After having being denied equal rights for decades and the civil unions compromise having refused over and over again, I'd say to the gay community "Go for all the marbles (if you have the patience)". Marriage equality is coming in the foreseeable future imo. Deny the marriage inequality proponents the freeroll of only accepting the civil union compromise when they are drawing dead.

I think this might actually play into the hands of the "sanctity of marriage" proponents. They have argued that accepting same sex marriage will devalue "traditional marriage". If the government stops sanctioning religious marriage and only allows civil unions then traditional, religious marriage really has taken a blow.
I am not against this but I can see resistance to this proposal from within the religious community.

Again, I note that those were passed WITH language about defining marriage. As far as I know, no state first passed a gay marriage ban, and THEN passed a civil union ban on top of it.

Fighting over the word "marriage" *DOES* give that impression, doesn't it? If you're fighting over rights, then it seems best to do everything you can to make sure the focus is actually on "rights" and not something pertaining to religion.

I would say that it's because the current thrust of efforts have been all about trying to get the word "marriage." Change the conversation.

Well, I was suggesting that insurance companies might adjust; so the benefit would be nullified. But....who knows.

The word bigot is meaningless to me, outside of being chased by a mob. (basically; there are a few laws in the torah touching on this, but nothing like the modern perspective)

Yes I'm unmarried, and I'm not that familiar with insurance claims as I pretty much have never needed it...yet. Perhaps I shouldn't have been so confident in my post as to how this plays out in U.S. law?

Well the fact that they insist on this term marriage, and aren't happy with the rights given in Aaron's hypothetical; demonstrates that acceptance comes into play.

As far as research...ha, I mean U.S. law is ridiculously complicated. The poster who responded first to my post you're addressing here, pointed out some of the benefits I wasn't aware of to which I conceded. So concede again. I'll just say, it appears most of those benefits amount to married people not being exploited (taxed) as much as singles. (perhaps because they're producing more slaves (kids), so hey...here's a bone?)

And as far as judgmental, I'm not judgmental (excessively); I don't make up my own judgments, I ask what are the judgments that have been given?

16“Then I charged your judges at that time, saying, ‘Hear the cases between your fellow countrymen, and judge righteously between a man and his fellow countryman, or the alien who is with him. 17 ‘You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not fear man, for the judgment is God’s. The case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.’ 18 “I commanded you at that time all the things that you should do.

The thing is, I think as long as white people were doing okay themselves, they were willing to let all kinds of things slide, thinking this libertarianism could work out. But, as they wake up and see they own nothing and their broke; they're going to start to dig deeper into their spirituality and ask, "what law really is valid?"

They might ask, hmm where did I come from? From which nation in the table on nations did I descend (Gen ch 10).
Then they might start hunting gays, kidnappers (cops), false legislators (deut 4:2).

So...as things tighten up, and something stirs inside them that they can't put their finger on, Aaron's saying "hey don't inflame these guys, you're going to start a war; let the lion slumber."

There will always be resistance to change. But I think that the approach here is similar to presidential politics. Obama isn't going to spend his time going after the hardcore republicans, and Romney isn't going after the hardcore democrats. It's the 50-60% or so that's in the middle that they're fighting over. And I think a large chunk of that population wants to see BOTH "marriage" as a religious construct being protected AND gays receiving rights.

The problem is that if you force people to choose one or the other, they'll go with the one that's closer to where they are (protect "marriage").

- Sure, acceptance plays some role in the desire to get married. Just like a straight couple that chooses to get married is asking for recognition of their commitment and a straight guy calling someone his wife probably connotes a little more seriousness and dedication to that woman than someone he referred to as a girlfriend. Yes, acceptance is part of it, but so are all of the many legal rights that I and other posters itt have pointed out.

- WRT marital benefits being given in exchange for the service couples provide to society by producing children, I do think that that was part of the reason why certain benefits were given to married couples. But (a) gay couples can still raise children and (b) infertile straight couples or couples that simply have decided that they don't want children are allowed to receive the benefits, so if you are only concerned about compensating folks that are raising children, martial laws are far from a precise way of doing it.

- Finally, your last sentiment struck quite a nerve with me... Within my lifetime, thanks to opponents of homosexuality, I could have been arrested for sleeping with someone I loved in the privacy of my own home, I could have been fired from my job (and some of my friends have been) simply because of who I was attracted to, my friends have been seperated from their partners because that person was born in another country and they could not sponsor them for citizenship... And when I try to stand up and say these things are wrong and I would like these laws to be changed, I'm supposed to sit down and be patient so that I don't provoke the sleeping lion?!? I'm sorry, but from my point of view, the conflict has already started, but I wasn't the one who started it...

The law gave me tax free land to be free and grow my own food. (num 33:54) I say "free", because with that land, I don't have to pimp myself out to eat. I don't need to go to rich guys and negotiate from a weak position, because I'm truly independent.

Everyone opposed to this is my enemy, so it's not just you if that makes you feel better.

I mean...what am I supposed to say? That woman and gays are far more materialistic, therefore.....more likely to sell out? And that this ruins countries and the concept of freedom as I've pointed out? Well I'm not saying it because that would be bigoted. *rolleyes*

(If you supported this, you and your partner could very well sneak around under the radar, as there would be no taxes to fund a giant police state. ~Maybe?)

I think explaining why gay is wrong is about as complex as gays explaining why they don't think women are sexy. (or sexy enough to marry)

What I don't understand is why we ever backed off the issue that a black person is 3/5s a white person.

It's not I'm like saying that blacks shouldn't be able to vote, I'm saying that they are only 60% of a white person's vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

/searing sarcasm

Gay people can adopt children, raise them, provide for them, give those kids a better chance to be productive members of society. Those kids could be brilliant scientists that cure the next disease, a musician to inspire others, ect the list goes on... Gay people can give children more opportunity than an orphanage could, so for these reasons I believe it is asinine and totally ridiculous to deny gay marriage.

Isn't that what the whole man and women argument is about, the biological reality of procreation?

Before you make some unsubstantiated, emotional response about how gay parents will turn their kids gay realize that I've already thought what you are thinking and I'm not impressed to say the least.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolato...it-finds/30255

Why white people? What is it that you're saying?

They out right say it right now! They go out and vote to prevent gays from having CIVIL UNIONS, not gay marriage. The actual homophobia is completely out in the open.

in principle this might be correct. However, you have yet to demonstrate a single example of what this gigantic long term problems might actually be. Now it has been less than a decade, but these problems have not, as I see it, manifested themselves in countries and states that have legalized it. Not to mention that the "long road" seems to be of marathon length since there is absolutely zero momentum for it compared to considerable momentum for the other approach.

Perhaps even more importantly - and a point you have utterly failed to acknowledge - is that you can fix the legal discrimination NOW and then spend the long term working to do the tiny word switch afterwards. The real problems that exist right now can be ameliorated, and have been ameliorated around the globe and in the US, and this much much more trivial issue of word play can be fixed whenever if it actually is an issue and actually leads to long term problems. If it doesn't lead to these nebulous problems, no need to fix it.

*Yawn* Already addressed, but your fingers are still in your ears.

Also, get over calling people who disagree with you on the underlying question homophobic. You really don't help your cause in any way when you do this. All you do is exacerbate current relations. A vote against civil unions does NOT automatically make you homophobic.

Where? A civil union has NO religious significance. Yet attempts to legalize civil unions have failed and, indeed, civil unions get ALSO banned not just gay marriages.

How does this not entirely destroy your point? And please, use actual arguments not condescension.

I also don't know why you still refuse to give a single example of what these so called long term consequences actually are. Can you point to one in a country like Canada that has passed it? Now you are just ignoring queries into this which seems to underline that you don't actually have an examples of these consequences.

Maybe it's because you're Canadian and don't really understand how politics works in America.

---

No thanks. You don't seem to want to make actual arguments, and instead take rhetorical tangents, so I'll just follow suit.

Oh is this supposed to be you addressing it?

You are forgetting that attempts to PASS civil unions entirely separated from anything to do with marriage have failed. Recently this happened in Colorado. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...84E06C20120515

Of course, you are not helped one iota that past bills passed lump both gay marriage and civil unions together. Of course, some may vote for this not because they oppose civil unions, but you still have one of the two established parties who are adding something entirely unreligious about gays and trying to ban it.

edit: funny double post timing.

wat. Sinking to ever lower lows I see.

Well you are certainly succeeding in your aim at not actually making arguments.

Honestly, what is it going to take after pages and pages of discussion and perhaps as many as a dozen times by me directly asking you to give a single example of these long term consequences you keep alluding to, before you actually give one?

Yeah, you don't know how politics work in the US at all. It's not like this was voted down. It didn't even come up for a vote. And I'm not saying that there aren't those working against the outcome. These types of procedural games are played all the time by both sides. That's just part of how the system works here.

Government would remain involved in marriages.

Please justify this. And more importantly, please explain how my nationality has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with this. As it happens, I follow US politics closely - and write a blog covering US politics - and submit that I know considerably MORE about how US politics works than the average American. Bringing up nationality is the most baseless kind of troll out there.
I am completely aware of all of this ( ergo, there is nothing here that I don't understand). I gave the example because it was recent. However, civil union bills and ballot initatives have been proposed around the country and sometimes have been successful and sometimes not but have ALWAYS been controversial and had a wide body of voters directly, or their representatives, voting AGAINST them.

The point is simple: this issue of civil unions already DOES remove religion from the issue. This is why some gay rights advocates push for them. out of the hope of a compromise that gives rights. However, this is not enough for the homophobes. They STILL oppose this in wide numbers and would undoubtably also oppose your proposal in wide numbers.

That's the problem you pick? C'mon Aaron.

Lol. Yes, and I am asking what the horrible long term consequences of this are?

As point of fact, it doesn't actually mean this. The silly word trick could be dealt with at ANY time. For instance, the first time an actual consequences manifested itself.

Removing the term "marriage" from the government legal structure is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE of expanding the government legal structure to include gays. Yet you are insisting that the ONLY solution you would ever vote for is the one that combines things from both sides it.

That's the problem I pick for Uke, yes.

Whats the problem you pick for your pastor?

Sure, there are some for whom no amount will be enough. I don't deny this at any point. But why do you care about those people, anyway? Why not pay attention to those who might actually change their minds on their own volition? Why do you think you have to go to war with those on the extreme ends to make something happen?

Also, I will continue to warn you that not everyone who disagrees with you is automatically a homophobe. You would REALLY benefit from working with better rhetoric, because you're only making yourself look fanatical.