@songster:
I think it is ridiculous to think that a gay lifestyle leads to more sexual predation. I have provided a link to another universtiy website concerning pedophiles and homosexuality that refutes your claims:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html
I believe that this is the best short (yet still very limited) summary of the information given:
For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.
Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation.
The point is that sex offenders are not homosexuals, but people with severe mental and sexual disorders. Homosexuality however does not manifest itself in the form of pedophilia.
The constitution states that no law shall be made in regard to religion (paraphrased) The government cannot force pastors to marry anyone.
There will still be no effect upon education if gays are allowed to marry.
The constitution has been interpreted to have very strict rules when it comes to preservation of speech. If I wished to, I could legally make speeches against firefighters and police. Neo-nazi organizations and the Westboro Baptist church are both protected under first amendment rights, and I think we can agree that they are both much much much worse than any anti-gay group. (I am not trying to compare anti-gay groups to these groups). The point is the freedom of speech to question gay marriages will still be preserved.
As for the 1995 statement made in guide, although shocking, it meant to say that children should be allowed to discover their own sexuality in a safe environment, not have sex. Perhaps it is an idealized and biased argument, but it does not have any intention for advocating sexual relationships with and amongst children.
Civil unions:
I don't know what everyone's personal definition of a civil union is, but I define it to be: A secular and legally recognized relationship between two consenting partners that affords the same benefits (hospital visits, tax breaks, the power to make medical decisions for etc.) as a married couple. This couple would not however be recognized by any organization as married, but it still carries the same legal weight.
@Kathleen:
I think that homosexual households are perfectly capable of raising children. There are many heterosexual families that would never pass the necessary tests to adopt a child, and yet they are capable and legally able to have children. These families wind up being dysfunctional. It has been shown in many examples however, that homosexual families have done just fine raising children.
@concernedguy:
Many if not most (I have no actual statistics here) homosexuals are not religious. It should not be surprising then to learn that they do not consider their lifestyles morally alright. I hope that clarifies things for you. ("I can't understand why gays and lesbians living the life style want to go to heaven or think Godwould allow them to?")
I would still like to hear what you think about my redefined version of civil unions.
Also that soloution may not be possible as my parents may not consent to changing there will - thanks anywyaz