My thoughts: the definition of marriage and family

Ok I don't usually care to read up on debates about marriage and homosexuals and feminists and the threatened family so I'm not a huge expert on the subject, but, I'm a Mormon and believe in the importance of marriage and family, and I think this article-->  http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/#.U5e6SZPjDN4.facebook

is completely ridiculous. So I have decided to write down my thoughts. I think people don't understand that the definition of marriage and family is different politically, socially, and religiously. 

Politically marriage IS A CONTRACT as is a civil union where certain legal rights are  lawfully binding. As a legal family unit there are certain rights given whether you're blood related or not. Attacking and narrowing the definition of family really isn't right when you consider people who have to build their family using different means than natural ones like adoption, egg/sperm donation, or surrogacy which is something Alex and I have to consider since we cannot conceive naturally. 

Socially, marriage and family are just words. Words that are defined differently in different social or cultural (including religion) circles. In the history of the US marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman through out most of the country. However a certain religious group (Mormons) expanded marriage to include one legal marriage between a man and a woman and several optional religious marriages between the same man and many other different women. All marriages were legit in the eyes of Mormon society even if only one was legal in the eyes of the state. Mormons may not practice polygamy now, but there are still religious social groups out there that practice this. Their definition of marriage isn't what we'd call traditional marriage.

On the east side of the world, historically it wasn't unheard of for a man to be LEGALLY married to several wives, if not hundreds in the case of royalty. And unlike US culture now many eastern cultures now and historically (historically with the US also) marriage and family for a man was not much more than property and vessels to pass on his seed. 

Back in time before even the concept of modern government and laws were born, unions between a man and a woman were different all over the world depending on the culture of your villiage. Some had religious significance and some were just commitment between the two to stay loyal to each other and offer protection of offspring from the dangers of the time. Even then sometimes the promise of protection wasn't a guaranteed thing especially in societies that sacrificed their own people.

In societies around the world and throughout time the word "family" means your genetic family, your adoptive family, your religious family, your community family, or your family made up of a bunch of orphaned children. Only in the eyes of the law (secular and religious) is the definition of "family" narrowed down. But most of us agree that there is someone not related to us legally or genetically that we consider family. Socially, family has a very large definition.

I can't vouch for the super extremists, but when it looks like the average LGBT supporters want to "abolish" marriage or the women's right activists want to "disassemble" the family, I think they're referring to the equality of the words. "Marriage" and "civil union" may mean the same thing as far as the law is concerned, but they may mean different things socially or religiously. Since the government really shouldn't be messing with either I don't see any harm in using one word, whether it be marriage, civil union, or contract to define the secular legal binding agreement that two individuals enter into. 

Besides most gays and lesbians when they want to marry WANT to be married legally so that they can have the legal benefits. The many that WANT a religious marriage are usually already attending a church that is homosexual friendly and will use that route to marry through. Those who aren't attending a church that supports homosexual marriage or active homosexuality need to decide what's more important to them, the church they go too (along with their beliefs) or a same sex relationship. I say "church" because their are many different denominations in certain religions that do support same sex relationships. But like individuals, religions and their denominations have their freedoms and taking them away is illegal. 

As far as religious institutions, they can define marriage and family however they want, they can choose to marry who they want, and they can choose if they want to marry legally and lawfully in the eyes of the government and/or in the eyes of their god without the government interfering. That's the great thing about our country is that one of the pillars it was built upon was the guarantee of religious freedom with out interference from the government. So there is a difference between legal marriage and religious marriage. The government can do whatever they want to their side as long as it doesn't mess with the freedom of religious establishments. And as long as a religious establishment isn't breaking any laws they can do whatever they want.

When people argue about the subject of marriage and family they need to be more specific by what definition of marriage and family they are referring to, politically, socially, or religiously. The likelihood of the government abolishing "marriage" by the definition of a law binding contract is pretty slim. It would just not make sense and a lot of government programs and private ones would buckle underneath the loss of such a deeply established system. The government will not be abolishing the religious definition of marriage either. It goes against our basic rights and would be very hard to pass. 

I don't honestly understand why, in a free society, women's rights activists are calling for abolishment of families when they are perfectly capable of not creating one or even actively preventing it (I'm not super informed about this). A woman has the freedom to choose whether she wants that or not. Because of my infertility situation (and my beliefs) I find it sad that there are people out there willing to abandon an opportunity for a family. 

But despite whether I think what people decide in their lives is right or wrong, it's not my place to force them. They have their freedoms and their agency, which in the Latter-Day Saint religion (Mormons) having the free agency to choose right from wrong is very important to God's plan. 

As For Me...

EDIT: I changed this last paragraph because I was not thinking due to lack of sleep and did not word it correctly the way I wanted it to be, so I have rewritten it. I'm sorry if my terribly wording upset anyone, that was not my intention.

I believe in marriage between a man and a woman. I believe that there is an eternal importance in the role of a married man and woman even if I can't figure out what it is. I know God has an eternal plan for families after this life even if He hasn't shared ALL the details yet. I know that through the gospel of Jesus Christ, being baptized, and partaking of special ordinances in the right place at the right time, families can be sealed together here on Earth and it will be binding in heaven for eternity. I believe anyone who wants these blessing can get them in this life or the next. I believe that no matter who you are or what faith you belong or don't belong to that there is an eternal deity no matter what you call him (God, Allah, Jehovah, etc), and there is a positive after life that thanks to Jesus and the Atonement (whether you believe in it or not) we all can enter into.

I know that every person on this planet has their struggles. I know some struggles we aren't proud of. But I know for a fact that God doesn't stop loving you because you did something in your life that you or someone else thinks is bad. I know that some circumstances make it extremely difficult to believe in God. But I believe that no matter what you believe or don't believe that you have the freedom and the right to believe it even if somebody else thinks you're wrong. That is the beauty of this country we live in.

A Reminder to Latterday Saints From the Articles of Faith

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul--We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.