tribes.
It was cultural.
If we can admit that this sort of definition is not objective but based on current cultural conditions, why would it be so hard to simply extend that definition to include homosexual couples?
My marriage is not based on some fundamental definition of what it’s supposed to look like. It is fluid; looking a little different every day. There was a period of time in our society where a marriage looked like a man as the bread-winner and the woman as a home maker. That definition has changed fairly dramatically over the last fifty years. Despite that shift, I don’t hear people trying to push a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as “a male earning the family’s money while a female takes care of the home.” If this did actually make it up for a vote, there would be a public outcry eerily similar to that of many homosexual couples.
Again, I encourage those on the social right to try and be intellectually honest about this issue. There are far more important problems to be dealing with right now than what relationship is more legitimate based on something that is, by nature, subjective.