[Recovering Ex-hippie]

I agree!

The limitations with civil unions becomes legal and financial entitlements (e.g., social security benefits, filing taxes; medical and inheritance rights). There are many senior citizens who now "live together" because of financial reasons.

On the other hand, the high rate of divorce and couples living together unmarried have actually been the most significant factor in the alteration of traditional marriage. Maybe all this hoopala about gay marriages keeps us from missing the real changes in our society.

[Chieftain]

I think marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman. If gay people want to get married, let them, as long as it's gay man marrying a gay woman. < /sarcasm>

The problem with redefining marriage, is that once you allow for this or that group, then you open Pandora's Box for every weirdo group (e.g. multiple partners, marry your sheep, or dog or whatever!). Don't change the definition.

You want 'benefits' of getting married? Get married!

You want freedom from rules of marriage? Stay unmarried!

Want Inheritance? Get Married.

Don't like it? Stay single.

Know the rules and work them for what you want, just don't whine because society won't change for you.

[HallowThisGround]

On the other hand, the high rate of divorce and couples living together unmarried have actually been the most significant factor in the alteration of traditional marriage. Maybe all this hoopala about gay marriages keeps us from missing the real changes in our society.
This is a chicken and egg argument you are making. Did divorce redefine marriage or did a redefinition of marriage cause an increase in divorce.
I propose the latter which was precipitated by an acceptance of an expanded list of genders proposed by the "women's" movement of the 60's and 70's. And that is the origin of the "intellectual" debate we are having on gay marriage today.