Proponents of same sex marriage cite equal rights for Gays as the main reason why same sex marriage should be allowed.

Others, believe that redefining marriage is not necessary to ensure equal rights for Gays because this could just as easily be accomplished with civil unions.

Civil unions would ensure all the same rights afforded by traditional marriage but would also keep the historic definition of marriage intact.

So, the question I pose is, what is wrong with civil unions?

"separate but equal" is unconstitutional.

where is the separation? that buzz phrase is used to equate this fight with the civil rights movement, but the only separation is in the minds of those involved. if it was demanded that one group called a restroom a restroom and another group called it a defecation station, but they both used the same facility, where is the separation? the disingenuous stances of both sides have gotten insane and those folks that really don't give a shit either way are getting a bit sick of it. where is the rational compromise that will satisfy the majority of both sides? i'm not talking about the extremists that want homosexuality to be banned or those that demand gays be welcomed with open arms by everyone. the one is intolerant hogwash, the other is a complete impossibility and both are unconstitutional.

in case anyone has forgotten, this whole thing started because gay couples were not treated equally under the law with straight couples. committed gay couples felt that their unions should have the same rights and privileges as the more socially accepted institution of marriage and rightfully so. thanks to the radicalization of the debate, this has become a pissing match over the definition of a god damn word. for centuries marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman and, face it folks, there are some people who are just not ready to see that institution altered in such a radical fashion. the intelligent thing here would be for the pro gay marriage folks to take the olive branch of civil unions, realizing that they had actually won and that the demands of their original agenda had been fulfilled, and allow those that stubbornly cling to tradition to enjoy their hollow victory. provided those civil unions confer the same rights and privileges as marriage, the fight has been won in all but the most petty respects, but still the battle rages.

maybe i'm being too rational here and can't see the emotional baggage attached to the word "marriage", but i can see that, as this war intensifies, the chance of anyone winning becomes slimmer and slimmer. more people are alienated every day by the rhetoric thrown around by both sides and the opposing radical arms are continuing to grow in strength. eventually the gay marriage advocates will have their way, but the price will be a schism between the straight and gay communities that is the opposite of the original intent of this fight.

__________________
When her work is done, she forgets it. That is why it lasts forever.
If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.

Your analogy is off. It is like having a one bathroom called a "restroom" and one bathroom called a "defecation station." If you are straight you can only go to the "restroom (marriage)" and if you are gay you can only use a "defecation station (civil union)." It is a classic example of "separate but equal."

By your reasoning; the black civil rights movement should have ended with the 3/5 compromise. Civil rights battles end when EVERYONE is an equal. Having separate laws / rules / regulation for different people.

The schism that you predict will not happen. By that logic there would be a huge rift between blacks and whites from their civil rights movement. While there is still racism; it is NOWHERE near the level or intensity it was during the civil rights movement. As society has been incorporated and minorities and whites began to see each other as people (which breaks down stereotypes as we learn to live together).

Homosexuals WILL have the right to marry. Why would they stop at Civil Unions? Granting Civil Unions just delays the inevitable.

couldn't straight people be joined in a civil union?

__________________
i'm the guy i've always wanted to be

i would like to be able to use the ladies restroom.

if a gay man can stand next to me and pee then why can't i pee next to suzy?

i want equal restrooms for all.

__________________
i'm the guy i've always wanted to be

Honestly couldn't give a shit if they got married. If you were for 'small government', then you wouldn't want government to step into people's lives to tell them that they couldn't marry or get an abortion because it is conflicting with your book of jewish fairy tales and the baby jesus. Sounds hypocritical.

__________________
Gaw Dam Mongorians!

So if I'm a racist and don't want people with darker skin to be lumped in with me, would it be alright with you if we just give them civil unions too? They'd have the same rights as us white folks. You OK with that Rick?

If christians want to feel like they're better, I say let them come up with a new name for their unions. Who put them in charge of defining marriage? I'm athiest, and think that marriage is as much my institution as it is theirs. I'm fine sharing it with people who aren't just like me.

__________________

Marriage is not a government or religious institution, though it has been hijacked by both in a sense. It is primarily a verbal or written contract between two people who love each other. Religion can regulate their follower's contracts all they want, but not mine. And the only reason the government is involved is because this contract involves money.

There is nothing wrong with two people of ANY sex, establishing a voluntary contract between themselves and calling it WHATEVER they want.

__________________
My BCNL Producer grow journal

There is a reason I posed this question. It is a complex and nuanced reason an I'm sure it will be out of reach for many.

The answer to my question is that Gays want more than equal rights. Gays, through redefining marriage, seek a public seal of approval for their lifestyle. This is quite simply the only logical reason for insisting on redefining marriage instead of simply accepting civil unions which would ensure their rights.

Now I am willing to accept that even that might not be so bad. After all, why shouldn't we accept any lifestyle in which nobody is harmed?

Where this becomes a very nuanced and delicate issue that is more than likely obscure for most people is when you consider the ramifications visa vi Constitutional law. If we move too fast and haphazardly legitimize gay marriage we will likely be facing a torrent of anti-discrimination lawsuits that might have any number of unforeseen consequences.

Since Gays are clearly pushing for complete public approval, how long do you suppose it will be before they demand equal representation in all areas of life? How long will it be before they insist that gay sex be covered along side of straight sex in sex ed class'? How long before they sue schools to force the inclusion of gay children's stories?

If you look at current trends the answer is that these things would immediately follow. And, while some people might be fine with this, we also have to respect the rights of people that are not. Suppose the children of devout Muslim family had to go to school and walk past posters featuring gay couples or sort through textbooks with titles like fun with Dick and Joe. To them, the simple act of gazing upon such things is a violation of their faith.

In the end, I think that all people should be treated equally. The difference between my view and that of many is that while we all feel this way, many people draw the line when it comes to the rights of the religious. The religious after all, are seen as evil people who's belief's are to be belittled and disrespected. While I am not a religious person, I truly pity people who fail to see the enormous wealth of morality, wisdom and philosophy given to us through religion. It truly is a shame that so many are so woefully ignorant of this and so morally myopic that they see some as being more equal than others.