And that’s equal-ish, but not very separate. I’m not going to play Lets Take Turns To Mangle Each Others’ Analogies. As others have been at pains to try to explain, there’s no reason for ‘separate but equal’ arrangments to be made, other than to perpetuate an inequality, even if only subtly.
That’s another thing this thread has in common with the last one. And pretty much every other thread about the subject, of course.
Yes, because in was unfathomable that something outside of man + woman would be entertained. You’ll notice that those statutes, to the best of my knowledge, also didn’t stipulate that the participants in said marriage be alive. But now that we’re falling down this rabbit hole…
Brown v. Board of Education from your cite says
So civil union would not be “separate” in the way that physical segregation was.
[QUOTE=The Hamster King]
What I love about Shodan’s position is the glaring cognitive dissonance:
“The word ‘marriage’ has such a wealth of historical connotations that it should not be applied to same-sex unions”.
[/QUOTE]
Since you put that in quotes, no doubt you can cite the post where I said so.
Actually it appears to be Czarcasm who is assigning arbitrary, derogatory meanings to terms like “civil union”.
Regards,
Shodan
Can you please dispense with the king of straw men. The argument isn’t that it will change someone’s marriage today, but that it will change the meaning of the term over time. You don’t have to agree with that, of course, but save the straw, would. Conservation and all that.
The meaning already has changed. The dictionary has adapted, as has the law in many places. The rest of the country is just catching up.
In what specific way, and what evidence do you have that it would do so? If you want to go back down that dark “separate but equal” road you better have more than wild speculation fueled by ugly whispers and unfounded fear.
The argument seems to be that it is somehow to one side’s detriment to call their relationship “civil union”, although no one has been able to say exactly how.
Apart from the “he might be thinking something I don’t like when he says it” but I don’t see how that harms anyone.
In a way it might be like the clamor from people about my signoff. “You need to be stopped from doing that, because you might be thinking something that I don’t like when you do it.” 
Regards,
Shodan
Tell me, does calling a group The Navy disparage The Air Force or The Army, or The Marines? If so, how?
How about this, does calling one group Rangers disparage the group called soldiers? Again, if so, how?
As you can probably see, drawing a distinction does not mean one is disparaging either of the groups. It’s just acknowledging that there is a difference. Now if you were Sailor and felt disparaged by the existence of another group called sailors, then the problem seems to lie with some insecurity you have. No?
Is it your assertion that civil unions and marriage are as different in function as the navy and the army?
Prescience. 
I’ve always stated that this is my fear, and one that I think is reasonable. And most important, one that we needn’t worry about since there is another mechanism by which SS couples could enjoy all the legal benefits and privileges of marriage. I see it as the best of both worlds. You are by no means forced to agree with me. Nor me with you.
You know, I can imagine us having a debate back in 1960 or so about the pros and cons of welfare. And maybe one of us would have gone against the liberal grain and said that it was a bad idea because of the long term effects. That it would make people expect that the government was a choice in lieu of work. That it might break up families, etc., etc. And no doubt someone would have said, “But you can’t PROVE that will happen. So how can you be so cold and callous as to not want to help people who need it?”
And then we’d let forty years go by and who would have been right?
The difference has already been explained several times in this thread and the other one about different things having different names making sense, and same things having different names not making sense. While the both of you and the few that are left sit in your corner and snigger about “winning” word games, this marriage battle, the real battle, will eventually go to the rest of us. My dear friends will be able to marry, and stupid arguments like yours will not be able to take that from them.
Why should gay couples have to accept something different? They’re entitled to the same thing that straight couples are entitled to.
And it’s people who oppose same-sex marriage who are pushing the issue of “protecting” marriage. They’re the ones who are running around saying the word marriage has a special value. All the rest of us are saying is that if the word marriage has a special value, you don’t have exclusive claim to it.
Obviously not. My point is that two different terms are employed to described to similar functions. And neither disparages the other.
That’s your version of the argument. You do not speak for everyone who opposes SSM. According to an article on Marriage Resources for Clergy.com:
I know you don’t agree with them, but they agree with you.
Are you ever going to get around to explaining why they should be called different things despite having legally identical rights and privileges? Don’t get me wrong, strategically you’re wise not to explain because you can’t. But for the sake of consistency you should actually try.
The better analogy would be to say that the Navy, the Army, and the Marines are part of the Armed Forces. The Air Force are part of the Military Resource. They are treated exactly the same, but every time you mention the Armed Forces you also have to mention the Air Force separately. There’s no reason for it except that the Air Force came last and to include them in the Armed Forces could potentially devalue the Navy, Army, and Marines; although no one can articulate why.
In your mind, “homosexuality” inferior to “heterosexuality”?
No, that’s a poorer analogy. Why isn’t it it simply:
Air Force::Navy
Marriage::Civil Union
?
In my mind I have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
It’s a very simple question. One that you should be able to answer very easily I would think. If you disagree, what do you find difficult about it?