Over at what calls itself the Anglican Mainstream, Andrew Carey reflects on the impossibility of same-sex marriage based on the fact that "The essential nature of marriage as complementary union of a man and a woman, and the stable nature of marriage for children remain appealing." Marriage, by definition, is thus and so.
Andrew is smart enough to recognize this is not entirely true. He even raises the obvious counter-argument: "We are constantly being told that marriage has come in many forms over centuries and millennia and that if it has changed in the past, why can’t it change now?"
Unfortunately, rather than make a cogent response, he merely points out that while such an argument may gain traction outside the church, there enough people in the church who find the old notion "appealing" to be able to communicate this to the larger society, and argue passionately in defense of the ideal.
Andrew's "definitional" approach is a classical example of begging the question. It reminds me of the thwarted efforts of word-purists to resist the changes in meanings of words (based on their actual usage). It is as impossible a task as Canute trying to stop the tide. Reality will always win over false idealism. Andrew, welcome to the real world.
Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
h/t The Lead