What’s in a Definition?

This week I read many articles about same-sex marriage, and how the LGBT in its agenda has forged ahead to change the definition of “marriage”. That it does not mean only between a man and a woman, but includes any union. Hey, I am sure some would love to marry their dog!  

Their desire is to vilify opponents of the definition, “ replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt…We intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.”

Tolerance for all?

The problem with their goal is that they don’t just want equal rights, they want all of us to change our social values. “Live and let live” is not enough for them. Also It is a “in your face” attitude extruding from any successful attempt to gain those rights.  Why should it be OK for their lifestyle to be tolerated by those believing marriage should be between a man and a woman, but they can’t tolerate those who hold to that belief? Dallin H. Oaks has observed, “Tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.”

I want to walk like you, talk like you…NOT!

What gives the “right” of any organization to redefine a word to advance an agenda, as outlined in an article titled, “The Overhauling of Straight America”?  A word that has been recognized understood and defined by traditions. A theme that cuts across religions and governments.

Obviously we all have a right to voice our opposing view, just as the LGBT has the right to express theirs. Yet life is changing because of their “loud voice”. Many have drawn the line, and are suffering in the name of tolerance. Lawsuits just to show muscle?  I would say that if the real issue were benefits associated with the term marriage, then separate that out and provide it under a different name.  How about Gay Union?   

However as I see it, this is not the real issue; it is a wedge to open the door to what the LGBT leadership really wants… moral acceptance. That the lifestyle they live and practice must be honored by God and man alike, even if it isn’t how we feel.

Why marriage between a man and woman only?

Some quotes to tell why I feel what the definition of marriage should be:

·         In the Family: A Proclamation to the World, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles proclaim that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” When a man and woman are married in the temple, their family can be together forever. https://www.lds.org/topics/marriage?lang=eng

·         A special bond is created when marriage brings a man and a woman together. “Marriage is a comprehensive union. It unites spouses at all levels of their being: hearts, minds, and bodies, where man and woman form a two-in-one-flesh union. It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are distinct and complementary, on the biological fact that reproduction requires a man and a woman, and on the sociological reality that children benefit from having a mother and a father. As the act that unites spouses can also create new life, marriage is especially apt for procreation and family life.” 
 http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378538/marriage-where-do-we-go-here-ryan-t-anderson

 It is joyful to have watched my sons grow, find good wives, and provide many grandchildren. We are all linked to our progenitors and know our heritage. As the song goes, ”We are family”!