The one thing I absolutely hate about this whole issue is the fact that love is often confused with sexuality and often it is economics that gets in the way of the issue.

So on to my first point, I feel that so often it seems that love gets confused with sex.  There is a reason that the Greek language has several different versions of love while the poor English language just has one.  Greek has at least 4 versions of love [i]Agápe[/i] [Brotherly love, wanting the best for that person], [i]Éros[/i] [Sexual love/Romantic], [i]Philia[/i] [Essentially friendship], and [i]Storge[/i] [Mostly family relationship type love].  People often get upset with each other because unfortunately most people instantly jump to [i]Éros[/i] version of love when they think about relationships between two women or two men which does not have to be the case.  Society is so preoccupied with sex they forget what 'real' relationships are.

Well this is coming from someone who thinks that homosexual sex is a bad idea as our biology is not made to work that way plus there is often a higher risk of certain diseases or just tissue damage from such acts.  Well I am also a Christian so there is that, though in that case I think God knew such activity could easily damage the body and therefore knew we should keep away from it.  God does not delight in suffering and unlike a lot of mainstream Christians I do not believe in a Hell that burns sinners for all eternity, instead it is merely an absolute end like an eternal, dark sleep.

Well on to my second point.  Frankly one of the biggest reasons for this debate is the whole issue of economics and property rights.  The US system set itself up for this by giving married heterosexual couples more financial support, hospital visit rights, etc, than homosexual couples in 'civil unions'.  So instead of trying to get 'civil unions' up to par with marriage they just decided to expand marriage to include homosexuals as well.  This would not have been such a mess if the government had separated 'civil unions' to be the financial way for partners to support themselves and left 'marriage' as a religious affirmation of the union between the two partners.  But the US never did that and instead left 'civil unions' as an [i]inferior[/i] type of marriage so this is the result, making both sides feel that the other is trying to destroy them.

People need to remember that we can [i]love[/i] all without [i]Éros[/i] which is only one form of love.

Eh, hope that made sense to people.  This is one of those topics that are hard to formulate an answer to properly.


[h3]Original Question[/h3]
Oh and I am a firm believer that while having homosexual feelings are not always a choice for people, engaging in any sexual activity is certainly a choice.  Let people have the choice to make their own decisions, which is what God did for humanity, though I wish marriage had not been caught up in the issue which I do believe is a Man and Woman only institution.  *Sigh* if only we could have avoided this mess with government based 'civil unions' and religious based 'marriages'.