|
memnoch: I don't believe my post was dismissive of your views. I did read both of your previous posts before responding and you stated that you are against gay marriage but for civil unions -- if what you ment is that legally civil unions and marriage should be completely the same then fine -- but why the different nomenclature? I honestly have no problem with calling same sex marriage civil unions if legally it's the same as marriage and it makes religious folks feel less afraid (though really i don't see why calling it by a different name should appease people... whatever).
Your claim that homosexuals cannot have a physical union is somewhat uncreative -- even if you limit the scope of "physical union" only to penetrative acts I can still think of plenty of such acts that can be carried out in a same sex setting. though I still don't really see how you connect penetrative sex to a "holy union" (i know that you apologized for grouping these two ideas together but i still don't see any real evidence to support your claim that two members of the same sex cannot have a deep spiritual connection).
I don't think anyone is proposing forcing churches to marry same sex couples -- each individual religion should be free to bestow or withhold its blessing on whichever unions it sees fit.
|