Civil unions, anyone?

Simply put, marrages being ordained by the state is violation of the separation of church and state.

I agree.  But if the govt is giving out marriage licenses, they should not be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Civil union licenses for everyone.  Go get married at a church.

Marriage is a religious sacrament.

And Christmas is strictly a religous holiday. 

Why do [mostly secular] progressives get to use the state to redefine religious sacraments?

Why is a religous sacrament used to dictate the licensing practices of the state?

imho…

Freedom from relgion in government should mean religion should not dictate the practice of government in this way.

Freedom of religion should mean govt cant tell a church who they have to marry.

Speaking of civil unions--

why not call this a marriage?  It’s a union between a man a woman and a woman.

Should we force the Christian churches to accept Polygamy, too?  You know the Mormons are pleased…

As much shit as I give him...can I just say I wish we had more left-leaning people like Up4 willing to be good people and just *talk*?  I never have the urge to drop a ban hammer on him because even when I *KNOW* he is dead wrong, I still see he;s being truthful to what he believes and not being a total ass about it.

Should we force the Christian churches to accept Polygamy, too?

No one wants to force the Christian or any other church to accept anything, and to say that is a lie of the highest order. It is an intentional, Michael-Moore-like distortion of the position of people who favor gay marriage.

Proponents of gay marriage, like me, want THE GOVERNMENT to recognize the union of any two people who chooee to be joined in such a way.

I don’t give two fucks what any church, mosque, temple or synagogue chooses to recognize.  In fact I would fight for their right to NOT recognize the legal unions.  I would defend their right to refuse to perform gay marriages.  If it were up to me, I would write it into the goddamned law and say no religious organization can be compelled by any local, state or federal authority to recognize and/or perform a union other than what is prescribed in thier individual established doctrine.

That way everyone gets what they DESERVE: equal treatment under the law.

Do you have an example that really bothers you, just so I understand where you are coming from?

Well, there’s plenty: Ten Commandments displays, holiday displays, banning Christmas carols at school concerts, the list goes on.

Proponents of gay marriage, like me, want THE GOVERNMENT to recognize the union of any two people who chooee to be joined in such a way.

Why only two?  Do polygamists not also deserve “equal treatment under the law”?

Why only two?  Do polygamists not also deserve “equal treatment under the law”?

Because *I BELIEVE* polygamy is a choice: I BELIEVE homosexuality is not.  Just like we don’t say blacks can’t marry whites, just like we don’t say Asians can’t marry Mexicans...we don’t discriminate against what someone *IS*.  We can, however, create laws that say this choice or that choice is not conducive to society.

Preventing two men who want to share health care, housing and rights of survivorship from doing so in a simple, easy way that is available to straight people is NOT helping us as a society.  These are people who desperately want to prove they are good, decent, stable taxpayers who want to be a taxpaying unit that have the same rights as a straight couple.

Preventing that?  It’s stupid.  Worse than that, it’s discrimination.  Worse still, it’s based in nothing but bigotry, as “marriage” is already a joke.  The institution is ruined by any religious yardstick and has become a secular process of joining two people.  Gay marriage might actually IMPROVE the institution.  It certainly can’t do any more harm for fuck’s sake.

I believe homosexuality is a choice, and yet I agree with the rest of what JimK said.  ... Ok, I admit I’m still contemplating the prospect of giving a driver’s license to the offspring of an Asian and a Mexican.

Because *I BELIEVE* polygamy is a choice: I BELIEVE homosexuality is not.

So marriage based on religious beliefs, as opposed to psychological factors, is subject to government control?

Preventing two men who want to share health care, housing and rights of survivorship from doing so in a simple, easy way that is available to straight people is NOT helping us as a society.  These are people who desperately want to prove they are good, decent, stable taxpayers who want to be a taxpaying unit that have the same rights as a straight couple.

What does that have to do with marriage?

The institution is ruined by any religious yardstick and has become a secular process of joining two people.  Gay marriage might actually IMPROVE the institution.  It certainly can’t do any more harm for fuck’s sake.

I have a lot to say about this, but given your predisposition against religion, I will leave it at “I disagree”.

So marriage based on religious beliefs, as opposed to psychological factors, is subject to government control?

Im a little confused by this.  Are you saying that homosexuality, given not being a choice, is a psycological condition?

w0rf, I consider myself agnostic, but I have no predisposition against religion.  Ill respect your beliefs, and ask you to respect mine.  So, given that, would you have a problem with the concept of marriage being removed from the government.  It seems the issue seems to be with the word ‘marriage’.  So what would be the problem with civil union licenses being issued both straight, and gay couples.  From there, either could have a civil service, or could go to any church that will marry them?

I just dont see how that hurts anyone.  If your idea of marriage is a religous concept first, why would you care what the govt cares anyway?  I didnt have to get a govt license for my first communion.

Im a little confused by this.  Are you saying that homosexuality, given not being a choice, is a psycological condition?

Correct.  Given the apparent lack of choice, and the absence of a “gay gene”, that leaves psychology.

w0rf, I consider myself agnostic, but I have no predisposition against religion.

I’m happy to hear that.  However, since it wasn’t your quote that preceeded that statement, then the natural conclusion is that I wasn’t directing that comment at you.

So what would be the problem with civil union licenses being issued both straight, and gay couples.  From there, either could have a civil service, or could go to any church that will marry them?

From a civil rights standpoint, there wouldn’t be a problem with that.  However, it should be kept in mind that marriage benefits were originally introduced as incentives to create stable households with higher incomes and most importantly, producing new taxpayers.  Expanding those benefits beyond a male-female couple moves them away from incentives and more towards entitlements, and I am always wary of the government granting entitlements.  That seems like a drift that may already be too late to stop, however, as the majority of the country already seems to view them as entitlements.

However, since it wasn’t your quote that preceeded that statement, then the natural conclusion is that I wasn’t directing that comment at you.

I realized that.  I just wanted to give you a little more insight into where I was coming from.

Correct.  Given the apparent lack of choice, and the absence of a “gay gene”, that leaves psychology.

Does that mean heterosexuality is a psychological condition as well?

However, it should be kept in mind that marriage benefits…

So is it the benefits part you have a problem with?

and I am always wary of the government granting entitlements.

I thought the problem was the govt taking them away.

JimK said:

No one wants to force the Christian or any other church to accept anything, and to say that is a lie of the highest order. It is an intentional, Michael-Moore-like distortion of the position of people who favor gay marriage.

Proponents of gay marriage, like me, want THE GOVERNMENT to recognize the union of any two people who chooee to be joined in such a way.

Jim, most sane people (including myself) don’t mind a secular body to recognize gay unions.  They’re secular, they can pretty much do whatever they want.  And if civil unions are the same as marriage by all rights…

why do gay activists resist it?  Why do they insist it be called marriage?

The answer is obvious and insidious-- their intention is to undermine the teachings of religious organizations about marriage.  If it were truly a rights issue, they would have jumped on the civil union bandwagon, and everyone who got joined by a JOP would be a “unioned” couple.  I don’t mind the idea of being “unioned” with my wife.

However, by equating civil “marriage” with religious “marriage”, the gay lobby is attempting to undermine the moral authority of religious organizations.  Who’s the biggest opponent of homosexual activity?  Religious organizations.  How do you get them to change their tune?  Give homosexuality the same “functions” as a heterosexual coupling as recognized by the state, because as the state does, religions without a strong center of organization will soon follow suit.  And by “normalizing” their activity and bringing into the “norm”, they are reversing the tables on religious organizations by depicting them as “outside the norm”.  To avoid losing constituentcy, smaller religious organizations which have been marginalized will have to comply with moderized social activity, even if it contradicts the basics of the established religious body.

So having “marriage” called “civil unions” defeats the core purpose of the homosexual lobby, as it provides an “exception to the norm”, rather than making the two actions equivalent.

I just wanted to give you a little more insight into where I was coming from.

Where you’re coming from has nothing to do with someone else’s diatribe about the current state of marriage in this country.

Does that mean heterosexuality is a psychological condition as well?

If you want to look at it that way.  But that’s a little like saying because clinical depression is a psychological condition, being even-tempered must also be one.  The distinction is in whether something deviates from the norm.

So is it the benefits part you have a problem with?

... um… that’s the only difference between a government-recognized union and two people living together.  I’m not sure what your point is.

I thought the problem was the govt taking them away.

If gay marriage is not legally recognized by the government now, what exactly is being taken away?

Posted by up4debate on 09/29 at 01:58 PM (Link to this comment)

“Why is a religous sacrament used to dictate the licensing practices of the state?”

Just because the state took it upon itself to license marriage does not give it the right to redefine it.

Just because the state took it upon itself to license marriage does not give it the right to redefine it.

Thats a good angle I’ve not heard before

Just because the state took it upon itself to license marriage does not give it the right to redefine it

Then the state should get out of the marriage business.  Civil unions for everyone.

Just because the state took it upon itself to license marriage does not give it the right to redefine it.

The state also took it upon itself to redefine the terms for divorce (no-fault divorces and so on), against the objections of The Church (tm), to the point where divorce has been “normalized” into society, and JimK is able to point at the institution of marriage as a failure as a religious institution.  But the thing is, it wasn’t religion that failed marriage - other than the fact that its tolerance of the change in social climate allowed divorce to seep into the church - because rampant divorce on a whim was not a religious idea, but a secular one. 

But now all the same people that told us to “join the real world” are calling us hypocrites because of the divorces happening inside the church as much as outside.  Lesson learned: people may make fun of you for being a boy scout or a do-gooder, and tell you to lighten up, but the minute you start acting like them, it turns out they expected the boy scout after all.  But I’m getting off track.

Then the state should get out of the marriage business.  Civil unions for everyone.

But there’s a pragmatic reason to encourage heterosexual marriages, remember?

But there’s a pragmatic reason to encourage heterosexual marriages, remember?

There is.  There are also pragmatic reasons for encouraging homosexual marriage, and the idea of monogamy in the homosexual community.  It is for the good of society.  (Im assuming in this case you are talking about social reasons for encouraging marriage, rather than religous, am I correct?)

But there’s a pragmatic reason to encourage heterosexual marriages, remember?

Personally, I don’t think the government should be encouraging or discouraging relationships, and even if I did, I’d suggest they start sterilizing stupid heterosexuals long before they think about addressing gay marriage.  It’s far more pragmatic to stop people from having stupid children than it is to worry about gay people who will probably never have children.

But one is encouraging a social climate that benefits society (more specifically, which benefits government coffers), which is within the bounds of governmental rule.  The other is prohibiting behavior on the grounds that it would be a drain on our resources, which while I certainly agree it would be nice to rid the world of stupid people, I don’t think that’s a practice the government needs to be getting into.  Then we start going down the road of “aborting black babies to reduce crime” and that’s somewhere I don’t want to go (I’m sure most of you are news-savvy enough to know what that is a reference to).

w0rf-

Dont you think though that it would benefit society, and govt resources to encourage the concept of the “family”, gay or straight?  Leaving the gay community as the outcasts of society isnt going to help society, or the govt coffers.  Am I wrong about this?

“aborting black babies to reduce crime”

Who said that???  I was watching the Daily Show last night, but at the end, as they role the credits, they runs little clips, and I was in the other room, and I heard that, but didnt catch who said it.  Any idea?

found it.

Who said that??? I was watching the Daily Show last night, but at the end, as they role the credits, they runs little clips, and I was in the other room, and I heard that, but didnt catch who said it. Any idea?

Bennett said it on his radio show in the context that it was a stupid argument for dealing with crime.  Taken out of context, it’s whatever folks want it to be I guess.  After all, he used “black” and “crime” in the same sentence.  Must be racist.

But one is encouraging a social climate that benefits society (more specifically, which benefits government coffers), which is within the bounds of governmental rule.

How does banning gay marriage benefit government coffers?

Leaving the gay community as the outcasts of society isnt going to help society, or the govt coffers.  Am I wrong about this?

Yes.  First of all, gays are hardly outcasts in society.  Second of all, you’re missing the single significant contribution to gov’t revenue: more taxpayers.  That’s the social benefit that compels government to offer those incentives.

Anyway, let’s not take this out of context, I was drawing a distinction between what’s being discussed here, and ronnie’s suggestion that we actually TAKE RIGHTS AWAY from people based on his (or someone’s… in any event, it’s not the individual’s) discretion of who is or is not a contributing member to society.  There is absolutely nothing in the law that forbids gays from having children; it’s just that they’re a lot less likely to do so, under the circumstances.  And that’s the comparison he’s trying to draw, actually trying to tell people they’re not ALLOWED to have children.

Who said that???  I was watching the Daily Show last night, but at the end, as they role the credits, they runs little clips, and I was in the other room, and I heard that, but didnt catch who said it.  Any idea?

It was said on Bill Bennett’s radio show.  He was paraphrasing an idea put forth in a book called Freakonomics.  He was using it to illustrate a point that you can’t use side arguments about projections of ancillary benefits, such as increased revenue or reduced crime, as a valid argument for abortion, because it’s basically arguing from the standpoint of population management.  Libs used it to paint him as a racist.

First of all, gays are hardly outcasts in society.

And on that note, I don’t think we’re going to make any progress on this subject today.

How does banning gay marriage benefit government coffers?

You keep arguing this backwards.  You can’t ban something that is NOT ALREADY LEGALIZED.  Government recognition of marriage is NOT A LEGALIZATION of marriage, they happen anyway.  It was a method of providing incentives to create more homes which produce children who grow up and pay taxes.

There is no law saying two guys can’t love each other, no law saying they can’t be intimate (well, sodomy laws, but they’re obsolete, never enforced, and being stricken from the books in droves), no law saying they can’t live together, and no law saying they can’t have some kind of ceremony where they promise whatever people feel like promising on any given day.  So what’s the difference?  Legal recognition.  Tax benefits.  Inheritance rights.  Things of that sort.  How does the formation of a civil union statute not accomplish that?

And on that note, I don’t think we’re going to make any progress on this subject today.

Um… hello?  Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?  Will and Grace?  Ellen?  Chuck Schumer?  Philadelphia?  Gay Pride parades?  Gay days at Disney World?  7,149 private employers, colleges and universities that offer same-sex benefits?  And you say they’re outcasts?  When I see the fire hoses and the gay restrooms I might buy your logic, but trying the cheap blow-off tactic isn’t going to fly.

So what’s the difference? Legal recognition. Tax benefits. Inheritance rights. Things of that sort. How does the formation of a civil union statute not accomplish that?

Now I really don’t understand your argument.  If you’re willing to give them all the benefits of marriage, what is the harm in calling it a marriage?

Now I really don’t understand your argument.

That’s mostly because you haven’t tried.  You’ve ignored my attempts to look at the issue honestly and practically and just assumed that I was some kind of gay-hating bigot.

If you’re willing to give them all the benefits of marriage, what is the harm in calling it a marriage?

What’s the harm in calling it a civil union?

Um… hello? Queer Eye for the Straight Guy? Will and Grace? Ellen? Chuck Schumer? Philadelphia? Gay Pride parades? Gay days at Disney World? 7,149 private employers, colleges and universities that offer same-sex benefits? And you say they’re outcasts? When I see the fire hoses and the gay restrooms I might buy your logic, but trying the cheap blow-off tactic isn’t going to fly.

Not outcasts?  Why do you think they have gay pride parades in the first place?  It’s the same reason MLK led his civil rights marches.  It shows that they ARE outcasts.  And say that 7,149 employers, colleges and universities proves it as well, because we certainly have a lot more employers, colleges and universities than that.  Gay days at Disney World?  I worked there years ago, and people actually plan their days around that event.  Complaints at guest relations are off the scale on those days.  Yeah, they’re accepted ... and The Jeffersons proves that racism is dead.

What’s the harm in calling it a civil union?

And I think this is where we hit the wall.  The fight is just coming down to terminology.  But we cant get past it because “marriage” has religous conotations, and nobody wants to step on the toes of a religion.  I dont anyway.  I strongly disagree with what I have learned recently about some christians ideas about marriage, but that is their right. 

The bottom line should be though, govt shouldnt discriminate.  A church can discriminate based on beliefs.

What’s the harm in calling it a civil union?

That’s easy.  They feel discriminated against.

Again, what’s the harm in calling it a marriage?

That’s mostly because you haven’t tried. You’ve ignored my attempts to look at the issue honestly and practically and just assumed that I was some kind of gay-hating bigot.

Spare me this crap.  I don’t buy the argument that people who don’t agree with you must not be trying.  Save that garbage for the moonbats.

Yeah, they’re accepted ... and The Jeffersons proves that racism is dead.

Exaclty.  I wonder how race relations would be today, if, instead of giving black people the right to vote, you gave them, ummmmm, the right to cast their opinion.  Same thing, just call it something different.

And I think this is where we hit the wall. The fight is just coming down to terminology.

I don’t get that either.  I mean if someone really honestly thinks the joining of two homosexuals is harmful to society, they should be against it by any name, but if the only issue is terminology, then it’s just meant to make people feel excluded.

then it’s just meant to make people feel excluded.

I think they also see the terminology as an insult against their religion.  Like calling ‘Frosty the Snowman’ a Christmas carol.  Thatd be my guess anyway.  Either way, its something the govt either has to open up to all, or get out of completly.

I think they also see the terminology as an insult against their religion.

I’m not much interested in the religious implications of it.  Plenty of things are legal that go against religious views.  Gambling.  Smoking.  Drinking.  Pre-marital sex.  Abortion.

Not outcasts?  Why do you think they have gay pride parades in the first place?  It’s the same reason MLK led his civil rights marches. 

Sorry but this is the most ridiculous thing I think I’ve ever read here.  I’ve been to more than one Gay Pride parade and to compare them to the Civil Rights marches is just plain ignorant.  Maybe they had a lofty goal when they began but now they are little more than excuses to party and show their gay flair.

My brother in-law is a gay man who used to go to these parades when he was younger.  I used to go to the parades with him.  It was a party.  He and I both stopped (me before him) for the same reason.  They highlight the most deplorable aspects of the gay society (and just like any community they have plenty).  They represent the gay community just as much as Mardi Gras represent the straight community.

Spare me this crap.  I don’t buy the argument that people who don’t agree with you must not be trying.  Save that garbage for the moonbats.

Stop treating me like I have an agenda, then.

I mean if someone really honestly thinks the joining of two homosexuals is harmful to society

So who here is saying that?  Just curious.

Why do you think they have gay pride parades in the first place?  It’s the same reason MLK led his civil rights marches.  It shows that they ARE outcasts.

First of all, that’s bullcrap, generally the parades have little or nothing to do with civil rights.  Second of all, those marches are not being shut down by police with dogs and fire hoses and all the gays put in jail.  So how you’re comparing these displays with the acts of protest in the 60’s I cannot fathom.  And how that makes them societal outcasts is even less clear.

And say that 7,149 employers, colleges and universities proves it as well, because we certainly have a lot more employers, colleges and universities than that.

Again, that’s bullcrap.  ADDING language to policies FORBIDDING discrimination on the basis or orientation, ADDING same-sex benefits to corporate policies, ADDING special events at theme parks ARE NOT ACTS OF DISCRIMINATION.  This is the only time I’ve ever seen anyone try to argue that increasing benefits and access are proof of social discrimination.  It’s completely bass-ackwards.

Sorry but this is the most ridiculous thing I think I’ve ever read here.

They highlight the most deplorable aspects of the gay society

No, they’re not outcasts.  Their society just has unique aspects which you find deplorable.  I’m curious, when the St. Patrick’s Day parade goes marching by with all it’s party atmosphere and wild flair, is that equally deplorable to you?

When you start using the things the black comunity when through to get equal rights to things the gay comunity does to get special right you default the argument in my opinion.

No, they’re not outcasts.  Their society just has unique aspects which you find deplorable.  I’m curious, when the St. Patrick’s Day parade goes marching by with all it’s party atmosphere and wild flair, is that equally deplorable to you?

Again you’re trying to play the bigot card when you disagree with someone.  Or do you think Saint Patrick’s Day parades are brave marches for the civil rights of downtrodden Irish-Americans?  If not, your argument is bogus.

No, they’re not outcasts.  Their society just has unique aspects which you find deplorable.  I’m curious, when the St. Patrick’s Day parade goes marching by with all it’s party atmosphere and wild flair, is that equally deplorable to you?

I’m not comparing St. Patricks day to MLK marches like you are doing with Gay Parades. 

EVERY society has aspects that I find deplorable, and what is I find deplorable isn’t unique to their society (nice of you to add that in to make your point...)

Stop treating me like I have an agenda, then.

I’m sorry you feel that way.  It’s not how I think of you.

So who here is saying that? Just curious.

I’m trying to understand why we’re having a debate on something that appears to have pros but not cons.  No one is saying gay marriage is harmful (at least no one here), and so I can’t figure out why anyone wouldn’t just jump on the opportunity to legalize it.  I have asked you if there’s any harm in calling it a marriage, and you haven’t said anything about it.  Tell me if you think there’s no harm.

First of all, that’s bullcrap, generally the parades have little or nothing to do with civil rights. Second of all, those marches are not being shut down by police with dogs and fire hoses and all the gays put in jail. So how you’re comparing these displays with the acts of protest in the 60’s I cannot fathom. And how that makes them societal outcasts is even less clear.

No, they’re not equal.  My point is not that they are.  I just don’t think the existence of gay pride parades belongs on a list of things that show homosexuals aren’t outcasts.  Personally, I think the existence of them (particularly in the early years) and the public’s reaction to them proves otherwise.

Again, that’s bullcrap. ADDING language to policies FORBIDDING discrimination on the basis or orientation, ADDING same-sex benefits to corporate policies, ADDING special events at theme parks ARE NOT ACTS OF DISCRIMINATION. This is the only time I’ve ever seen anyone try to argue that increasing benefits and access are proof of social discrimination. It’s completely bass-ackwards.

Yes, I totally agree that is bass-ackwards, and if I had actually said that I would feel stupid.  In reality, I pointed out that the number of companies and schools that have a policy to not disciminate against homosexcuals is small relative to the total.  Therefore the statistic does not belong in a list of things that prove the acceptance of homosexuals.

I’m not comparing St. Patricks day to MLK marches like you are doing with Gay Parades.

I’m not making that comparison.  I am saying that marches which ARE discriminated against would be SHUT DOWN.  They are ALLOWED in the city just like any other parade.  So where’s the “outcast” in that?

EVERY society has aspects that I find deplorable, and what is I find deplorable isn’t unique to their society (nice of you to add that in to make your point...)

I added it in because it was in your paragraph and I didn’t want to be accused of taking things out of context.  However, I don’t understand why you’re even making the argument about “deplorable aspects”.  You’re the only one who’s mentioned anything along those lines, and no one here has said there should be a law against “deplorable aspects”.  So what exactly is your point?

I have asked you if there’s any harm in calling it a marriage, and you haven’t said anything about it.  Tell me if you think there’s no harm.

I don’t think there’s harm in allowing the government to recognize a civil union for the purpose of providing legal protections.  Certain marriage BENEFITS I have pointed out were introduced as INCENTIVES, and I’m not sure I like the idea of INCENTIVES being translated into social ENTITLEMENTS.  I have also said that the public attitude towards those benefits may have slid to far towards that conclusion for it to make much difference now.  My only point here was that some things that people are now assuming as entitlements did not start out that way (most entitlements don’t, really).

But why the hubbub about marriage?  Let’s consider another example from earlier civil rights movements.  Not long after a lot of Jim Crow was struck down by the Civil Rights Act if 1964

When you start using the things the black comunity when through to get equal rights to things the gay comunity does to get special right you default the argument in my opinion.

I guess that’s one way to win a debate.

Again you’re trying to play the bigot card when you disagree with someone. Or do you think Saint Patrick’s Day parades are brave marches for the civil rights of downtrodden Irish-Americans? If not, your argument is bogus.

I’m not playing a bigot card.  I want to know why someone would refuse to march in a parade simply because it’s a big party.  I picked another parade that’s a big party (St. Pat’s) with outrageous flair, and I want to know if they also find that depolorable.  Can I ask a damn question to find out for myself if someone’s a bigot? 

EVERY society has aspects that I find deplorable, and what is I find deplorable isn’t unique to their society (nice of you to add that in to make your point...)

Could you identify someone of those deplorable aspects from the parade?  Maybe you could just clear this up by citing a really good example of something so depolorable in a gay pride parade that also exists in the rest of society.

stupid button.

Anyway…

But why the hubbub about marriage?  Let’s consider another example from earlier civil rights movements.  Not long after a lot of Jim Crow was struck down by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a lot of restaurants and other establishments started putting up signs saying “we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody”.  In short, that if we want to refuse service to blacks, we’re a private business, you can’t stop us.  A few lawsuits cleared up that mess in a hurry.  You say having the government equalize all unions would not impact the church’s capacity to follow its own religious standard of practice.  I submit to you that a “we reserve the right to refuse marriage to anyone” sign on the front of a church probably would not last long after something like this came about.

In reality, I pointed out that the number of companies and schools that have a policy to not disciminate against homosexcuals is small relative to the total.  Therefore the statistic does not belong in a list of things that prove the acceptance of homosexuals.

I’m not trying to prove they are universally accepted, you can’t even say that about blacks right now.  I’m talking about the mainstream, and in the mainstream, acceptance of gays is not only a majority opinion, it’s the hip new way to show all your buddies how tolerant and progressive you are.  Despite the fact that the number of businesses offering these services is statistically small, once you take out confounding factors like, for example, many small businesses simply don’t have gay employees, what you’re left with, however small or large, is still a considerably greater number than would be assigned to a supposedly outcast group.  Start considering the number of businesses that offer benefits to multiple spouses, or to spouses who are also relations, and you’ll see the difference between outcast and not.

Worf, what incentive that comes with marriage would you not include with civil unions?  And I’m with you about entitlements, but if we are stuck with an entitlement, it doesn’t seem appropriate to give it out to only straight people unless you can show harm in doing otherwise.

and apologies to two-arm, I quoted his paragraph in a response that was supposed to be directed at Ronnie, the progenitor of the “deplorable aspect” argument.

Worf, what incentive that comes with marriage would you not include with civil unions?

There are literally dozens of various benefits that come with marriage and that’s a lot to sort through, but considering the end goal of government support was to encourage spawning more taxpayers, you could probably go through a comprehensive list, if one exists, and come to the same conclusions about which ones are directly related to that.  Some examples of ones that I would NOT separate are things like inheritance rights, hospital visitations (although many private hospitals allow this on their own), etc.  Those are valid legal protections which I don’t think any reasonable person disagrees with.