Controversial Topic Discussion

In your first sentence you make two statements that seem, to me, to be contradictory. You first say that you don't believe homosexuality is natural, then, in the parenthetical statement, you say that you think homosexuality is physiological. But, physiological phenomenon are natural phenomenon. You are drawing a distinction that doesn't exist. In fact, even if we were to adopt a highly anthropocentric perspective (which most religions do) and consider the things of humans to be separate from the things of nature, we can not show homosexuality to be non-natural being as that nature shows us that homosexual behavior occurs in a large number of animal species.

So, even after removing human behavior from the realm of natural behavior (unjustly), we still don't have a basis for saying homosexuality is not natural. We can say it is not normal, but this is saying nothing more than that it is not a behavior seen in the majority of human beings, similar to being left handed.

I realize you aren't trying to say anything negative about homosexuals, I just wanted to point out the fallacious nature of the 'homosexuality is not natural' line of thinking. If it didn't come from nature where do people propose it came from?

What I really want to address is this statement:

"Marriage is a very specific act of union between a man and a woman and has its base in Christianity as a sacrament."

I believe, though my knowledge is fairly narrow in this area, that the concept of marriage significantly pre-dates Christianity. Ancient Egyptians, for example, married. I am unsure how the claim of marriage being a Christian institution is at all defensible. I believe there were marriages in Ancient Asian cultures as well.

Even if it were defensible, I am unsure how its relevant. The American institution of marriage is certainly not a Christian institution. It is a contract upheld by the government that need not involve any religious affiliations whatsoever. Would you claim that non-Christians should not be allowed to get married if it could be shown that marriage was based in Christianity? How about the non-religious? How about those who have broken one of the commandments? Or, is it strictly homosexuals that the Christian basis of marriage (could such a thing be supported) should exclude from such a contract?

I realize you say that you support a civil union with all the same rights as married people (in reality a marriage in everything except wording (what if they used the Spanish word for marriage, would that make a difference?)) but I can not see why you select this one group of people as the only group that should be forbidden by law to marry.