Anti-Climacus

LINK: I like evangelical outpost's suggestion for dealing with the civil unions issue:

"Some conservatives and libertarians may see no need for the government to expand the definition of civil unions in any manner. But the political reality is that the change is inevitable. The issue is no longer when civil unions will be recognized but what form they will take. By desexualizing the issue we preserve the government’s purpose (a social institution that brings stability to our society) without endorsing behavior that many of us consider immoral.

Besides, why should we extend social and government benefits to a group based on sexual orientation while excluding others who are equally worthy? Why extend civil unions to the lesbian couple down the street but not to the elderly sisters who live next door?"

Though I recently advocated a somewhat stronger version of this: why not just write all that marriage/civil union stuff out of the law? Name someone you want to have hospital visitation rights, someone you want to have custody of your children, etc etc, and not have to specify any relationship between the two people at all, which seems to really avoid all the problems of civil unions (I think, though I may be wrong).