Now "marriage" has lost its meaning, should we find another word to express the Sacrament?

The word "marriage" as it is expressed in books of religious scripture such as the Bible has now lost its meaning in common society, which now defines it as "a temporary expression of love and commitment between two people of indeterminate gender". Religious folk who speak of 'marriage'... show more The word "marriage" as it is expressed in books of religious scripture such as the Bible has now lost its meaning in common society, which now defines it as "a temporary expression of love and commitment between two people of indeterminate gender". Religious folk who speak of 'marriage' to others convey a completely different thing to the listeners, especially if they are young. Children, by law, must be taught society's definition of the word.

How should this word now be translated in order to convey its proper sense?

Or should we simply remove this Sacrament, since there are no longer words in our language to express it?
Update: Stanilslaus - valid point. When we understand the Sacrament, we look back to a golden age when it was sound and solid - like the 1950s. I became a Catholic in 2002 because I respect their definition of marriage more than I do the civil one, which I regard as no more than a tax fiddle. I never liked the... show more Stanilslaus - valid point. When we understand the Sacrament, we look back to a golden age when it was sound and solid - like the 1950s. I became a Catholic in 2002 because I respect their definition of marriage more than I do the civil one, which I regard as no more than a tax fiddle. I never liked the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which made grounds for divorce subjective, and the punishment for innocent parties severe. Yet marriage goes further back than the 1950s and might well have meant something different in biblical times.
Update 2: Rich iii - I will dig out a link from a Gay website a few months back that confirms what you say. However all those single sex marriages in classical times acted out opposite genders - there was always one who was butch and one who was queen. This was to accord with the ancient understanding that marriage was a... show more Rich iii - I will dig out a link from a Gay website a few months back that confirms what you say. However all those single sex marriages in classical times acted out opposite genders - there was always one who was butch and one who was queen. This was to accord with the ancient understanding that marriage was a union of opposites. It also enabled the continuing use of terms such 'husband' and 'wife' referring to just one person in the marriage. The first same sex, same gender unions celebrated as marriages were in the Netherlands as late as 2001, on the grounds that it was silly founding any marriage on a pretence - a very modern consideration.

However, it now undermines and confuses the precise definition of marriage a couple is entering into. There is no longer a commonly understood definition.
Update 3: Stephen G - if that is so, then the arrangement should be registered by the authorities as a 'civil partnership' and stop pretending.
18 answers 18