why can't another label be used for same sex marriage?

I try to be open minded about this, but why can’t a union between homosexuals be called something else besides marriage? Most people in this type of a relationship say it is for financial reasons, that they have the same rights as hetero people regarding this and that’s why they want to get married. What happened to the phrase civil union? Why is the word marriage so important for homosexuals?
It is very misleading to use marriage because as a Catholic, you are considered married when it is by a priest.
I am not asking to start a big debate-but if the word marriage causes so much conflict in this, why not change the label? Perhaps common law partner or something --that way they still get the financial things and the word marriage can be removed from this.

Because to homosexual couples, they want their “union” to be called a marriage because they don’t want to be treated as second-class citizens, but want it to be a marriage like straight couples have, but of course, i don’t agree with this. God bless

I’ve even heard from homosexual couples in a civil union that “It isn’t marriage” and they’d like it to be. It is about acceptance as complete equals, but you can’t make something what it is not, but that is what they want. They want the label “married” and “marriage”.

I’ve been saying this same thing for years - why call it marriage? They are asking for something new, it should have a new name. Hopefully they won’t ruin another good word like ‘gay’ for us by adopting an already existing word.

God’s peace. I just posted this on another thread, but it is relevant here.

God’s peace. It just occurred to me that God being “unable” to make a nine-sided triangle is a good way to argue against the homosexualizers who want to have homosexual unions recognized as marriages. Marriage is what it is: a lawful and potentially holy union between one man and one woman. Triangles have three sides, by definition. You can make a three-sided figure have nine sides, but it isn’t a triangle anymore, and even God “can’t” make it so, because God can’t make truth out of nonsense. Neither can he (or anyone else) make a homosexual union a marriage. Blessings, ~Br. Carlo~

I find this to be a perfectly reasonable answer to those who want to call it “marriage”.
I doubt that any of them will accept it though. They reject the premise that there can’t be marriage between two people of the same sex.

I think the main problem with this is the secular world view that the only requirement for marriage is love for one another. But as we all know, there’s more to it than that.

This is not acceptable then. I don’t know much about the topic but it is no longer a civil rights issue. To call this a marriage is being unreasonable.

You ask a good question and I think that as a matter of civil law the question would need to be answered in a fairly broad way. In short, from a civil standpoint, whether it is a heterosexual or homosexual couple the contract should be called the same thing. Either “Civil Union” or “Domestic Partnership” both suffice across the board for the purposes of law.

“Marriage” as a term would then have no meaning in civil law. It would of course retain it’s meaning in Canon Law.

Naturally - no one would be able to control how individuals and society would use the term.


Actually this is incorrect. In the secular world the only thing requirement for marriage is free consent.
Of course there are other things like a minimum age requirement…and in most places still that it must be one man and one woman…
But from a “secular” view - a civil law view…Love really does not enter into it…at least not in the U.S.


“Marriage” has had a meaning in civil law for ages. “Marriage” under civil law does not mean the same thing as marriage in a religious context. Civil marriage does not, e.g. include the duty to (try) to have children. Civil marriage can end up in legal divorce. People can have more than one civil marriage, etc.
The simple fact is, that under civil law, there is no reason to start calling same-sex unions anything different than ‘marriage’.

Since the word marriage has appeared in the bible, and is a Catholic Sacrament the term has a religious context. Surely you believe in seperation of church and state.

The problem with this is that, whereas a triangle “is what it is”, marriage is not “what it is”. Marriage has been defined in various ways throughout history, and it still is, depending on the part of the world you happen to be in.
It can/could mean " a lawful and potentially holy union between one man and one woman", but it can/could also mean " a lawful and potentially holy union between a man and two or more women" or " a lawful and potentially holy union between an adult male and a 12-year-old girl". Or if could also mean " a lawful union between some man and a woman who has never even laid eyes on this man and who does not even have a say in the matter because this unijn has long ago been arranged by the families" and it can mean lots of other things.
So, why would it be impossible to make a homosexual union a marriage? That’ll just add one more meaning: " the lawful and loving union between two consenting adults". That’s also a possible definition, and, contrary to yours, it does contain love as an element.

Of course 'Catholic marriage" has a religious context. But people married long before the Catholic Church even existed.
And yes, I believe in the separation of church and state. That’s why I do not think it’s any of the state’s business to say what the term “Catholic marriage” should or should not entail, and likewise, it’s none of the Catholic church’s business to determine what a civil (state) marriage should or should not entail.

It does need another label. In the Catholic church the union between two people of the
same sex would not be a marriage.
I have read that a marriage is the union between a man and a woman. They must be
open to having children.
We know that this is not possible between same sex couples. Therefore, the label
“marriage” does not apply.

Good point. I agree - marriage HAS “had a meaning in civil law for ages”. However that meaning has always been a heterosexual one.
Civilly, the current debate centers in large part around the legal aspects and guarantees associated with “marriage”. It just seems to me that, if the general society wishes expand these guarantees to same sex couples, then it would be easier (given the religious connotations associated with the term marriage) for the state to use a more clear and correct term indicating the “contract” aspect of the commitment. Thus, “Domestic Partnership” seems to me to be the most clear.

Now to be clear on this…Should such a course be adopted it would apply to ALL couples in so far as civil law is concerned. In other words, in civil law - No one would be “married”…there would be couples who are domestic partners.
Marriages would then be strictly the purview of a given church.

Of course I doubt that my suggestion will ever come to pass…But I do think it the best solution if SSM is going to be allowed.


I am not in support of same-sex “marriage”, but I at least understand the perspective of why they want it to be called that. You and I understand that no matter what the title is, it still is not a marriage. However, we’ve learned that “separate but equal” is not a philosophy that works. Giving it all the universal term of “marriage” is seen as a way to create equality. It essentially removes the sacramentality of the philosophy of marriage and belittles it to a mere term of status.


You ask an interesting question. Words as you know have an origin and evolve to describe what it is we want to convey in language. Words are added all the time to the dictionary from other languages, ie


a la carte, a la mode,

and so on…

The etymology of the word marriage is seen here…

marriage (n.)
c.1300, “act of marrying, entry into wedlock;” also “state or condition of being husband and wife;” from O.Fr. mariage “marriage; dowry” (12c.), from V.L. *maritaticum (11c.), from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre “to wed, marry, give in marriage” (see marry (v.)). The Vulgar Latin word also is the source of It. maritaggio, Sp. maridaje. Meaning “a union by marriage, a particular matrimonial union” is early 14c.; that of “wedding; the marriage ceremony; condition of being married” is from late 14c. Figurative use (non-theological) from early 15c.

In order to have a word that would be acceptable it would have to be borrowed from another language or invented…some words are invented.


Shakespeare invented words as you know…

To find a word that describes Homosexual Unions may take some creativity…so that it is accepted by all…here is the rub…Same sex Marriage and homosexual unions are not acceptable to all and the word will become invented or borrowed and accepted by some and not by all…

Tough question…I anticipate the word will have to spring forth from this group of people as to have it invented/borrowed and imposed would be rejected…

I have no thoughts on an appropriate word other than non-marriage…or unmarriage…

Homosexual activist groups have rejected domestic partnerships. Domestic partnerships could have been truly beneficial to non-traditional households that wanted–without any sexual element–to preserve their stability via economic and social protections. Single moms wanting to raise kids in a domestic partnership could have been aided by this option. But nooooo! Homosexuals want to be cultural predators and take something that has never been part of homosexual culture–marriage. Well, there is that one exception: Nero’s marriage to the boy-servant that looked like the wife he kicked to death. Marriage is not and never has been part of homosexual culture. Homosexual marriage is cultural predation, and has nothing to do with Bible precepts or religious beliefs. Male-to-female marriage is a cultural universal even in non-Judeo-Christian cultures. But since homosexuals represent one of the richest demographics in America there will, I predict, be “gay marriage.” This isn’t a matter of equity.

Homosexuals don’t want equity, they want privilege, like being included in “hate crime” categories while their Democrat lobbyists were rejecting “hate crime” status for pregnant females. Homosexuals are culturally bereft, and have no skin in the game, no kids to raise as upright citizens. Where are the great cultural contributions by homosexuals? Where are the great homosexual universities, hospitals, charities? Where is the formal homosexual protest against man-boy love?

Where are homosexual seekers of justice when the Catholic Church is getting punked by Democrats to pay for diabolical abortion and euthanasia? Feh. This is just cultural cross-dressing, like female priests who want to atone for the “Sin of Adam & Eve”…not! It’s the “Sin of Adam.” Period. And it is “Adam and Eve” not "Adam and Steve. This is cultural destruction planned for decades by the Satanistas and exposed by former Communist Bella Dodd. The Satanistas were just waiting for the WWII vets, well educated and committed Americans, to die. God help us!

God’s peace. Belorg posted, in part:

" . . . Or if could also mean " a lawful union between some man and a woman who has never even laid eyes on this man and who does not even have a say in the matter because this unijn (sic) has long ago been arranged by the families" and it can mean lots of other things.
So, why would it be impossible to make a homosexual union a marriage? That’ll just add one more meaning: " the lawful and loving union between two consenting adults". That’s also a possible definition, and, contrary to yours, it does contain love as an element."

All of your definitions, except the last, involve males and females. You make a gigantic leap from what amount to minor variations among man-woman marriages when you lump same-sex “marriage” in with them. This is probably because as an atheist, you see no essential difference between man and woman; the only differences are physical, and are the outcome of an impersonal and unloving evolution. This is also why a worldly (i.e. feelings-based) love figures so strongly in your estimation of marriage, even more than sexuality. Many cultures consider feelings-based love to be a pleasant but irrelevant component of marriage, and for good reason; there is no permanence in “as long as we both shall love.”

You see, Belorg, I once thought as you do. Back in that dark period of my life when I lived as if God did not exist, I saw the whole world as revolving around my feelings. I believed that since there was no God, any meaning that the universe might have was caused by what meaning I inflicted on it. I thank God daily that he delivered me from my self-centeredness and through Truth, opened up the possibility of genuine love! Blessings, ~Br. Carlo~

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.