Throughout the article, the author uses the technique of definition to clearly state both cases, the view of the state versus the view of the church in matters of marriage, and provide a mutual understanding of both. He begins by defining for his audience the states view on marriage. He says of marriage, “[It is] a social and voluntary contract between a man and woman in order to protect money, property and children. Marriage is a civil union without the benefit of clergy or religious definition” (Moody 148). The state based definition does not nessicarily care why people are getting married but rather secures their futures in a civil or rather financial term. When defining how the church sees marriage, the author states plainly and to the point that, “marriage is a sacred institution” (Moody 148). People are expected to follow the rules of the church, moreover, the rules established when taking “sacred” marriage vows….i.e.: till death do us part. According to the church, marriage is about a love two people share. From a church standpoint it is hard to believe a couple of the same sex could possibly feel the love a man and a woman share. Never in wedding vows is it mentioned that because two people are joined in holy matrimony that now they are allowed to have joint checking accounts or adopt children as a family. Moody, by definition, believes that while love does play a role in marriage, legally marriage is about a joining of two people lives, including issues that require legal clarification according to the state. By the states definition, it seems that gay marriage does not pose a threat to society. Two people can marry and legally own property regardless of same sex where as in the church gay marriage is
Throughout the article, the author uses the technique of definition to clearly state both cases, the view of the state versus the view of the church in matters of marriage, and provide a mutual understanding of both. He begins by defining for his audience the states view on marriage. He says of marriage, “[It is] a social and voluntary contract between a man and woman in order to protect money, property and children. Marriage is a civil union without the benefit of clergy or religious definition” (Moody 148). The state based definition does not nessicarily care why people are getting married but rather secures their futures in a civil or rather financial term. When defining how the church sees marriage, the author states plainly and to the point that, “marriage is a sacred institution” (Moody 148). People are expected to follow the rules of the church, moreover, the rules established when taking “sacred” marriage vows….i.e.: till death do us part. According to the church, marriage is about a love two people share. From a church standpoint it is hard to believe a couple of the same sex could possibly feel the love a man and a woman share. Never in wedding vows is it mentioned that because two people are joined in holy matrimony that now they are allowed to have joint checking accounts or adopt children as a family. Moody, by definition, believes that while love does play a role in marriage, legally marriage is about a joining of two people lives, including issues that require legal clarification according to the state. By the states definition, it seems that gay marriage does not pose a threat to society. Two people can marry and legally own property regardless of same sex where as in the church gay marriage is