I started supporting civil unions around the same time. I don't mind doma being gone, since we the people should decide to follow or go against god's commandments through our state legislatures and state constitutions, we shouldn't make our elected officials in Washington (or activist judges) make the decision for us.
I will never support same sex marriage unless I am convinced that scripture endorses it, and even then I may still have doubts about whether Children are truly raised equally well in same sex marriage homes as opposed to traditional marriage homes, though I will admit I have less doubts about that than I did years ago.
How do you support civil unions but not gay marriage by this logic?
I support civil unions because there are legitimate adoption needs and almost any home is better than the average orphanage. We show it has a lesser status under God by not calling it a marriage and denying a few marriage benefits. I don't support gay marriage primarily based on my Christian faith, but I'd be less bothered by it if it was we the people doing it and not we the activist judges doing it.
OK, this is in complete direct contradiction
with the argument you made in our prior discussion, which is that you cannot incentivize anything you think is sinful, and in fact would even go as far as to ban the practice of religions you disagree with. Now, you are indicating that you are fine with incentivizing something you think is sinful, because it has obvious positive benefits...despite the fact that, again, this is in direct contradiction
to your previous argument. You're apparently OK with incentivizing sin so long as its "lesser status under God" is signified through "denying a few marriage benefits" and lesser nominal recognition. (?!?!)
In one case you support government prohibition of non-Christian behavior; in another you support incentivizing non-Christian behavior, so long as the government notes it's inferior. It's hard to explain how logically baffling this is. It's like if someone expressed a hardline pro-life position, and then was like, "eh, I'm willing to support publicly-funded abortions, as long as there's a $50 copay and we call them 'Satan's appendectomies.'" That's not even a particularly hyperbolic analogy! It's apt! Your reasoning is that weird!
Be honest, dude: do you really
think your argument on gay rights issues is coherent and cohesive?