I am replying specifically to Ron's comment that 'the gays' are out to destroy Western civilization'.
According to your post, a civil union provides gays couples with the same privileges as a marriage. In that case, how are the legal and economic ramifications of such a union different from those of a marriage?
Note that I have not used the term 'love' anywhere in this thread as a justification for recognition of marriage by the government. I have only used it once, as a justification for recognition of marriage by private individuals.
You are attacking a strawman.
I'm not attacking at all.
You mentioned sexual permissiveness, that is irrelevent, just reiterating that.
The topic at hand is recognition
by the government, nobody has to recognize private ceremonies. There's no use mentioning those at all.
So all we need to talk about is govt. recogntion.
The issue with civil unions is that there is no consistent
legal basis to limit them to two people or to deny them to related persons.
If you can't legally justify limiting them to two persons, you open such contracts to multiple partners.
Given the current state of the law in the USA, that could impact the nation, state and its citizens financially.
That's how it impacts capitalism.
Again, not attacking you.
You just really need to confine your argument to the topic at hand, talking about theory without the actual context of Prop. 8, in California, in the USA, just confuses the issue.