User blog comment:Mrdaimion/Why we Shouldn't Have Gay Marriage/@comment-1874924-20121220013745/@comment-1874924-20121221053648

Since TBTDIF asked, I would support "civil unions" (or "domestic partnerships", or whatever you want to call them) for homosexuals on one condition: if--and only if--those same benefits were also made available to unmarried heterosexuals. After all, there are straights who aren't allowed to marry (siblings, for example) and why should having sex with someone be a requirement for getting these benefits?

In addition, if legal benefits approximating marriage are also available to straights who could get married but choose not to (which, I believe, is the case in Arizona), then what we'd really be saying is that marital status is not the proper criterion for deciding who gets these benefits. Seems reasonable enough.