Where to begin? I donâ??t have enough time to quote people on both sides so I will just respond in general.

First, as Jato said, a clear definition of civil union and marriage need to be defined. Perhaps marriage should not be used for legal purposes. Right now, itâ??s clear that both sides of the argument (generally speaking) are using different definitions. If you are gay or straight and make a legal commitment to your partner, it is a civil union regardless of whether you are catholic, agnostic, jewish, or democratic. If you are married in a church, you are participating in the sacrament of marriage, in addition to being legally united. Essentially, civil union is for everyone, marriage is what it was intended to be, a spiritual union. As far as the language goes, I canâ??t see how anyone would have a problem with either group saying they are married in laymen type discussions. It would seem silly to think that someone in a civil union would have to classify themselves in the following manner:

Nervous young man with a ring: Emily, blah blah blah, I love you, will you unite with me in a legally binding civil union?
Emily: Huh?

I guess I donâ??t see what harm there is in gay people calling their union a marriage as long as from a legal sense, they, like everyone else will be civil union.

Fat Mike, I donâ??t mean to single someone out, but you mentioned mentioned your gay friends. First, if you had friends that werenâ??t sincere, nice, and generally good people, I wouldnâ??t see why they would be your friends to begin with. To look at this objectively, you have to step back away from the scenario because by mentioning what great people they are, you are allowing the presentation of your opinion to become clouded. How good of people they are is completely irrelevant to the topic. Whenever anyone resorts to the â??I have many black friendsâ?, or â??I have a lot of gay friendsâ?, in my opinion you lost the argument before you even started. Itâ??s almost like responding to an argument with educational qualifications and proceeding to not provide any more data to back your point. Not a personal attack, just something to consider.

Kremit, your argument regarding the slippery slope also has no basis in reality and is completely fear driven. The distinction is extremely simple to make and easily enforced. A civil union cannot involve more than two people because of the economic impact (insurance, social security benefits, legal and custodial battles etc) and laws would remain in place banning incestual marriage because of the medical impact it could have (higher rates of birth defects). Lastly, people wanting to marry cows, cats, chickens, plants, vegetables (no matter how long and hard), or inanimate objects like a favorite cracker (saltine, not some random whitey) would not be allowed to do so because there is no consenting counterpart. I think svtcarboy did a pretty good job despite his obvious biases.

Sandmann, I know your military background has probably allowed you to do some traveling. Having said that, I must question your comments about the American family structure. Were you referring to the family while the country was being structured, or what it is now? From my experience, I do not see the US as having a very family based society, in fact, I have seen quite the opposite. Statistics I have seen seem to show that gay marriages tend to last longer than straight marriages. I know we are not looking at a statistically significant number compared to straight marriages, but what I have seen makes me believe that gay couples can actually be more dedicated to one another and their family than straight couples. Who knows, maybe gay people are more dedicated because of the social unacceptance. Or maybe they know something us straight people have forgotten about what makes a successful relationship.

Sorry that was so long. Probably didn't even make sense but i don't have time to proofread it right now.



"If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit" -Mitch Hedberg