In the treatment of homosexuality, whether as part of the current debate in the Senate regarding a constitutional ban on same-gender marriage, or vis-a-vis the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding sodomy, the ideas of the media commentators, or state legislative activity, homosexual behavior is inevitably referenced as sexual relations between people of the same gender. Homosexuality, according to the Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, tenth edition, is defined as "erotic [not sexual] activity with another of the same sex" (brackets added). Eroticism is defined as "a state of sexual arousal [not sexual activity]" (brackets added). In neither definition is the suggestion that homosexuals "do" sex, conceived of universally as an act requiring a male and female using their genitals in normal mode, rather than male and male or female and female using their genitals otherwise; therefore, homosexuality is not about sex. Moreover, in all matters pertaining to the normal "doing" of sex, the inevitable outcome is the eventual production of offspring, barring either manual foreclosure (using contraceptives, for instance) or preventive physiological conditions such as disease or sterility, genetic or otherwise. Procreation is impossible vis-à-vis erotic activity engaged in by participants of the same gender under all circumstances, reinforcing the fact that homosexuals do not "do" sex.
Marriage is defined as "the mutual relation of husband and wife; the institution whereby men and women [not men and men or women and women] are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family" (brackets added). Husband is defined as "a male partner in a marriage." Wife is defined as "a female partner in a marriage." Inherent in the marriage is the "doing" of sex, the result of which, unless proscribed by any effort or condition, is the reproductive process. By definition, homosexuals may not marry because (1) They cannot produce the required male and female pair, and (2) They cannot "do" sex, which is inevitably endemic to marriage.
This leads logically to the question: "Exactly what is it that homosexuals are or do that makes them eligible for marriage?" Nothing. They can arouse each other erotically and engage in all sorts of consequent, bizarre behavior, but they cannot "do" sex. They can shack up, just as heterosexuals (who can "do" sex) may prefer, but, by definition, they cannot participate in marriage with each other, with or without the consent of the state, church, or any other institution. Since they can't "do" sex, what is it that they do with respect to anal or oral intercourse, if not sex? Though this discussion has nothing to do with religion, the apostle Paul labeled their actions as well as anyone could by simply using the terminology "unnatural" and "unseemly," actions that are perverse, defined as "turned away from what is right or good."
With respect to heterosexual perversions, the same facts hold true. Former president Clinton, intentionally or not, was right when he said he "did not have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinsky." He and Lewinsky may have thought they "did" sex through what is called "oral sex," but they only participated erotically in the unnatural, because of what they did, and the unseemly, because of where they were. Certainly, they were not using their genitals in normal mode.
There are a number of definitions for "family," since it can include aunts, uncles, etc. With respect to consensual tradition, however, the "nuclear family," defined as "a family group that consists only of father, mother [parents], and children" (brackets added), is operative. The primary definition of parent is "one that begets or brings forth offspring." When children are involved, the father is a husband, and the mother, a wife, since only they, by definition, can be male and female partners in marriage, even common-law (shack-up) marriages, capable of "doing" the sex necessary for procreation. Adoption is another matter, but even in that case, there must be a normal biological union. Where children are not involved, the definition of marriage (above) is still operable, and calls for a husband and wife, not a husband and husband, wife and wife, or significant other and significant other.
These facts also militate against the granting of governmental privileges reserved for families to "domestic partners" and/or the groups for which they provide support. Moreover, for both homosexuals and cohabiting heterosexuals, there is no documentation according them family-authenticity, such as a marriage certificate (with the exception of Massachusetts, an example of the need for a constitutional amendment codifying marriage as between male and female, particularly since judges who serve for life ignore laws regarding the matter). Since all rights and privileges are awarded only upon the proper written and witnessed certification of eligibility, such rights and privileges, by definition, should be withheld, absent the proper documents.
Logically, the notion that a man can marry another man or that a woman can marry a woman, with the resulting union recognized by any institution - whether government, church, or other - as valid, is too off-the-wall, just on the merits, even to be afforded a minute's attention. This in no way should be construed as a disparagement of anyone. People, whether homosexual or heterosexual, can in their privacy do anything they like as long as what they do doesn't adversely impact others. Perverted behavior, however, an integral part of homosexual activity, should not be sanctioned as acceptable, which would be the case if same-sex marriage is given status. While it is shocking, it is not surprising that this subject is given enough credibility for congressional and possible national actions. Political correctness, the bane of an ordered American society for far too long now, is the vehicle used by those who insist that some sort of "civil right" is at issue. The matter does not involve civil rights, however. It is a common-sense issue obvious to the vast majority of citizens, who understand same-sex marriage as the mother of all oxymorons, an actual impossibility even if awarded documentary approval. In short, it simply isn't natural.