Controversial Topic Discussion

I basically did mean to say in my first line that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon but I can't say that it is natural because it is anatomically not natural. A male and female naturally mate because of anatomical differences, so it can't be natural for two people who cannot, to enter into the same relationship.

Sorry I don't know my marriage history all that well so let me rephrase appropriately. In today's society and for the last 2000 years marriage has been held as a very sacred act between a man and a woman. This man/woman relationship in marriage is one of the most foundational parts of marriage for all Christians. Non-Christians who get married brings up an interesting point which I have thought a little about before this, but not much. I have to say that at this point it is semantics. Non-Christian marriages don't change anything from a christian type marriage, they just omit certain of the religious parts. Because nothing is changed, especially nothing fundamental, it is not offensive to the definition of marriage for christians. It is the change from man/woman to man/man or woman/woman in that fundamental position that causes problems. That is where the semantics start to matter I suppose. Before it was just subtle differences and now, with this group in particular, it is a fundamental change. I do still struggle with this semantic argument though because you are right and I do wish that there was some distinction between christian and non-christian marriages because our sacrament is such an important part of ours and does, in my opinion, set it apart from non-christian marriages significantly.

If so many people get offended by this change and there is a reasonable compromise available, such as the one I typed above, why not just go with the compromise? Is there something not reasonable about what I suggested above?