I’m for civil unions and not gay marriage and don’t find it silly. Marriage has religious and civil meaning and civil unions can be more narrowly defined as to not force religions to change their definition. I think it’s both just and beneficial to society to allow individuals more freedom in defining their associations (hospital visits, insurance benefits, estate matters ...). I understand that’s a more libertarian bend than many here desire, but what I find silly is when people label the homosexual lifestyle as one of loose associations and bath house behavior and then do not favor laws that provide them an alternative. Donning my ZOT resistant armor. —sick1
“Civil unions” are “gay” “marriage.”
Anyone who wants such legal benefits or contracts can do so right this very minute, whoever they are, without "gay marriage" or "civil unions". Anyone with 2 brain cells knows that. Homosexuals have been pushing for "gay marriage" not for these reasons but to change society and the very meaning of marriage and family, and they have publicly admitted this.
what I find silly is when people label the homosexual lifestyle as one of loose associations and bath house behavior and then do not favor laws that provide them an alternative.
What I find more than disingenuous is the argument that mentally ill sex perverts will change their ways if they can legally get "married" or have a civil union. Mentally ill is mentally ill and perversion is perversion, legal unions or not. Very few homosexuals who get legally married are monogamous and not very many even get married in places that allow it. There is no good reason to normalize faggotry and many excellent reasons not to.