Originally posted by Silvershield

---

...on the other hand, a civil union would be exactly equivalent to a marriage, except for in name.

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

]Regardless of whether it existed in the past, why should a precedent decide whether a similar law exists in the modern world? Any number of things that were "ok" ten or a hundred or a thousand years ago are disputed in 2006. Something existing in ancient times simply means that it existed alongside practices such as ritual sacrifice (in some cultures), pedophilia (in some cultures), extreme racism (in some cultures), gender inequality (in most cultures), etc - you're making it sound like the ancients really knew what they were doing, and that they "had it all right" with homosexual relationships even though their cultures and values were clearly flawed. That is to say, none of those aforementioned tenets are at all defensible, and they demonstrate that those cultures which practiced them were imperfect; however you argue as if the precedent of homosexuality in years past somehow "proves" that it's alright.

---

Originally posted by ibz10g

---

A little off topic, but that's OK: Since it doesn't affect me, I don't really care, but it seems like everyone is calling him Sonicandtails when it clearly says Sonicandfails.

---