Civil Unions

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

NOTE: This thread is not meant to debate the morality of homosexuality. Please don’t derail the thread with topics about the morality of homosexuality. They get shut down because people don’t read the rules, and I’ve had this exact topic shut down a few times, so let’s all try to stay away from the issue of morality. Also, for the sake of this topic, I’m willing to admit that in the Christianity belief system, homosexual acts are a sin. There is no need to post bible quotes, because I’m aware of this. This is not the reason for this topic.



I’ve given up on the idea of homosexual marriage. I’m aware of the laws surrounding it, and I see no reason to push the issue. I think though, that gay civil unions should be instated. I’ve seen many reasons why people do not believe this and I’ll post each idea below, as well as the reasons not to, and my rebuttal.



Reason 1: It’s against God.



I understand that it is against the Christian God. But, does this hold wait in America? It doesn’t. For secular reasons only, may laws be passed or denied. The idea that it is against God doesn’t hold any weight. Denying laws for this reason would mean that Government is saying that the bible is correct, thus making a judgment on religious affairs, which it is not allowed to do. If there are secular reasons, I would not mind hearing them and debating them.



Reason 2: Christian tax dollars should not go to something that they believe is wrong



First, my tax dollars go to a lot of things that I don’t believe they should. It is not my call. I cannot say that war should be banned because I don’t want my tax dollars to go towards it. It is the job of Government to make the decisions on how our tax dollars are used.



Secondly, I may be wrong on this as I’m not exactly sure on marriage laws and benefits and I have no problem admitting this, but how exactly are your tax dollars going towards the support of gay civil unions? I thought that the benefits of marriage were mostly tax breaks, which is the married couples money, to begin with. Also, there is insurance benefits, but insurance is privatized. This isn’t the government. This is each individual company. Also, there is the right of kin, where people may get custody of children in a marriage situation. This, obviously, is no one’s business and has nothing to do with tax dollars.



Reason 3: The point of marriage is to favor a family unit.



Firstly, you haven’t proven that this is the point of marriage.



Secondly, we are no longer talking about marriage, but civil unions.



Thirdly, not everyone who is married has children, so this is a moot point.



Fourth, homosexual couples have children.



Reason 4: It’s gross



That’s nice, and this is your opinion. I think that eating lobster is gross, but I don’t try to make a law banning it.



Reason 5: We’re being forced to live by humanist morality



This is wrong. You are not forced to live by humanist morality. You are still free to no marry homosexuals, as according to your own morality. Humanist morality isn’t forcing you to do anything.



On the other hand, without gay civil unions, people are being forced to live by Christian morality. They do not have a choice to live by their own.



Okay, I’m sure there are more arguments, and I wouldn’t mind debating them. Bring them up, or rebut my rebuttals.

 

[hernyaccent]

If only people were open to seeing your views and the views of others.

 

[ace85]

I agree with everything you said, but where is Reason 4?

 

[Randall McNally]

To me, civil unions - implemented alongside statutory marriage - have that separate-but-equal feel that we as a nation really ought to have nothing to do with, for obvious reasons.

I think statutory marriages should be eliminated in favor of civil unions for all, heterosexual or homosexual. Churches are more than welcome to retain the "marriage" moniker for the ceremonies they perform.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

I agree with everything you said, but where is Reason 4?

LOL, good call. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

To me, civil unions - implemented alongside statutory marriage - have that separate-but-equal feel that we as a nation really ought to have nothing to do with, for obvious reasons.

I think statutory marriages should be eliminated in favor of civil unions for all, heterosexual or homosexual. Churches are more than welcome to retain the "marriage" moniker for the ceremonies they perform.

I definitly see your point, and I do agree. Seperate but equal has been said to not be constitutional, but this isn't so with legality of the issue, because descrimination against sexual orientation isn't unconstitutional.

I never even though about your idea to eliminate marriage in favor of civil union. That would definitly be a reasonable idea.

[edited to add: Separate-but-equal is deemed unconstitutional because of Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka.

Descrimination of homosexuals is not unconstitutional because of The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under the act, it was illegal to discriminate against

race, color, religion, gender, or national origin

 

[The Seeker]

To me, civil unions - implemented alongside statutory marriage - have that separate-but-equal feel that we as a nation really ought to have nothing to do with, for obvious reasons.

I think statutory marriages should be eliminated in favor of civil unions for all, heterosexual or homosexual. Churches are more than welcome to retain the "marriage" moniker for the ceremonies they perform.

Aye, I'm no expert on constitutional law but "no law respecting an establishment of religion" seems pretty concrete to me, by recognising heterosexual unions as "marriage" but not homosexual unions, the government is essentially endorsing a Christian concept of marriage, IMO.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Aye, I'm no expert on constitutional law but "no law respecting an establishment of religion" seems pretty concrete to me, by recognising heterosexual unions as "marriage" but not homosexual unions, the government is essentially endorsing a Christian concept of marriage, IMO.

It's about definition of what marriage is.

Also, everyone has an answer again "homosexual marriage", but you see how popular this thread is amongst those that don't want homosexual marriage.

It just seems a lot simpler.

Climb the larger mountain or the smaller mountain first?

 

[The Seeker]

It's about definition of what marriage is.

Also, everyone has an answer again "homosexual marriage", but you see how popular this thread is amongst those that don't want homosexual marriage.

It just seems a lot simpler.

Climb the larger mountain or the smaller mountain first?

I think that I expressed my point poorly there, sorry. I was trying to say that state endorsed marriage is precariously close to state endorsed religion, since marriage is, in a lot of ways, a religious or emotional decision, not something that the state should be involved in. I know a few couples who say that they don't get married because they don't feel the need for the state to recognise their love, but they would probably go for a civil union for personal reasons.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

I think that I expressed my point poorly there, sorry. I was trying to say that state endorsed marriage is precariously close to state endorsed religion, since marriage is, in a lot of ways, a religious or emotional decision, not something that the state should be involved in. I know a few couples who say that they don't get married because they don't feel the need for the state to recognise their love, but they would probably go for a civil union for personal reasons.

Gotcha gotcha. I definitly agree that marriage has a religious stigma around it.

It is, in Government's sense, a legal contract that has no religious baring at all. Of course, try to tell a Christian that.

[edited to add: Proof that marriage is a legal contract and not a religious... anything, can be found by going to http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriage which provides a definition of marriage]

 

[thomas100]

deleted

 

[seebs]

I'll see you and raise you.

There should be no civil concept of "marriage", only "civil unions", for any group of people who think they want shared financial and civic responsibilities.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

It's tough to really have this debate in full without coming to some sort of understanding of what the purpose of civil union and marriage are and in what way they are different. I'll put up a couple of definitions, see what you think....

As I see it civil union is the creation of a single legal entity between two people that provides them with certain rights ( tax break, inheritance, common property ownership etc ) in return for some responsibilities ( need divorce to break the relationship ). I don't have any objection to any group of any number of people of any sexuality or none entering into these types of legal relationships.

Marriage is a religious sacrament ( in the Christian tradition ), restricted to occur between one man and one woman, with promises to be made about moral conduct towards each other, and some restrictive rules about the dissolution of the marriage and subsequent re-marriage.

In most western societies the two are sometime difficult to distinguish because of long histories of majority Christian belief and practice.

I think one reason many Christians are so adamant about changing the definition of marriage is because there is not a clear distinction between the two.

I agree with your definition for civil unions. Marriage though... that's another story. Marriage isn't a Christian concept. In the United States it is a legal contract, above religion. It has nothing to do with God.

But, that really isn't the debate. This is the reason that I don't push for legal marriage anymore. I understand the thinking of Christians on the issue.

[edited to add: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriage the defition of marriage has nothing to do with religion.]

 

[thomas100]

deleted

 

[CSMR]

For secular reasons only, may laws be passed or denied.

This is not the case. Congress can pass any laws it wants within the constitution. And given that a law is permitted under the constitution, Congress can pass it for whatever reason it wants. The constitution does not prescribe motives. Citizens who vote in politicians can also legally use whatever reasons they want.

The idea that it is against God doesn’t hold any weight. Denying laws for this reason would mean that Government is saying that the bible is correct, thus making a judgment on religious affairs, which it is not allowed to do.

Individual members of Congress are allowed legally to say that the Bible is correct or (as far as I know) that it is false. On this basis they can vote for or against legislation. The legislation does not contain the reason for its being passed.
What is not permissible under the constitution is federal legislation which establishes a religion. It is likely that requiring everyone to assent to the statement that the Bible is correct would be considered such an establishment of religion.

To take a less controversial example consider this legislation:
Taxes will be raised by 5%.
Congressman A votes for this tax because he believes that the pagan god Thor appeared to him in a dream and told him to raise tax by 5%.
You can clearly see here that the law is not an establishment of religion, because it is not so in itself, despite the fact that a Congressman has used religious reasoning to vote for it.

Reason 2: Christian tax dollars should not go to something that they believe is wrong

Your argument is correct. It is certainly consitutional for Congress to spend tax money on something taxpayers don't want.

Okay, I’m sure there are more arguments, and I wouldn’t mind debating them. Bring them up, or rebut my rebuttals.

I am not sure that you really believe that people make all the arguments that you say they do.

Edit: asked for a link to the constitution:
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
First amendment:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

Note that the text is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". "Respecting an establishment of religion" evidently qualifies "law", so the amendment does not constrain what Congress can think or reason, only what it can do. I would argue that it shares this property with the entire constitution.

 

[The Seeker]

This is not the case. Congress can pass any laws it wants within the constitution. And given that a law is permitted under the constitution, Congress can pass it for whatever reason it wants. The constitution does not prescribe motives. Citizens who vote in politicians can also legally use whatever reasons they want.

Individual members of Congress are allowed legally to say that the Bible is correct or (as far as I know) that it is false. On this basis they can vote for or against legislation. The legislation does not contain the reason for its being passed.
What is not permissible under the constitution is federal legislation which establishes a religion. It is likely that requiring everyone to assent to the statement that the Bible is correct would be considered such an establishment of religion.

To take a less controversial example consider this legislation:
Taxes will be raised by 5%.
Congressman A votes for this tax because he believes that the pagan god Thor appeared to him in a dream and told him to raise tax by 5%.
You can clearly see here that the law is not an establishment of religion, because it is not so in itself, despite the fact that a Congressman has used religious reasoning to vote for it.

But if the only reason that the tax is being introduced is because the congressman thinks that we should pay a tithe to Thor and will be spent on sacrificial animals for that purpose (yes, I know that modern Astru followers don't believe this, but work with me here), then that tax would be establishment of religion and hence unconstitutional. Similarly, if the only argument against gay marriage is that they are sinful then banning gay marriage is an establishment of religion.

 

[seebs]

I think that is a fine and upright thing for you to desire. Now it's just down to democracy and the will of the people.

I think it is going to be tough to persuade the majority that western civilization isn't basically Christian and that promoting and protecting Christian marriage isn't part of what the nation should do.

I think it'll be easy, once they consider that, if the nation has a stake in Christian marriage, the nation can dictate terms to churches. The government has only the authority we give it; for instance, the Constitution as written doesn't even refer to marriage!

If we assert that the marriage the government has authority over is specifically Christian marriage, the kind our churches perform, then we are extending the government's legislative authority to the church marriages. If the government has legislative authority over church marriages, it can dictate terms; for instance, we might see a withholding of tax-free status from churches that won't perform remarriages after a divorce, because the government has legislated that remarriage is allowed. If we give the government the power to legislate a given thing, the government then has the power to legislate that thing.

I'd rather not have my church be forced to accept the state's dictates on this issue.

 

[thomas100]

deleted

 

[hernyaccent]

This is a good point. I think what balances that out is the desire amongst Christians to ensure that their moral values and viewpoints are represented by public policy. For example, those of us who use public schooling have an interest in ensuring that the moral teaching is not against our own values.

WRONG! You can't enforce your moral teaching in public settings. If you don't want your children to be exposed to things such as sex education or homosexual teachings send them to private christian schools just as my grandparents did to me. ( side note : i dont know once person (student) who i went to school who was in fact christian though ) Homosexuals,sexually active youth and any minority group int his country has rights the same as christians. There was a reason for seperation of church and state.
http://www.cheathouse.com/essay/essay_view.php?p_essay_id=1327

 

[thomas100]

deleted