There is a very important point on this topic that no one has discussed, in spite of the large attention this has gathered in the media and with our politicians.

The claim is not permitting gay marriages is discrimination, similar to the previous prohibitions against interracial marriages. This is simply false. The word “marriage” means, according to the dictionary, a union between a husband, who is a man, and a wife, who is a woman. This certainly was the meaning when these laws were enacted. There is no such thing as a marriage between two people of the same sex!

Some say that the word marriage includes marriage between two men. That may be today, and may have been true in some ancient societies; the majority of societies recognize marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Most historical writings clearly define marriage between a man and a woman. The Talmud, the basis of ancient Hebraic law and modern Judaism, is clear, quoting the Hebrew Bible, “If a man takes [marries] a woman…”

Wikipedia has some quotes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage “Edward Westermarck, in his book The History of Human Marriage (1921), defined marriage as ‘The more or less durable union between man and woman and marital and paternal care probably due to instincts once necessary for the preservation of the species’ including both monogamous and polygamous unions.

“The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as ‘a union of a man and a woman such that children of the woman are recognized as legitimate by both parents.'”

There is a confusing point about the definition of marriage. Some say that once a legislative body creates a law recognizing marriage between two men as identical to marriage between a man and a woman, the definition of the word marriage now includes marriage between two men. However, legislation can only add to the meaning of a word, but not change it. Many words in the dictionary have several meanings. The legislation cannot delete the previous meanings.

For example, New Jersey, where I live, legalizes gay marriage. This means that in New Jersey marriage between two men is marriage according to the word marriage. (Let us ignore for now the issue that the U.S. government does not agree to this definition.) Today in New Jersey when one reads an article or book written prior to the legislation, marriage means only between a man and a woman. The legislation cannot change the meaning of words prior to the legislation.

This is clarified by Webster’s definition of marriage. Miriam Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage, states: 1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

Webster added a new definition to marriage, but did not remove the original definition. To repeat, one definition of marriage is marriage between a man and a woman (or women). This has been the definition of marriage throughout history, with some small exceptions.

In this context, let us remember the quote of Abraham Lincoln, “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don’t make it a leg.” Calling union between two men marriage does not make it marriage.

Many laws use the words like “civil unions” and such to avoid confusion between different possible definitions of marriage. These unions can be two people of the same sex, or a man and a woman over the age of 62. However, these laws miss the point.

The point that we must never forget that sexuality is an integral part of our humanity. We are not just people. We are men and women. To deny this is to deny reality and to distort human relationships.

This began with an assault on the language. Most languages have clear gender distinctions. We are trying to get rid of this in English. For example, we use the word “chairperson”. We are trying to say that it does not make any difference if the chairperson is a man or a woman. This is not true. Saying this is denying the humanity of the chairperson. It is like calling the chairperson “it”, instead of “he” or “she”. It is not good!

The student came home from school, and it started studying. (Or he/she started studying).

The reality of human sexuality is beautiful and mysterious, and we must not ignore our feelings and our selves!

Another example of the evil of ignoring human sexuality is the way these subjects are taught in our schools. Children learn about diseases that can be caused by sex (STD’s). However, they are not taught the positive beauty and wonder of sex. No one tells them that when they become independent adults and marry they will have a lifetime of great sex. Because of this, they tend to view their feelings as something they have to give into right now, and not discuss this with their parents and teachers. We have to change the approach we now have in our schools in how human sexuality is taught. This not only will help the children become happier adults, but will also help keep them healthy, and not sick with STD’s.

The logic is that if we totally ignore our true sexuality in all of our discussions, then indeed the gay marriage movement has validity. The issue is not gay marriages, but our approach to our sexuality. Enthusiasm for acceptance of sexual relations between two men must not be allowed to hide the importance and reality of sexuality between the sexes, which insistence on hiding the original meaning of marriage does.