Quote:
It's not random speculation, though it is speculation. I think you are underestimating the level of religious push-back that is brewing. The political climate is already bubbling with lots of emotion (see Tea Party and response to the Affordable Care Act) and there's already a lot of political divisiveness, and I think that if this gets shoved through it's not going to be pretty.
But I could be wrong.
I am very aware of the Tea Party's attempts to prevent any form of legal representation - civil union or gay marriage - for gays. It is disgusting and, ironically, by voting WITH them you are enabling the continued discrimination until such time as your pie in the sky solution eventually gets on the ballot box. But I don't see this as a reason to not act.
Yes, US politics is very polarized and divisive. That is the way it is on every issue the parties disagree on. But the solution isn't to roll over, it is to find the things that are clearly right - such as ending harmful discrimination against gays - and push that in the political conversation.
Quote:
Because it's another step in the wrong direction. Later, it will be harder to do something compared to now to fix the underlying problem.
It fixes the discrimination now. All that needs to happen after that is the changing of a label. This is what I don't understand about your argument, you are coming with me 99% of the way it seems that the discrimination occurring right now is harmful and ought to be changed. And your proposal eliminates the discrimination in almost every way by including gays in the legal framework. The only quibble is about whether it is called one word or another. Yet when I give you the opportunity to vote to come that 99% with me, ending the discrimination, including the gays in the legal framework - which, btw, is the ONLY pragmatic option on the table politically in numerous states having such votes put to the people - you vote against this!
Let us just pretend I accept the need to change the word just to appease the religious people who can't accept gays in their institution. Is not the pragmatic course to accept decreased discrimination when it is presented to us and then additionally work on changing the word as something entirely separate to the gay issue?
Quote:
Long term gains vs. short term gains.
You really have yet to tell me what a single long term consequence is. You say you have speculation, but have not even identified what you are speculating. As far as I can see it, the problem is entirely fixed in places like Canada which accept marriage equality. if you want to try to pass a bill here to change the word sure fine have at it, but what is this big long term consequence that is so huge you are unwilling to accept, today, a massive short term gain that ends the discrimination as we know it?
Quote:
Correct. I'm going to wait for some sort of information or structure to what you are thinking that a civil union includes. I'm basically trying to make you actually deal in some form of detail rather than playing the blanket "harmful/immoral/disgusting/blah blah blah" game that you're playing. I'd be more inclined to answer if you simply left all that excessive rhetoric behind completely.
Well you are the one proposing a "civil union for all" solution, so YOU tell me what structures are there or not. Look, this is not a tricky term. Numerous states have implemented, or tried to implement, a civil union structure. It is normally something very close to marriage, often with a few small details different.
My contention is that it is very harmful and morally wrong to deny two people such a structure on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. It seems you agree from me, but when I press you on saying that this IS indeed harmful you demand some form of details. Who cares, they don't matter. Pick any of the ones out there if you really can't make a general statement on this! My goodness.