I *think* I agree with you, if I'm understanding what you're saying.

Here's what I'm reading as the rational consensus so far:
* Marriage-equivalent civil unions (MECU) are okay *only* as a step towards full universal marriage (or possibly as a step towards eliminating legal recognition of marriage altogether, and making marriage more contract-based)
* MECU is not "separate but equal", although we still need to be vigilant for similar patterns
* There are no rational arguments against gay marriage.
* The selection of Warren to speak at the inauguration comes as a slap in the face to the gay community, and Obama had better have a plan which redeems this action or he's going to leave a lot of people (many of them heterosexual) feeling betrayed.
* There are other issues more pressing than this, but it's less clear what to do about them -- so it's perfectly reasonable to be discussing this one. (Although it would be nice if this discussion service had some kind of breakdown by topic. Tagging, forum sections, search... anything.)

I think the next step after marriage-equivalent civil unions -- and I've seen this suggestion from other people, including here -- is for the government to get out of the "marriage" business altogether. "Marriage" should have meaning within a community but not legally (either federal or state); the government shouldn't be in the business of telling a community what status they can and can't bestow on people within the community, and communities shouldn't be in the position of being able to determine who can't share health insurance, hospital visitation, or any of those other thousand-plus rights apparently bestowed by "marriage".

I could actually see this happening, eventually -- though not without howls of rage from the Religious Right about this finally *proves* that Those Wicked Gays are really trying to Take Marriage Away. (It would be poetic justice if they insisted on seeing it that way, despite being opposite the truth.)

You are right that health care is important -- arguably more important than advancing gay rights, though it's too close for me to call -- but there's a simple reason why gay rights (and Rev. Warren specifically) are being discussed far more than healthcare: Because there's something clearly wrong with regard to Rev. Warren, while with healthcare there's no real disagreement yet.

We'll take it as established that the selection of Rev. Warren was a slap in the face to the non-heterosexual community, and that Obama is taking a risk that it will benefit us all in the long run. It also seems clear that those attacking gay rights and complaining about "whining" are generally unwilling to defend their positions on rational grounds. So the Rational Consensus (hey, that could be a useful phrase...) is in favor of gay rights and strongly against the Warren selection, although some people are willing to give Obama a little wiggle-room to see how this is going to play out.

(The discussion over hemp legalization seems to follow a similar pattern as far as who favors it.)

As far as healthcare, I think a lot of (real, non-corporate-shill) people probably would like a national healthcare system -- which, to the best of my recollection (the "health care" agenda page seems to be down at the moment; I get a page with just the words "Disallowed Key Characters"), is more or less in line with what Obama and Biden are proposing.

So we're really just waiting to see what they come up with. No real controversy there...*yet*, anyway; there will probably be arguments over the details, and the pharma-funded Right will no doubt crank the propaganda machines up full blast once there's actual legislation pending, and we'll have our hands full refuting them.

It seems to me that the top priority for this administration over the next 4 years needs to be education -- specifically, skeptical thinking.

Before learning their times tables, every schoolchild should know the basic types of logical fallacy, and give an example of each. Middle schoolers should know the essential elements of a rational argument, how to construct one, and how to tell the difference between a good argument and a fallacious one. Upper schoolers should be given homework assignments of writing letters to influential figures detailing their abuses of rhetoric and reason, or fact-checking news items. Demolishing the nonsense emitted by a Limbaugh, Hannity, or Warren should be child's play for 90% of America, as the ignorance upon which they depend is the major malign force we all must deal with in a free society -- and the only thing that allowed George W. Bush to do as much damage as he did.

We must never again come even slightly close to allowing the neocons another turn at the levers of power; we might not be able to save ourselves next time.

Well, as I think someone said recently, "[what does] Euphoria expressing her/his opinion have anything to do with being offensive? This is America, and you can express your opinions without getting arrested, killed, etc."

Would it help if I apologized on Euphoria's behalf? Here: I'm sorry Euphoria's final comment offended you.

I am particularly sorry about this because I found the rest of the post to be informative, while I have not found the ensuing conversation (about stupidity and being offended) to be nearly as useful. Maybe we can move on now.

Yes it does, and I see your concern -- but I don't see how "separate" applies if civil unions are, *by law*, equivalent to marriage. In "separate but equal", black people still didn't have the *same* rights as whites -- the right to go in the same entrance, to use the same bathrooms, etc.

It may be that marriage-equivalent civil unions could end up with similar restrictions, but I'm not sure how this would work. The number of situations where you might have to prove you are married is miniscule by comparison to the number of situations where a black person could be denied service. You don't have to be married or go through any extra legal shenaningans to open a joint bank account, to have joint car insurance, to stay in the same room at a hotel, etc. so I don't see where bigoted individuals would have the opportunity to do to gays what was once done to blacks.

I may be wrong about that, but I'm willing to take the risk as the price of taking a huge step forward... and fight that battle if we come to it.

1. You are claiming that homosexuality is unnatural. On what basis?
2. You are implying that something "unnatural" should be forbidden, and you haven't said anything to explain why this should be so.
3. You are implying that the APA was wrong to declassify homosexuality as an illness. Why do you believe this to be true? What aspects of homosexuality are, in your opinion, symptoms of an illness?

You haven't answered *any* of my arguments, and for the most part you've merely reasserted, as if they were unquestionably true, items which I've already refuted.

I personally don't give half a fig if homosexuality is politically correct, Biblically incorrect, trendy, "natural", embarrassing, or offensive to the Pope and his favorite deity; what matters is: is there anything wrong with it? This is the question you need to answer before you can say anything attacking the idea that non-heterosexuals should have just as much freedom and legal protection for their idea of family and love as you do for yours.

Hmm, okay, Euphoria's last line might have been a bit unnecessary.. on the other hand, as others have pointed out, you were the first to use the "stupid" option. And s/he did answer your question in a very reasonable way; that seems more important to me, and in the interest of meaningful dialogue I would be inclined to overlook the parting return-shot.

That whole "it's unnatural" argument needs to die the death of a thousand screams. I mean, are they proposing to ban everything "unnatural"? What about cars, then? What about mining the earth for oil and coal? What about airplanes, clothes, civilization? If we should all behave "according to nature", then would it be better if we went around bashing each other with clubs and taking each other's belongings?

Gay-bashers plz read, kthx: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

(It's also untrue; homosexual behavior is observed in many animals. But I suppose that doesn't count because it's "science".)

Boy, anti-gay people sure are whiny. We're over here trying to make sure that something happens with this issue so our kids can have a better world, but all anti-gays can do is whine about how we're not fixing something else instead or not waiting around quietly while Obama takes care of everything for us without us saying anything. Since when was that a good idea, and since when has the incoming administration said "Now please don't go flooding us with suggestions on this forum; try to keep it short, because we only want to hear a *little* of what you have to say"?

If you're so tired of non-heterosexuals whining, why don't you fold up this thread and go read (or start) another one? There's still room on the internet for your idea of what should be done, whatever that might be.