[ClearCase_guy]

I have not yet heard a non-religious argument against civil unions. The idea is for people ot be able to make a permanent commitment to one another and to enjoy the benefits and protections the law offers two people who have chosen to do so.

Answer me this: On what basis do you say that Marriage, or Civil Unions, are between two people?
Does your employer provide spousal benefits? If you had 20 spouses, would your employer consider cancelling all benefits? Would that disturb you or your co-workers?
And also: How can you be against polygamy?
How can you be against a grandfather marrying his granddaughter (in order to provide Social Security survivor benefits)?

These questions are not intended to be rhetorical. Marriage is being re-defined. Where (and why) does that re-definition stop? There will be broad consequences to this.

[ClearCase_guy]

I put my "and also" on the wrong line. It was intended to move beyond the topic of polygamy, and introduce the topic of legalized incest. I think both are serious issues. Neither is laughable, and I do not consider that a "counter-argument".