Comparing gay civil unions with bestiality is an argument beneath anyone on these boards, unless you first advocate giving Irish Wolfhounds full legal majority status. Come on now.
I have no problem with two human beings joining in a union. Makes no difference to me if they're a man and woman, two men or two women. All would help stabalize society, if the two people enter into it with the intent to make a real committment.
I do not advocate forcing churches to bless the unions, but that's not required right now for a marriage to be valid.
Supposedly, the 'mos want the same rights as married people have...without the responsibilities, ie, of raising children. Those benefits include tax benefits, health benefits[which will rise because of their risky sexual behavior and must be borne by everyone] and the like. the reasons for those benefits is to promote stable families.
Single people should agitate for the same benefits. Afterall, what is the rational constitutional basis for excluding them from lower tax rates?
So the supposed "benefits" of marriage will be destroyed by approving 'mo marriages.
Society rewards marriage because of the end result of the insititution, children.
The institution is rewarded not the sex act.
Homosexuality is ONLY about recreational sex. Nothing nothing else.
Love is irrelevant to the law.
Feelings are irrelevant to the law.
The homsexuals are applying classic liberalism (modern liberalism). Political power gained by feeeelings. There is no dispute for feelings.
Cohabitation contracts can do what homosexuals state they need. They do not want a solution, they want court ordered acceptances of the morality of the recreational act.
"Since the beginning of civilization, the standard for marriage has been a bond between 1 man and 1 woman. If that standard is changed, you can be sure children will pay the price."
So how does that play in with the stories in the Bible of rulers and such who had multiple wives and concubines and the like?
Were they not civilized?