The nature of marriage is similar to the nature of citizenship. There is natural citizenship and there's non-natural citizenship.w There's natural marriage and there's non-natural marriage. Natural marriage is that which follows what has always been the basis of the perpetuation of life on earth, i.e., that natural partners are sexual opposites. Unnatural partners are the same gender, like the same side of a coin, or the same polarity of electro-magnetism. Something went wrong in how their nature was formed in the womb. They received a physical gender that was the opposite of their natural gender attraction.

Human beings are the most complex, and complicated entities in the universe because they have three elements to their nature in regard to gender. The three should all be in agreement, but since the processes that lead to the final formation of a new human being are so complex, something sometimes doesn't go according to the natural pattern.

Two things can go wrong. One can receive the gender identity of the opposite sex, or one can receive the innate attraction to the same sex as one's self. The results are that one sees him/herself as rightfully a member of the opposite sex and (a.) is homosexually attracted to that sex, (Madonna once described her sense of herself as being a homosexual man inhabiting a female body, -she's attracted to men but feels she should have been one, -a perfect example of the complexity of gender & attraction); or (b) is attracted to one's same sex because one feels heterosexual attraction to the sex of which they feel they aren't a natural member.

Or one feels fine with their gender and has no wish to be the opposite sex, but nevertheless has the innate gender attraction that belongs to the opposite sex, -an attraction toward the gender of which they are a member.

Such attraction is natural in the sense that it is a result of the element of the natural pattern but is active in one with the wrong gender for it. It's an innate attraction, just like the affinity for ice cream.

I had an African Grey parrot that loved ice cream, as well as dogs, so some things are simply innate in many, or most life forms, and gender attraction is certainly one of them. The rarity of an aberrant gender identity or gender attraction is part of the story of how unnatural they are. Which leads to the issue of homosexual marriage.

The concept of homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. Homosexuality and marriage are opposites, just as are homosexuality and conception. It's the opposite of the natural pattern. The definition of marriage has never been anything other than a description of the natural pattern of human pairing, human bonding for life, and human reproduction. There is no other natural pattern that fits its description.

The homosexual pattern is unnatural not because it strikes the mind of the heterosexual population as perverse, but because it isn't normal. The normal pattern is that which is the natural pattern. Anything abnormal violates the natural pattern. That does not of itself produce any negative value judgement nor innate moral vileness, but it comes with a conundrum of natural conflict. Those with the abnormal nature find themselves in a world inhabited by those with a normal nature, and that nature usually includes a sense of revulsion toward that which is totally abnormal. That natural sense of revulsion is indistinguishable from a sense of vileness because everything else in life that is revolting is considered vile.

But an innate sense of revulsion is something that's only partly innate, -it's also a result of the absence of cultural conditioning via exposure to it from an early age, -at least in most humans. But just as gender identity and gender attraction are inborn things, so also is the degree of revulsion that one feels toward the aberrant. Some boys are born with a very, very male nature, just as some girls are born with a very, very girlish nature. The degree of revulsion toward aberrant orientations is probably in direct proportion to how strongly one is born identifying with their own gender and its natural disposition.

Those without any innate sense of revulsion are boys born with a very strong sense of being girlish by nature, and girls born with a very strong sense of being boyish by nature. The daughter of Sonny & Cher comes to mind. She underwent a sex change operation in order to feel at home in her own body. It seems like a very odd desire, but it obviously must have been a very visceral longing and not just some philosophical wish.

How should society accommodate its abnormal members? Should their desire for equal treatment be protected by new law? The answer deals with two separate but vitally important issues. One is the means by which law is changed, and the other is the nature of the change that would be needed.

The nature of the change would be immense because it would involve over-throwing five thousand years of human tradition and law and it would do so by means of something that is never a legitimate alteration in the status quo, and that something is an arbitrary redefining of that which is already defined, universally understood and accepted as the natural way things are and should be.

No one has the authority to over-throw the unchangeable meaning of anything without an acceptable justification. One example of fidelity to the true meaning of a word showed that such a justification for redefining the meaning of a word was shunned not long ago. I refer to the status of Pluto. We can't call it "Planet Pluto" anymore because it was discovered that it does not actually fit the description of a planet. We must be true to the meaning of words or else chaos will grow and multiply in an untold number of areas. That would not be a good thing because it impacts the thought process in a negative way, -making the discernment of the truth that much more difficult.

To make "homosexual marriage" legal would be a legislative redefinition of a word with an established meaning and carry with it broad social and financial implications that have not even been considered nor discussed by the public. To make such a fundamental change necessitates having the public aware and in agreement with such a magnitude of change. And that brings up the other important issue, -how such a change might come about.

There are only four possible ways. One is via a state referendum, or a change to the constitution of a state, or a federal constitutional amendment, or a simply majority vote of the legislatures of the individual states. The first and the last are unconstitutional because they would illegitimately create fundamental change without the full consent of the People of a state or the nation. The full constitutional consent requires a two thirds majority, -not a mere 51% majority. Without following the course laid out in the Constitution, chaos will result, as it has many times before, the latest example of which is the unconstitutionally passed health care "reform" act. To rob the American people of a fundamental right without the constitutional agreement of the People exhibits all the hallmarks of an oligarchy, -the dictatorship of the elite.

Forcing a redefinition of the meaning of a fundamental word and the law built upon it onto the citizens of any state or the entire nation without getting their consent would be a clear and egregious violation of the U.S. Constitution because it would shun the only process laid out for bringing about such change. It would be the equivalent of banning, by a simple majority vote, all meat consumption, and mandating the slaughter of all cattle because they produce too much methane gas which contributes to global warming. Clearly, that would also be a fundamental change which would require, like Prohibition, the consent of the American People.

The other problem with redefining an established legal meaning of an important word is the ancillary possibilities that such a "right" would foster. If the "right" of homosexuals to unite in "the holy bond of matrimony" is legalized even though it is not, and has never been a right, and neither has it ever been tolerated, nor ever viewed as natural, then similar groups would have a justification for their "rights" to be recognized as well. That would include the possibility of family members to marry, -for adults to marry children, and multiple partners to enjoy polygamy.

The slippery slope is not a fiction but a reality because there is no natural difference between the unnaturalness of homosexuality and polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage. But just because there is none does not make homosexual marriage equivalent to incestuous marriage, though it's impossible to find a qualitative difference between it and polygamy since both involve unrelated consenting adults.

But even if everyone agrees that sanctioned monogamous, sworn & blessed unions between homosexual couples is to be commended and legalized, they also must agree that it must be done constitutionally or they are supporting treason against the Constitution. Such an amendment is not a real possibility because of the unchanging statement in the Law of Moses which curses homosexuality with a death sentence. The condemnation of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice was echo by Christian leaders though it was not judged in a legal way, -only in a moral way. The religious prohibition will always be heeded by at least a third of the population and so an amendment would never pass.

An amendment for "Equal Rights for Women" failed twice and it was far less controversial. So any legitimate legalization of homosexual unions must come in the form of granting of specific rights which are naturally resultant from marriage, because they can't be constitutionally obtained by placing homosexual unions into the same sacred camp as heterosexual marriage. The plight of homosexual couples is a conundrum for which there is no solution since they long for that which society will never agree to on a scale large enough to honor the mechanism of change that's required by the constitutions of every state in the union.

But the legislatures of the states (and the nation) violate their supposedly solemn oath to defend their constitution with most of what they pass because they deliberately exceed the authority given to them, so they will do whatever they feel like doing, and the Constitutions of their state and nation be damned. The tyranny of the majority prevails, -just as our founding fathers feared it would, warning us about its evil. Life as we know it is a situation of living in their worst nightmare.

http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com