i know NOBODY who opposes civil unions

its all about a word, and i think the word should stay exclusive, no reason to change it if you can get a different word with all the same benefits, then everybody is happy.

Also, when obnoxious, militant persons (gay, straight, religious, non-religious, liberal, conservative, whatever) try to shove gross, indecent, and revolting, unadulterated crap down my throat, I’m not going to look the other way either.

I draw back when others start screaming about “sin.” Jesus admonished us to be careful about throwing stones when going after sinners. Therefore, I am, at least, retrospect.

I do not see how I will ever arrive at homosexuality as the “normal” part of God’s plan. But, as a true Christian, I am not about to decide God’s will. That said, when obnoxious, militant gays try to shove gross, indecent, and revolting, unadulterated crap down my throat, I am not about to look the other way.

In other words, Mark, Christianity has changed. You can dress it up all you like, but what you described is change. And I’ll say that, for the most part, it has changed for the better.

Christianity abhors homosexual sex for the same reason it abhors pre-marital sex, or sex with the use of contraceptives….it is sex cut off from its unitive and pro-creative functions. Its why the early Christians condemned homosexual sex in 209, its why modern Christians condemn homosexual sex in 2009.

Sorry, Mark, but you are becoming part of a small minority here. Also, have you noticed that the birth rates for children has decreased substantially since th 1930s. Eight or more children families are not commonplace anymore.

I do not respect gays; I respect people. I once disdained gays, because I thought they had made a lot of bad choices. I now feel that there is much more to being gay than mere choice. Furthermore, I work with and associate with many gays whom I greatly admire and respect. That said, there is also a group of gays I would just as soon see go the way of the dodo.

Same here. But I’ll assume you’ll agree with me that we can change “gays” to people, and we’ll be in agreement as well.

My comments in #3 are fairly clear. Those who want civil unions as a leg up on marriage are not in my favor. Marriage is reserved to one woman and one man for the purposes of keeping the whole procreation and lineage problem organized.

It was clear. My point is there may be different reasons why people support civil unions. Some may see it as a stepping stone to marriage, some don’t. I’m saying that same sex marriage would be, or at least could be, a natural next step. And there will be people who may want to stop at civil unions, but over time, have the opinion that marriage is more appropriate. So I guess what I’m trying to say that your support for civil unions will help the push towards same sex marriage.

Certainly there are men and women who trash the concept of traditional marriage. If I were a gay, I would not be arguing for entrance into the fraternity of heterosexual misfits and screw-ups.

Neither would I. Again, I fully realize that there are people who want same sex marriage for dubious purposes, and want to trash the concept of traditional marriage. I’m not one of them.

I read in your comment an undertone of the search for normalization. I refuse to belittle the differences between gays and heterosexuals, because I accept the differences. But do not mistake my acceptance of differences as an endorsement for total indifference.

If I understand you correctly, I appreciate this. The way I look at this is that I find that there is nothing immoral about being homosexual in and of itself, in pretty much the same way that I don’t consider anything immoral about being heterosexual. And as long as the actions is not detrimental, we should encourage behavior, like stable relationships, that will benefit all. I acknowledge the differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and such relationships. And besides not belittling the differences, I don’t believe the differences are enough to warrant a different status of relationships.

One of the commenters above suggested that if we okay same sex marriage (or even civil unions), that we will sanction pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, etc. Now, I can understand that position if one believes that homosexuality is as sinful as the other things. But I don’t. And I don’t believe we should go half-assed on this, e.g., that well, let homosexuals have their relationships, let’s just keep it quiet, or whatever.

Anyway, thanks for your response, and no worry about being late with your reply. We all have lives outside the Internet.

Am I the only one who has addressed easily surmounting the alleged “legal issues” that are “suffered” by unwed gay, AND
unwed hetro folk, alike?

Yeah, a la (ie)”Hilton Perez”.
The problem with “In your face” is that it’s sooooo much easier to get poked in the nose. Just ask Barney Frank.

Not a wheel – Christianity is what it is and it doesn’t change. The only which makes it seem like there’s change is that as basic knowledge grows, so does the understanding of the applicability of various scriptures and traditions…but nothing has changed since the Ascension. Christianity abhors homosexual sex for the same reason it abhors pre-marital sex, or sex with the use of contraceptives….it is sex cut off from its unitive and pro-creative functions. Its why the early Christians condemned homosexual sex in 209, its why modern Christians condemn homosexual sex in 2009. Tolerance is afforded these days because we understand, now, that we cannot enforce belief…St. Francis, and many others, taught us that (eg, “preach the Gospel constantly; when necessary, use words”).

I don’t know about that – for a short moment a bit of a very close gay friend’s sex life came to my attention and I was pretty well revolted by it. This is a man I’ve known for years and love very dearly. For non-homosexuals, the mere fact of homosexual sex is off-putting, to say the least. Of course, I don’t know how he views my heterosexual sex life – the feeling might be mutual, for all I know. It is, of course, something we don’t discuss with each other – being gentlemen, and all that.

I have been away all day and I apologize for not answering you sooner.

I do not respect gays; I respect people. I once disdained gays, because I thought they had made a lot of bad choices. I now feel that there is much more to being gay than mere choice. Furthermore, I work with and associate with many gays whom I greatly admire and respect. That said, there is also a group of gays I would just as soon see go the way of the dodo.

My comments in #3 are fairly clear. Those who want civil unions as a leg up on marriage are not in my favor. Marriage is reserved to one woman and one man for the purposes of keeping the whole procreation and lineage problem organized.

Certainly there are men and women who trash the concept of traditional marriage. If I were a gay, I would not be arguing for entrance into the fraternity of heterosexual misfits and screw-ups.

I read in your comment an undertone of the search for normalization. I refuse to belittle the differences between gays and heterosexuals, because I accept the differences. But do not mistake my acceptance of differences as an endorsement for total indifference.

2. BS#2 – How can you favor something that does not exist, and has never existed, and can never, based on the actual facts of reality, exist? That’s like favoring green unicorns. Which, in reality, shows what gay marriage ‘is’. It is precisely analogous to nailing a horn to a horse, and painting it green, and calling the thing a green unicorn. After that there will be a parade celebrating green unicorns.

3. I swear, Sodom and Gomorrah got a raw deal.

Because heterosexual marriage is demonstrably, undeniably very good for society, and it is in society’s best interest to encourage it.

Call it a “live and let live” solution that respects the moral beliefs of both sides.