Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by Finwe

Homosexuality is confusion. There are many situations where people cannot separate emotional attachment with sex. Even things as early in our growth as Oedipus' complex. I once dated a girl who at first thought she had a lesbian attraction to one of her best friends because of the emotional and mental connection they had made. It ended up not being so, more confusion than anything.

There is nothing in the natural world that would point to homosexuality being anything but an abnormal process.

 

I take it you live in an urban area and haven't spent any time in places where there are a lot of animals in one place. If nature demonstrates anything, it shows us that bisexuality is the biological norm. Animals will have sex with anyting if they get the urge. Things like gender and species are of no concern to any animal. Hell, inanimate objects will do for a horny dog. It's not uncommon to see bulls or male horses mount eachother or have sex.

On the flip side, I've actually overheard farmers say things along these lines and they should know better. Some people just have selective blindness I guess...

 

I was not basing things upon animals. To do so would be absolutely retarded logic, afterall, animals rape, kill, steal, eat their young, if that was the basis for my "natural world", I would be dead or in prison.

What is right in the world of nature, is that which most fully helps us advance and propagate our species.

People rape kill and steal.  Most don't, but some do.

Most animals don't have homosexual tendencies, but some do.

See where I'm going with this, or do I need to bust out the powerpoint?  Do you prefer the cash register or glass breaking sound?

Originally posted by altairzq

Originally posted by Chieftan

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by Finwe

Homosexuality is confusion. There are many situations where people cannot separate emotional attachment with sex. Even things as early in our growth as Oedipus' complex. I once dated a girl who at first thought she had a lesbian attraction to one of her best friends because of the emotional and mental connection they had made. It ended up not being so, more confusion than anything.

There is nothing in the natural world that would point to homosexuality being anything but an abnormal process.

 

I take it you live in an urban area and haven't spent any time in places where there are a lot of animals in one place. If nature demonstrates anything, it shows us that bisexuality is the biological norm. Animals will have sex with anyting if they get the urge. Things like gender and species are of no concern to any animal. Hell, inanimate objects will do for a horny dog. It's not uncommon to see bulls or male horses mount eachother or have sex.

On the flip side, I've actually overheard farmers say things along these lines and they should know better. Some people just have selective blindness I guess...

 

Humans don't reproduce homosexually. 

If you want to get into the psychology of it, its most likely a natural instinctive reaction for a heterosexual species to have a negative response to homosexuality.  Homosexuality doesn't ensure the survival of the species(reproductively speaking its a dead end) which may be why  homosexuals are often rejected by idiots, kicked out of the pack by idiots and in some cases attacked by idiots.  It's perceived by idiots as weak  and not fit for survival.  

Fixed.

 

If you stoop low enough to start comparing humans to animals and if you seriously believe in evolution and natural selection, that's the kind of rationalization you should expect to get.  The only idiots are the people who think they can have it both ways.

What is the big deal here?   Why are humans so hung up on petty things?   Seriously, omfg!   This is why we are doomed as a species.   We just have to meddle in everything!   Stupid. 

Originally posted by Teala

What is the big deal here?   Why are humans so hung up on petty things?   Seriously, omfg!   This is why we are doomed as a species.   We just have to meddle in everything!   Stupid. 

That kinda a funny thing to say when the motivation of many is to push an agenda that offers no benefits to the species.

Is posting in thread I don't care about because the arguements are so silly.

I also propose that homosexuality is an evolutionary survival trait to make it more likely that your genes are passed on. After all in a single sex environment the more of that one sex you get into a group the more likely you are to attract the opposite sex. You see this frequently in herding animals(which humans are), You'll see unestablished males "grouping" in order to attract females away from a herd that has a dominate male, like wise you'll see females herd up when there is no "for sure" dominate male in the area to force them to establish dominence.  

However the fact humans will screw the same sex must be some kind of pheromonal warfare VS. evolutionary traps that humans have developed over time.   After all you can easily say that our instinctual scales for determining dominance are utterly thrown out of whack with mass media, the number of "groups" that a person can be in the visit in a day, The number of "dominent" figures we meet in the day, how those dominent figures got there, and how much our insctincts scream at "stuff that shouldn't be there" that is.  Basically saying that in a world where Professor Stephen W. Hawking is considered a leader among men to and being completely right, is a world where natural instinct is completely and utterly distorted.

_________

Then again I'm not some stuck up british prim+proper "thing" that are utterly disgusted that some people are doing the nasty somewhere.   I view such a worldview old and something that should have been depreciated a long time ago.

Originally posted by Finwe

Homosexuality is confusion. There are many situations where people cannot separate emotional attachment with sex. Even things as early in our growth as Oedipus' complex. I once dated a girl who at first thought she had a lesbian attraction to one of her best friends because of the emotional and mental connection they had made. It ended up not being so, more confusion than anything.

There is nothing in the natural world that would point to homosexuality being anything but an abnormal process.

Actually it is not "confusion" at all. The vast majority of the scientific community agrees that homosexuality is biological, not emotional.
 

Ofcourse the REAL reason for you to think Homosexuality is an emotional confusion is because it fits better with your religious views, as believing homosexuality to be something that is decided at birth does absolutely not fit with christianity's anti gay views.

Then again, you still think that the devil played a trick on mankind to make us believe he did not exist? oh, what a conspiracy!

wait, lets add to that, the Devil actually confused people to make them think they are attracted to members of the same sex!

Yes, it's all making sense now!

Originally posted by Chieftan

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by Finwe

Homosexuality is confusion. There are many situations where people cannot separate emotional attachment with sex. Even things as early in our growth as Oedipus' complex. I once dated a girl who at first thought she had a lesbian attraction to one of her best friends because of the emotional and mental connection they had made. It ended up not being so, more confusion than anything.

There is nothing in the natural world that would point to homosexuality being anything but an abnormal process.

 

I take it you live in an urban area and haven't spent any time in places where there are a lot of animals in one place. If nature demonstrates anything, it shows us that bisexuality is the biological norm. Animals will have sex with anyting if they get the urge. Things like gender and species are of no concern to any animal. Hell, inanimate objects will do for a horny dog. It's not uncommon to see bulls or male horses mount eachother or have sex.

On the flip side, I've actually overheard farmers say things along these lines and they should know better. Some people just have selective blindness I guess...

 

Humans don't reproduce homosexually. 

If you want to get into the psychology of it, its most likely a natural instinctive reaction for a heterosexual species to have a negative response to homosexuality.  Homosexuality doesn't ensure the survival of the species(reproductively speaking its a dead end) which may be why  homosexuals are often rejected, kicked out of the pack and in some cases attacked.  It's perceived as weak and not fit for survival. 

 

 

 

So by your philosophy maybe straight but sterile men and women should be attacked, kicked out of the pack, and rejected as well.  They too should be perceived as weak and not fit for survival.  They should be seen just as despicable as those gay people who can't conceive children as well.

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by Finwe

Homosexuality is confusion. There are many situations where people cannot separate emotional attachment with sex. Even things as early in our growth as Oedipus' complex. I once dated a girl who at first thought she had a lesbian attraction to one of her best friends because of the emotional and mental connection they had made. It ended up not being so, more confusion than anything.

There is nothing in the natural world that would point to homosexuality being anything but an abnormal process.

 

I take it you live in an urban area and haven't spent any time in places where there are a lot of animals in one place. If nature demonstrates anything, it shows us that bisexuality is the biological norm. Animals will have sex with anyting if they get the urge. Things like gender and species are of no concern to any animal. Hell, inanimate objects will do for a horny dog. It's not uncommon to see bulls or male horses mount eachother or have sex.

On the flip side, I've actually overheard farmers say things along these lines and they should know better. Some people just have selective blindness I guess...

 

I was not basing things upon animals. To do so would be absolutely retarded logic, afterall, animals rape, kill, steal, eat their young, if that was the basis for my "natural world", I would be dead or in prison.

What is right in the world of nature, is that which most fully helps us advance and propagate our species.

Read the news much?

Originally posted by Finwe

Homosexuality is confusion. There are many situations where people cannot separate emotional attachment with sex. Even things as early in our growth as Oedipus' complex. I once dated a girl who at first thought she had a lesbian attraction to one of her best friends because of the emotional and mental connection they had made. It ended up not being so, more confusion than anything.

There is nothing in the natural world that would point to homosexuality being anything but an abnormal process.

Okay, great!!!

Then if I can't marry my boyfriend, I'll just marry your daughter.  I'm sure I can make her a happy bride.  Do we have your blessing?  I'm sure once I start living a normal life with your daughter and your guidance everything will fall into place for all of us and we'll be one big happy family. 

Dad!

Originally posted by Efrath

Uh.. I highly doubt that there's any genes that decides your sexual preference. From what I know, there are genes that affects what kind of pheromones you're attracted too which might play a part but I haven't heard of anything else that implies that it's completly genetical.

So, you make the choice to be attracted to women?

This is my argument. I am heterosexual. I never chose to be, it's just the way I was when I was born. I couldn't be attracted to  a man even if there were money in it for me. It's not a choice I'm capable of making, it's simply not a biological possibility. Why would homosexuality be any different?

Originally posted by DailyBuzz

Originally posted by Efrath

Uh.. I highly doubt that there's any genes that decides your sexual preference. From what I know, there are genes that affects what kind of pheromones you're attracted too which might play a part but I haven't heard of anything else that implies that it's completly genetical.

 

So, you make the choice to be attracted to women?

This is my argument. I am heterosexual. I never chose to be, it's just the way I was when I was born. I couldn't be attracted to  a man even if there were money in it for me. It's not a choice I'm capable of making, it's simply not a biological possibility. Why would homosexuality be any different?

What's your favorite food? Type of music? Do you prefer living in an urban or rural area? You didn't consciously choose any of those things either, but they are NOT dictated by your DNA.

Originally posted by upallnight

Originally posted by Chieftan

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by Finwe

Homosexuality is confusion. There are many situations where people cannot separate emotional attachment with sex. Even things as early in our growth as Oedipus' complex. I once dated a girl who at first thought she had a lesbian attraction to one of her best friends because of the emotional and mental connection they had made. It ended up not being so, more confusion than anything.

There is nothing in the natural world that would point to homosexuality being anything but an abnormal process.

 

I take it you live in an urban area and haven't spent any time in places where there are a lot of animals in one place. If nature demonstrates anything, it shows us that bisexuality is the biological norm. Animals will have sex with anyting if they get the urge. Things like gender and species are of no concern to any animal. Hell, inanimate objects will do for a horny dog. It's not uncommon to see bulls or male horses mount eachother or have sex.

On the flip side, I've actually overheard farmers say things along these lines and they should know better. Some people just have selective blindness I guess...

 

Humans don't reproduce homosexually. 

If you want to get into the psychology of it, its most likely a natural instinctive reaction for a heterosexual species to have a negative response to homosexuality.  Homosexuality doesn't ensure the survival of the species(reproductively speaking its a dead end) which may be why  homosexuals are often rejected, kicked out of the pack and in some cases attacked.  It's perceived as weak and not fit for survival. 

 

 

 

So by your philosophy maybe straight but sterile men and women should be attacked, kicked out of the pack, and rejected as well.  They too should be perceived as weak and not fit for survival.  They should be seen just as despicable as those gay people who can't conceive children as well.

Don't be an idiot.  I didn't say it was "my philosophy" and that's how they "should" be treated.

You know how people like to make of fun of guys that don't have game?  The 40 year old virgin?  The fat bald guy who sits at home playing videogames.  The nerd jokes about never getting any, that type of thing.

Apparently to alot of people if you're out of the loop when it comes to reproduction, you deserve all the shit you get.  Its the exact same mentality.

Originally posted by Chieftan

Originally posted by upallnight

Originally posted by Chieftan

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by Finwe

Homosexuality is confusion. There are many situations where people cannot separate emotional attachment with sex. Even things as early in our growth as Oedipus' complex. I once dated a girl who at first thought she had a lesbian attraction to one of her best friends because of the emotional and mental connection they had made. It ended up not being so, more confusion than anything.

There is nothing in the natural world that would point to homosexuality being anything but an abnormal process.

 

I take it you live in an urban area and haven't spent any time in places where there are a lot of animals in one place. If nature demonstrates anything, it shows us that bisexuality is the biological norm. Animals will have sex with anyting if they get the urge. Things like gender and species are of no concern to any animal. Hell, inanimate objects will do for a horny dog. It's not uncommon to see bulls or male horses mount eachother or have sex.

On the flip side, I've actually overheard farmers say things along these lines and they should know better. Some people just have selective blindness I guess...

 

Humans don't reproduce homosexually. 

If you want to get into the psychology of it, its most likely a natural instinctive reaction for a heterosexual species to have a negative response to homosexuality.  Homosexuality doesn't ensure the survival of the species(reproductively speaking its a dead end) which may be why  homosexuals are often rejected, kicked out of the pack and in some cases attacked.  It's perceived as weak and not fit for survival. 

 

 

 

So by your philosophy maybe straight but sterile men and women should be attacked, kicked out of the pack, and rejected as well.  They too should be perceived as weak and not fit for survival.  They should be seen just as despicable as those gay people who can't conceive children as well.

Don't be an idiot.  I didn't say it was "my philosophy" and that's how they "should" be treated.

You know how people like to make of fun of guys that don't have game?  The 40 year old virgin?  The fat bald guy who sits at home playing videogames.  The nerd jokes about never getting any, that type of thing.

Apparently to alot of people if you're out of the loop when it comes to reproduction, you deserve all the shit you get.  Its the exact same mentality.

There's a big difference between making fun of some one and attacking them.

Oh, and I appreciate your opening item of name calling.  It really livens the debate up to a new level of respect.  Keep it up.  It soooo makes people want to have more of a discussion with you. 

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by DailyBuzz

Originally posted by Efrath

Uh.. I highly doubt that there's any genes that decides your sexual preference. From what I know, there are genes that affects what kind of pheromones you're attracted too which might play a part but I haven't heard of anything else that implies that it's completly genetical.

 

So, you make the choice to be attracted to women?

This is my argument. I am heterosexual. I never chose to be, it's just the way I was when I was born. I couldn't be attracted to  a man even if there were money in it for me. It's not a choice I'm capable of making, it's simply not a biological possibility. Why would homosexuality be any different?

 

What's your favorite food? Type of music? Do you prefer living in an urban or rural area? You didn't consciously choose any of those things either, but they are NOT dictated by your DNA.

Hmmmm... I think that coming from a gay perspective, there is a lot more nature than nurture involved in who your emotionally and sexually attracted to.  Could you get seriously emotionally involved with a man?  Same way with me with a woman.  It's just something that has always been there.  Nobody taught me that.  If anything I was taught QUITE the opposite.  My turning out gay goes completely against how I was raised from birth up until now.  It's just something that's undeniably there.

It may not be DNA, but I know it's something that nature decides before birth.  It could be something that has to do with hormonal development in the womb.  It could be both that and DNA working together.  All I know is that there is a dominant nature factor involved.

Look...if you want to be gay...go ahead.

I just don't want you to be able to marry. Civil unions I'm all for. You can even make them equal to marriages.

Marriage is a religious ceremony conducted by a religious leader of some sort to bring a man and woman together as one.

we can make the definition of Civil union this

Civil unions are a ceremony conducted by [Insert Gov't Official Here] (I really don't know who conducts the ceremonies lol) to bring a non-religious man and woman or man and man or woman and woman together as one.

Same stuff, minus the religion. You get the same benefits as a married couple, just a different name.

Originally posted by upallnight

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by DailyBuzz

Originally posted by Efrath

Uh.. I highly doubt that there's any genes that decides your sexual preference. From what I know, there are genes that affects what kind of pheromones you're attracted too which might play a part but I haven't heard of anything else that implies that it's completly genetical.

 

So, you make the choice to be attracted to women?

This is my argument. I am heterosexual. I never chose to be, it's just the way I was when I was born. I couldn't be attracted to  a man even if there were money in it for me. It's not a choice I'm capable of making, it's simply not a biological possibility. Why would homosexuality be any different?

 

What's your favorite food? Type of music? Do you prefer living in an urban or rural area? You didn't consciously choose any of those things either, but they are NOT dictated by your DNA.

Hmmmm... I think that coming from a gay perspective, there is a lot more nature than nurture involved in who your emotionally and sexually attracted to.  Could you get seriously emotionally involved with a man?  Same way with me with a woman.  It's just something that has always been there.  Nobody taught me that.  If anything I was taught QUITE the opposite.  My turning out gay goes completely against how I was raised from birth up until now.  It's just something that's undeniably there.

It may not be DNA, but I know it's something that nature decides before birth.  It could be something that has to do with hormonal development in the womb.  It could be both that and DNA working together.  All I know is that there is a dominant nature factor involved.

I didn't mean to imply that homosexuality was the result of parenting. There are countless factors that go into making us who we are and there's no way of knowing what elements of a person's life are going to leave an impression, or to what extent. We do do know, however, that major personality traits, like sexuality, are strongly ingrained by the age of five. That doesn't mean that kids are actively aware of sex since they generally focus on other aspects of social / emotional development right up until about 13. But it does mean that some kind of sexual stimulus has left some kind of solid impression by the time you're in kindergarten.

I'd like to ask you if you've ever slept with a member of the opposite sex. I've met many gay people that have. I'd be willing to bet that there are many straight people that have had sex with members of the same sex. If biology was the primary factor, this just wouldn't be possible since arousal would be completely impossible. Emotional love is more psychology than biology, so I'll just focus on the physical.

As for my own sexual tastes, they've changed quite a bit over the course of my life. I wasn't always into big women. I used to exclusively chase after petite girls that were just over 5 feet tall and weighing in between 90 and 120 lbs. Then I moved in with a guy that was into big girls in a major way. He changed girlfriends the way most of us change underwear. During that time, I began to see the physical aspects of these women that my roommate found so fetching. Likewise, I only dated white women before I met my wife. After ten years of marriage, I don't even bother looking at white women because it just doesn't seem natural anymore. I'm pretty sure that if I was stranded somewhere with no women and surrounded by men, I would eventually adapt my sexual practices and preferences to fit my situation.

Having said all that....

There are certain things that have never and will never turn me on. Anything to do with scat, bestiality or necrophilia is never gonna happen. I'm a priss and I wash my hands even after doing dishes. I'm also not into kids, BDSM or anything "furry." Kids are annoying and sex should never require that big of an investment in nylon rope or fun fur.

<shrugs>

It's a complicated issue. But the genetic argument needs to be put aside. What a person does in their bedroom should not be the basis for employment, housing, medical care, etc.... It's those people that interject their private life into their public life (beyond the established standards set by the heterosexual communtiy) that need to be told to tone it the fuck down.

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by upallnight

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by DailyBuzz

Originally posted by Efrath

Uh.. I highly doubt that there's any genes that decides your sexual preference. From what I know, there are genes that affects what kind of pheromones you're attracted too which might play a part but I haven't heard of anything else that implies that it's completly genetical.

 

So, you make the choice to be attracted to women?

This is my argument. I am heterosexual. I never chose to be, it's just the way I was when I was born. I couldn't be attracted to  a man even if there were money in it for me. It's not a choice I'm capable of making, it's simply not a biological possibility. Why would homosexuality be any different?

 

What's your favorite food? Type of music? Do you prefer living in an urban or rural area? You didn't consciously choose any of those things either, but they are NOT dictated by your DNA.

Hmmmm... I think that coming from a gay perspective, there is a lot more nature than nurture involved in who your emotionally and sexually attracted to.  Could you get seriously emotionally involved with a man?  Same way with me with a woman.  It's just something that has always been there.  Nobody taught me that.  If anything I was taught QUITE the opposite.  My turning out gay goes completely against how I was raised from birth up until now.  It's just something that's undeniably there.

It may not be DNA, but I know it's something that nature decides before birth.  It could be something that has to do with hormonal development in the womb.  It could be both that and DNA working together.  All I know is that there is a dominant nature factor involved.

 

I didn't mean to imply that homosexuality was the result of parenting. There are countless factors that go into making us who we are and there's no way of knowing what elements of a person's life are going to leave an impression, or to what extent. We do do know, however, that major personality traits, like sexuality, are strongly ingrained by the age of five. That doesn't mean that kids are actively aware of sex since they generally focus on other aspects of social / emotional development right up until about 13. But it does mean that some kind of sexual stimulus has left some kind of solid impression by the time you're in kindergarten.

I'd like to ask you if you've ever slept with a member of the opposite sex. I've met many gay people that have. I'd be willing to bet that there are many straight people that have had sex with members of the same sex. If biology was the primary factor, this just wouldn't be possible since arousal would be completely impossible. Emotional love is more psychology than biology, so I'll just focus on the physical.

As for my own sexual tastes, they've changed quite a bit over the course of my life. I wasn't always into big women. I used to exclusively chase after petite girls that were just over 5 feet tall and weighing in between 90 and 120 lbs. Then I moved in with a guy that was into big girls in a major way. He changed girlfriends the way most of us change underwear. During that time, I began to see the physical aspects of these women that my roommate found so fetching. Likewise, I only dated white women before I met my wife. After ten years of marriage, I don't even bother looking at white women because it just doesn't seem natural anymore. I'm pretty sure that if I was stranded somewhere with no women and surrounded by men, I would eventually adapt my sexual practices and preferences to fit my situation.

Having said all that....

There are certain things that have never and will never turn me on. Anything to do with scat, bestiality or necrophilia is never gonna happen. I'm a priss and I wash my hands even after doing dishes. I'm also not into kids, BDSM or anything "furry." Kids are annoying and sex should never require that big of an investment in nylon rope or fun fur.

<shrugs>

It's a complicated issue. But the genetic argument needs to be put aside. What a person does in their bedroom should not be the basis for employment, housing, medical care, etc.... It's those people that interject their private life into their public life (beyond the established standards set by the heterosexual communtiy) that need to be told to tone it the fuck down.

Yes, I have had sex with women.  I went through this phase where I thought that if I slept with enough girls and dated enough of them that eventually I would find that magic one that made me suddenly straight.  It didn't work, obviously.  And it was a horrible experience.

It's hard to explain.  I can have sex with a woman.  But I do not ever walk past a girl and think, "Oh, wow look at her."  It never ever ever ever crosses my mind to look at a girl that way even in the slightest.  It never has.  And believe me I have tried in so many ways to make that happen.  But I guess being gay, you just don't have the hang ups of sex that a lot of straight people do.  It's not weird for us to have sex or try sex with a girl because society does not say it's weird for opposite sexes to sleep together.  So, a lot of us have tried it without having to worry about that.  But I think that the same way we can have sex with women a lot of straight guys can have sex with men as well, like you said.  They just never get around to trying it because of the societal taboo. 

Then there is the emotional factor.  I think that is where the big difference is.  See, I have some friends who say they are pretty close to equally attracted to male and females sexually, but that they cannot fall in love with a girl.  Therefore, they call themselves gay.  It might sound weird to straight people, but I totally get where they're coming from.  I think which sex you can have an emotional attachment to is the one that defines the label you place on yourself, not the sexual attraction alone.

Simply put, I know who I can fall in love with, be happy with, and make happy likewise.  And it is not a girl.  It would be a miserable relationship for the girl and myself to try to make that happen and not fair to her at all.  That's one of the reason's it makes me a little agitated when people talk about how we're supposed to just go out and go against who we are and marry anyway.  Why?  To hurt someone with a lie in the end?  It's a sad scenario that plays itself out every day and hurts lots of people in the fallout.

But you seem to have a pretty good idea of how things work.  I just wish more people did.  Or at least would listen instead of thinking they know what someone else is going through before hearing them out and trying to understand them.

Originally posted by Capn23

Look...if you want to be gay...go ahead.

 

I just don't want you to be able to marry. Civil unions I'm all for. You can even make them equal to marriages.

 

Marriage is a religious ceremony conducted by a religious leader of some sort to bring a man and woman together as one.

 

we can make the definition of Civil union this

 

Civil unions are a ceremony conducted by [Insert Gov't Official Here] (I really don't know who conducts the ceremonies lol) to bring a non-religious man and woman or man and man or woman and woman together as one.

 

Same stuff, minus the religion. You get the same benefits as a married couple, just a different name.

Religious ceremony?  Really?

My church conducts gay marriages.  Many other religions do too.

Originally posted by upallnight

Originally posted by Capn23

Look...if you want to be gay...go ahead.

 

I just don't want you to be able to marry. Civil unions I'm all for. You can even make them equal to marriages.

 

Marriage is a religious ceremony conducted by a religious leader of some sort to bring a man and woman together as one.

 

we can make the definition of Civil union this

 

Civil unions are a ceremony conducted by [Insert Gov't Official Here] (I really don't know who conducts the ceremonies lol) to bring a non-religious man and woman or man and man or woman and woman together as one.

 

Same stuff, minus the religion. You get the same benefits as a married couple, just a different name.

Religious ceremony?  Really?

My church conducts gay marriages.  Many other religions do too.

Well then leave it up to the churches to quarrell over. Just take government out of marriages. I know that I wouldn't want gay marriages in my church and if there were...I would probably move to a different church. Just a fundamental belief I have, but if your church does that whatever. I don't think it's right based on what I've read in the Bible, but if your church wants to do it then okay. I have to worry about myself and you have to worry about yourself. On the day of reckoning...we all have to face God individually and he will judge you based on how you've lived your life. If gay marriage is legalized though...I don't want it to be forced upon every church. It's a religious thing...so do like the constitution says and keep gov and religion separate.

alright I'm done rambling...I'm not sure if any of that made sense lol. Time for sleep.