[quote=@Vilageidiotx]Gender is identifying emotionally with a biological sex.[/quote]
*Unless you don't.

[hr]

[quote=@IceHeart]
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.[/quote]
Oh the Greeks! Have you ever read The Symposium by Plato? A popular theory that arose is described by Aristophanes-- essentially each of us is half of a whole being; some of us are men/women, some of us are women/women, and some of us are men/men. In the beginning Zeus cut each of us in half, which is why we spend our lives looking for our other half to make ourselves whole. It didn't matter whether or not the pairing was homosexual or not when it came to finding Éros.

[quote=@IceHeart]"our biology is not made to work that way"[/quote]
Wow I've never met someone who had zero exposure to modern medicine before.

[quote=@IceHeart]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.[/quote]
Even if Civil Unions were equal in every way to Marriage, this would still need to happen. 'Civil Unions' were like telling people 'Oh, you can get married, but you can't call yourself married! That's our word. You are Civil Union-ed, you are not actually allowed to participate in this historical institution of love between two people!' The very concept of Civil Unions are a petty and childish political move.

[quote=@IceHeart][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'.[/quote]
Except marriage is a Pagan institution appropriated by the Church. 
[color=333333]Like most things about Christianity.[/color]