[ArGee]

the idea of homosexual marriage didn't catch on so they changed the name to civil unions

The part that is confusing me is why it "didn't catch on."

In thinking about this last night I was able to crystallize my confusion more.

If there is no moral dimension to marriage, then there is no reason not to change its definition to include homosexual marriage.

If there is a moral dimension to marriage then it's the same moral dimension there is to sex. You can't stand on a moral judgement of marriage without an accompanying moral judgement of sex.

People appear to be demanding the former without demanding the latter, and I can't figure out why.

Shalom.

[Jaysun]

The part that is confusing me is why it "didn't catch on." WHAT? What is this! Almost all Americans are NOT gay and they find homosexual acts disgusting. While it's true that most people could care less what they do "in their own bedroom", they have a real problem with what they see as a stamp of approval on homosexuality by society. Contrary to nonsense popular among liberals, there is a right and there is a wrong.

I don't understand why this is so confounding to you. Do you share the beliefs of the rest of us here or not? Didn't I have long conversations with you on yahoo recently in which you touted the merits of a gun free society? I'm almost certain that you're the same guy. Bottom line - I don't see the benefit to continuing to argue these things. In my opinion, you're fishing for answers as a person who wishes to see changes made in favor of the homosexuals and not as a person who's "just curious". Farewell.