If these people only want a right to a union.... why couldn’t we have a defined legal “union” called homosexual union or some such wording.They could hold ceremonies and all that, what ever the heck they want. Then they could have their “union”. It is not right to call it “marriage” as that already has a definition that same sex couples cannot meet.
But that is not what they are after. They want acceptance for their actions. They want validation that what they are doing is normal. They want the world to redefine God instituted holy sacraments to fit their perversions. May God have mercy on us all.
It’s intersting to see how many gay couples have gotten married.
In Massachusetts, which is the granddaddy of gay marriage states, only about 20% of homosexual couples in relationships have gotten married. That’s not 20% of all homosexuals, that’s 20% of homosexuals who claim to be in serious relationships.
Only 4% of marriages in Massachusetts are same-sex couples. The other 96% are traditional couples.
So it does appear that they are fighting hard for a “right”, but that relatively few will exercise that right once it’s granted.
Yes, it seems they want the right to say they can be married too, without actually going ahead and doing it.
I thought they already have civil unions
Exactly -- if they want to have civil unions, or gay unions or la-di-dah-dooies, I don't care, but a marriage is a sacrament and as one freeper said here, it's a duty.