Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common)

I guess I don't understand the total issue here.Civil Unions are real and available, at least in Vermont.Civil Unions are available as a solution to these issues if they can be made available in other states as well.Everyone seems to be wrapped around the "separate but equal" problem experienced in US race relations. Is this appropriate in the case of Gay Rights?Other than the perceived "stigma" of "separate but equal" from US racial history, are there other objections to Civil Union as a solution?

I understand this is an emotional issue. I see no one separating Gays at the water fountain, the back of the bus or in separate schools. Devoid of the emotional hyperbole Civil Union seems an appropriate solution. It seems to work well throughout most of Europe and other nations around the globe.Without the stigma of US racial history Civil Union may have been welcome to the US Gay community at least as a step in the right direction. With our history, and the hyperbole within both the Gay and religious communities, Civil Union appears to not be an option.Do to the power grip certain religions have on the psyche of this nation, it also appears that Civil Marriage is not going to be an option for Gays either, let alone religiously sanctioned union.Is this a matter of semantics? If "marriage" is defined as a "union between a man and a woman" and "civil union" as a "union between members of the same sex" is there really an issue? Assuming that all applicable "rights" such as confidence, inheritance, etc. are legally enforced as in Vermont, does an issue still exist?Edited by AZPaul3, : Boo-boo correction.

First, Frog, I have no argument. Just inquiring.B: If such rights are not enforced then Civil Union is not an appropriate institution...yet. Having Civil Union recognized with equal force in court would be where the battle is.My research into Vermont Civil Union and the reading of their statute does extend the same rights as marriage to Civil Union. If Vermont courts are not enforcing the statute then there is an issue for the ACLU. Are you sure of this?

Yeah, I'm replying to myself here. These posts are coming so fast I can't type fast enough. The federal issue didn't dawn on me till I went back and saw one of Frog's posts. Without federal legislation enforcing recognition of Civil Unions performed in Texas having legal force in Utah there is indeed an issue.As for the semantics of the situation, I fail to see where a separate word with a separate definition for a separate union is such a problem. It's almost like saying "citizen" and "resident alien" should have no distinction. There is a difference between same-sex and different-sex unions that, to be accurately described, require separate words. But, I see the emotional rejection of having a separation in semantics. It doesn't matter to me, but then I don't have to live it.Interesting discussion, however.

Civil Union or Marriage, without the force of law they are nothing. I quibble over the semantics game, but semantics in this case is emotionally loaded and, apparently, for good reason given US history and the lack of federal support for the equality of the two.Religionists, Gays, Shaveheads, democrates, lefthanders, unionists, non-unonists, redheads, baldies...everyone has an emotionally charged problem somewhere with someone. People are a strange breed. I guess that's just life.Maybe I'm not intollerant enough. I'm missing out somehow. If everyone used common sense and tollerance for human differences like me (for god sake I even like creationists!)then we wouldn't have these problems. What a dull world that would be.