Gay marriage or civil unions? There is no difference

I'm looking forward to the dialogue. My opponent states: "From your last few paragraphs in your opening statement, it is clear that your thesis is against the latter interpretation, that you would like to see a clear LEGAL distinction between civil unions and marriages. " Actually you have it backwards, and I thought I made my position clear. If there is still looming some confusion, allow me to expound. The win/win situation I was referring to was the preservation and sanctity of what a marriage is and what it has been defined by. However, I made the argument that if homosexuals wanted to enjoy similar legal protections and benefits like a marriage, then I am in support of civil unions. So there would be almost no difference from a legal perspective. They both would enjoy similar legal protections, regardless. The distinction is one of a moral pronouncement. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is the legal protection of marriage and to limit it as being between one man and one woman. This Act was the attempt to preserve what a marriage is, as it distinguishes itself between a civil union. "This means the burden you have set for the pro side is to show why governments should NOT make any moral, legal or rhetorical distinction between marriage and civil unions. " It's not a burden in the least since ALL laws that have been passed stem from a moral framework, though the government of the United States has always attempted to take a more passive role so that individual freedoms can soar. You have been subjected to the morality of Congress since you were born, none of which probably bothered you until there was an agenda you supported. "legal distinction between "real marriage" and a "civil union" would never be accepted by all cultures since the distinction would be drawn according to religious and cultural values that ARE NOT UNIVERSAL. " Some people have asserted that perhaps the government should never have stuck it's nose in the institution of marriage in the first place, since it's an infringement upon religion, which of course would go against the Establishment Clause of "Separation of Church and State. " For some reason there is seldom an outrage when the government allegedly infringes upon religion, but there is almost always an outrage when a religion allegedly infringes upon the government. Too bad people have no concept of what the Establishment Cause actually is, and what it was actually designed to do. But I digress. .. I agree that cultural values are not universal. Perhaps then if the government were completely out of the picture, a religious institution could marry whomever they wanted under the tenets of said religion. The problem is that we have diametrically opposed principles at work here. In Christianity we have liberal and conservative churches that have very different interpretations of the bible. This invariably leads to a division. Who then arbitrates if one pastor says that they are married, while another says that they couldn't possibly be married since the bible is clear on what a marriage is. The point is that with the religious argument, it just goes around and around since a broad interpretation is possible. "To further illustrate my point, let us compare this to the topic of interracial marriage. .. include a new type of marriage along the same lines as "separate but equal"- a special "civil union" of interracial couples, who as the majority of Americans believed, could never be truly "married", but were constitutionally allowed all of the same legal rights. " People often bring up the separate but equal argument. Its appreciable, and its more than valid to be brought up as a test for equity. However, let me ask you something similar, and then you can tell me whether or not someone's Constitutional freedoms have been eroded or not. Bestiality, paedophilia, polygamy, incest, etc, are all forms of sexual unions that are prohibited by law (moral outlook). Is it then the government foisting upon us their morals and inexorably undermining our Constitutional rights? The reason I ask is because we are not entitled to marry whatever we want. Marriage is very clearly defined. There is no justification for mangling it, legally, definitionally, or otherwise, just to suit someone's agenda. Because if we are to allow for homosexual marriage, then there is no logical justification for barring polygamy, incest, and the like either. Therefore it is in my opinion that the "separate but equal" plea is specious. Liberal apologists have tried to conflate things like women's rights, segregation, and now gay rights because of their emotive tendencies. The reality is that one hasn't anything to do with the other, accept perhaps interracial marriage since it is specific to marriage. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify your position in this debate since I am a little unclear on what you seeking. Do you believe that marriage should be redefined or do you think that civil unions is a fair compromise to a very heated social debate? Thanks again to b3rk for accepting the debate. Best wishes. ..