Civil Unions are the Current "Separate But Equal"

Civil union is open to anyone but it is but as separate from marriage which is not. In most states (there are exceptions) marriage is open to just heterosexuals. Just because a homosexual was never consider 3/5 of a human doesn't mean people aren't constantly dehumanizing them. "Homosexuals or Homo Sapiens: Who Deserves Protected Class Status?" That is trying to say being a homosexual is apart from being human. It's not just this one quote who is saying it either. The number one reason people were bullied in schools was because of their appearance. Number two? Their sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation. Nine out of ten LGBT teens reported being bullied in schools for their orientation. More than 1/3 have been reported for attempting suicide because of the way others treat them. Yes, other people are bullied. But this shows that the general population IS dehumanizing them. Vermont adapted civil unions to entitle same-sex couples to ensure the same rights as marriage while keeping "the institute of marriage." The same rights are not given. Proposition 22, passed in 2000, is there to ensure that same-sex unions are not given most of the state benefits that are given to opposite-sex marriage. The Marriage Defense Act, passed in 1996, keeps same-sex unions from receiving federal benefits. The only way same-sex is truly equal is through marriage. No matter who started civil unions does not change the fact they are still a step down from marriage although as stated above, they were suppose to be designed as equal to marriage. Just as women started getting jobs as secretaries and could do nothing more, they took the jobs as a step towards equality. Civil unions are that step to be taken, but not yet the step there. Not everyone believes that gays deserve the rights as others. That is an invalid argument that it should be easy to convince everyone when the majority looks down on the minority. Majority rule, minority rights down exist under the law in this country. It is there so no government or majority may take away the rights and freedoms of a minority group. Under the law marriage is a right. You cannot argue that it should be easy to convince everyone. The majority does not agree with it, the minority, under the law, still keeps their rights. I am gay and I don't need any scientific evidence to tell me whether or not I chose this. I don't know anyone who would choose to let society tell them to be someone else. Speaking from personal experience I would never choose to let my parents yell at me, ground me, and tell me how unnatural my choices are. If a choice was given, I personally would be heterosexual. Society first tells me to be myself, but then changes its mind. But I am not attracted to guys. It's as simple as that. You are incorrect about the no scientific evidence. Psychological science is a branch of science. Social science is based off the ABC's (affect, behavior, and cognition). They are looked at by both self and others. Affect is feelings. Feelings have been stated by the individuals. How you feel about others is stated. Other people have observed these feelings. Republican Wade Kach said "I saw with so many of the gay couples, they were so devoted to one another. I saw so much love. When this hearing was over, I was a changed person in regard to this issue. I felt that I understood what same sex couples were looking for." Yes, other people observe it. The behavior is apparent and doesn't have to be explained by the gay rights movement. Cognition is the thought. Homosexuals have clearly thought about through the way they're being put down to stand up for what's rights. There has been no evidence on what causes sexual orientation, so you are correct on that, but it has been proven that most (yes, some people do choose their sexuality, not everyone possesses that in their wiring) people do not choose their sexual orientation. I'll humor you and pretend it's a choice. That brings back to the discussion you can't discriminate for someone's choice. Everyone chooses who they like better. You can't take away a right because of their choice. You still don't need a wedding. The license needs to be signed, that does not make it a wedding. The wedding it the couple's choice. Yes, restrictions have always existed. Interracial marriage used to be illegal. Things progress. I am not arguing for or against the other restrictions. Am I saying those are correct or not? No. I have done research on those issues nor do I have the time at this moment. I will look into them for a future debate with you. Although your animal argument does not work because you cannot get consent from both parties. Restrictions are there but that doesn't mean they're right. Love is love. It was nice debating with you. I learned a lot about formatting, especially how to source them. I've always just sourced in alphabetical and your format will help in the future. But I'd suggest not using Wikipedia as a source. http://blog.chron.com... http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com... http://www.america.gov... http://www.apa.org... http://www.bullyingstatistics.org... http://www.infoplease.com...