Probably 90% of all disagreements boil down to differences over definition. If I define "family" one way, and you define it another way, whoever wins the issue of the definition, wins the argument. If you believe that a marriage is between any two consenting adults, and I believe that a marriage must be between a man and a woman, who ever wins the debate over the definition of a "marriage", wins the entire issue.
Some differences, like the definitions of "marriage" and "family", can never be reconciled. Each side of the dispute has their very core chained to their definitions. Neither side can afford to yield on their definition or the issue is lost. So the side that becomes the most belligerent, the most aggressive, the most vocal, the most arrogant, the side that can silence all opposition, all debate, all other definitions, is the side that wins. Is that the way we run a democracy?
For years now, the conservative side of the debate on homosexual rights and has been told by the media and politicians to be tolerant, to mind their own business, the stay out of other people's bedrooms. For the record, this is a free country, and if two or more people of either sex want to live together, they have the absolute freedom to do so. And what room they spend their nights together is no business or concern of mine. That is, until such a time as I must make a character judgement on that person, for church or political office.
But I am concerned with the rising tide of same sex couples who claim they have a "right" to marry. So lets jump into the debate about the definition of what a "right" really is. When this country broke from England, it had no legal right to do so. The King was the law, period. The fathers of this nation made a clear and permanent distinction between "rights" which come from God, and law, which comes from the whims and politics of men. Our founders appealed to a higher authority than the king for our authority as a nation.
Knowing that rights eminate from a higher power than men and written law, it offends me greatly to suppose that anyone has a "right", to abort a fetus. It offends me also to suppose that two people of the same sex have a "right" to marry. Certainly, they have the right to live together, but a "right to marry" requires redefining "marriage" as well as "rights", probably both.
Our nation was founded partially on religion beliefs and principals, but also on a long history of philosophy extending back to the Ancient Greeks. Nowhere in the religious, philosophical, or political documents of the ages is there any advocacy for the position that same sex marriage is a right from God, or that same sex unions are a marriage at all. Only recently, by those who wish to redefine our language, do we hear that same sex marriage is somehow a "right". There is not one shread of historical evidence to suport that.
In all of recorded history, in fact, in all of time, no offspring was ever born as the result of a union between two people of the same sex. It is physically impossible. Even a child that is adopted, is a product of a union between a man and woman. Only by expensive medical intervention (which certainly does not take place in nature, hence, not "natural"), does fertilization take place outside of a sexual union between a man and a woman. Yet, if you dare suggest that the homosexual act is not natural, you risk your safety and reputation, and you are attacked as a homophobe (another word that needs defining).
I don't know why two people of the same sex become physically attracted to one another. History records lifetime friendships between two men or two women. And I truly believe that those whose feelings go beyond the bonds of friendship believe that they may be in love. Again, there is no law against feelings, and no law that prevents two people from living together. In fact, I have yet to understand what activity is being so restricted that can only be engaged in within the bonds of marriage. I am single. I am not bitter because married couples pay less taxes than I do. That's life. I have the same right to find a wife as any other man. I choose not to for the time being. So I ask you, what rights are being denied those who disagree with me? I suspect that it is the supposed right to go against all history, law, faith and nature, and call themselves a legitimate "family".
Throughout all of history, marriage has been the founding of a new family. Into that family come children, and that family bonds and grows. But it is physically impossible for a same sex couple to conceive children unless they go outside the union. Adoption places in the care of a man and woman the product of the union of another man and woman. But the family unit, one man, one woman, a child, the product of natural union, continues to thrive, whether through natural birth or adoption.
There are those couples that live together, never marry, have children. But the child is still a product of the union of a man and a woman, and a family is created, quite naturally, just as it has been done for all time. But in those types of unions (gay marriages) where it is physically impossible for the family to grow without assistance of a third person outside the union, then that type of union cannot be a marriage. It is certainly a union, and as with any other unions there is shared property. And when the union dissolves, there is legal division of that property, but it is not a divorce, because a divorce requires first, a marriage.
So let them debate the definitions of "family", "marriage", "natural", "union", "homophobe" and "rights". But there can be no question that this nation of necessity, had to turn to a higher authority than a King for our right to exist, then, it is that same higher authority from which all rights spring. Any behavior that when practiced by all, which does not promote the respect of others, peace among peoples, and the continuation of new life, can not be a right at all. If one is granted a right, then all have that same right, or it is only a privilege, not a right. Rights come from God, privileges come from the politics of men.
We have surrendered the will of the people to a handful of non-elected tyrants, called judges, who would impose their own definitions of "rights", of "marriage" and "family" upon an entire nation. Folks, for centuries tyrants of politics, economics, or oppression have bled the spirit of nations, and have force good people to flee to America. We have no place to go from here. We either fix this land, or we leave our children a crippled nation void of democracy and the voice of the people. We can continue to love and resect our neighbor, but that does not mean we must surrender our nation to people who neither respect the rule of law or the will of the people.