my position on civil unions

[Stinker]

It is my belief that religious doctrine should not be criteria for determining civil unions or civil marriages. The main reason being that there exists multiple views on what the Bible has to say on marriage-divorce and re-marriage. In many churches it would not matter if a couple appears to be male & female. If one or both have been divorced, their present marriage is no marriage in God's eyes to them! Let alone if the couple is of the same sex!

 

[invisible trousers]

hmm...something's not right...

However, I see nothing wrong with homosexual couples having some of the same legal and financial benfits of married couples.

ah-ha!

However, I see nothing wrong with homosexual couples having all of the same legal and financial benfits of married couples.

Any thoughts?

i'm sold! let the government offer civil unions to any two people, and let the those people have "marriages" (if they desire) at their church/mosque/hoedown of their choice

 

[Bunnaroo]

I am going to tread lightly in this minefield, since I see some very passionate people in this thread.

You know, a democracy does not run on universal consensus. It runs on the will of the majority. Even Congress will agree on that. For some odd reason, America has fallen victim to the lie of tolerance. The minorities of this country have screamed "Intolerance!" and "Victimization!", and the majority has capitulated and coddled these small portions of society.

The last numbers I saw (2003) had an estimate of less than 4% of America is truly homosexual, with up to another 6% being bisexual. That means the other 90% of America is either heterosexual or not telling the truth. The majority of the same 90% may or may not agree with "civil unions", but they still support the traditional marriage of a man and woman.

In 2004, a number of states had referendums regarding civil unions, and they were defeated by the voters. These defeats were not by a few percentage points, the large majority of the voters said "No". (I am grateful that good people went to the polls to vote on this issue. We have bad policy and bad leadership because good people won't get of their blessed assurance and vote.)

I am reminded of the old joke of the guy that told the doctor, "It hurts when I do this." The doctor said, "Well, don't do it, then." If you choose to run counter to the mainstream, expect resistance, not acceptance. This is especially true if more than one power (Church and State) disagrees with you.

The majority says "Don't", for whatever reasons they may have. We should not have to put up with a minority who says "Let us have it."

 

[immortalavefenix]

Oh when atheist are the mayority.....

 

[Bunnaroo]

Oh when atheist are the mayority.....

Isn't it wonderful, then, that most of America agrees with Judeo-Christian ethics?

"It's easy to talk of hunting bear when the bear isn't around." - Isaac Asimov, The Incredible Journey II, Destination Brain

 

[immortalavefenix]

Isn't it wonderful, then, that most [ Germans ] agree with [ Nazi ] ethics?

Wonderfull indeed. We all know how great a thing mayority rule is. Never fails.

 

[TwinCrier]

i'm sold! let the government offer civil unions to any two people, and let the those people have "marriages" (if they desire) at their church/mosque/hoedown of their choice

Wow, listen to all those cans of worms being opened with that statement. Any two people? Why limit it to two? Why limit it to people?

 

[invisible trousers]

Wow, listen to all those cans of worms being opened with that statement. Any two people? Why limit it to two? Why limit it to people?

gay marriage is performed in canada, belgium, spain, the netherlands, and massachussetts. please use evidence from those places to show how gay marriage has opened up a can of worms and made polygamy and marrying your neighbor's dog legal.

You know, a democracy does not run on universal consensus. It runs on the will of the majority. Even Congress will agree on that. For some odd reason, America has fallen victim to the lie of tolerance. The minorities of this country have screamed "Intolerance!" and "Victimization!", and the majority has capitulated and coddled these small portions of society.

hello! this is rich!

you do realize that america is not a democracy, correct? and you also realize that denying people equal rights and privileges because you think they're gross and you don't like them and a book tells you to is pretty intolerant, no? also, i'm not sure you realize it, but when certain christians whine and complain and spend all their time thinking about and hating gay people, but totally ignore real problems like the church's 50% divorce rate, the large number of americans living below the poverty line, and personal issues like "pride", the gay people are kind of being victimized?

The majority says "Don't", for whatever reasons they may have. We should not have to put up with a minority who says "Let us have it."

i'm sure you'll join my cause to strip black people of their rights and privileges. we've had to put up long enough with their cries for equality and it's time they go back to africa.

 

[beechy]

I am going to tread lightly in this minefield, since I see some very passionate people in this thread.

You know, a democracy does not run on universal consensus. It runs on the will of the majority. Even Congress will agree on that. For some odd reason, America has fallen victim to the lie of tolerance. The minorities of this country have screamed "Intolerance!" and "Victimization!", and the majority has capitulated and coddled these small portions of society.

The last numbers I saw (2003) had an estimate of less than 4% of America is truly homosexual, with up to another 6% being bisexual. That means the other 90% of America is either heterosexual or not telling the truth. The majority of the same 90% may or may not agree with "civil unions", but they still support the traditional marriage of a man and woman.

In 2004, a number of states had referendums regarding civil unions, and they were defeated by the voters. These defeats were not by a few percentage points, the large majority of the voters said "No". (I am grateful that good people went to the polls to vote on this issue. We have bad policy and bad leadership because good people won't get of their blessed assurance and vote.)

I am reminded of the old joke of the guy that told the doctor, "It hurts when I do this." The doctor said, "Well, don't do it, then." If you choose to run counter to the mainstream, expect resistance, not acceptance. This is especially true if more than one power (Church and State) disagrees with you.

The majority says "Don't", for whatever reasons they may have. We should not have to put up with a minority who says "Let us have it."

Yes, the majority usually is entitled to get its way -- unless, for example, it wants something that runs afoul of the Constitution.

 

[beechy]

Wow, listen to all those cans of worms being opened with that statement. Any two people? Why limit it to two? Why limit it to people?

And why do you feel like limiting marriage by gender solves your "can of worms" dilemma?

 

[Maynard Keenan]

"You know, a democracy does not run on universal consensus. It runs on the will of the majority."

In the American system you left out one extremely important part. The will of the majority is offset by the guarantee of rights to minorities. The will of the majority was that slavery was ok. The will of the majority was that segregation was ok. If the will of the majority takes away from the liberty of others, it is void.

 

[Bunnaroo]

To clarify myself:

America isn't a pure democracy. We are a democratic republic. Everyone of age, with certain exceptions, has the right to vote for their representative in the governmental process. [Off the subject here, but have you voted recently? If you didn't participate, you shouldn't have the right to complain about the results. I know that hasn't stopped anyone before...] If the majority is large enough, the American Constitution can be changed to allow their will. The Constitution was originally designed to protect basic human rights to be afforded to everyone, based on the ideal that all people were created equal. Yes, that had to be clarified to include a blindness to race and gender, but the basic rights are there.

My point about "Intolerance" was to point out how the term has been used in ad hominum attacks. It is easier to label someone as intolerant than to point out how their logic is flawed or unreasonable. Since when has it been a bad thing to be intolerant? The city I live in doesn't tolerate murders, arson, car theft, underage drinking, and many other crimes too numerous to mention. I don't see that as a bad thing.
When I was a security guard, I didn't have to "tolerate" a person cursing me out on the phone. I was trained to warn the person about their language, and to hang up if they persisted. I wasn't to "tolerate" misbehavior in the classroom when I was a teacher in public schools. (Yes, the majority of my students were of a minority culture. A classroom isn't a democracy, it's a benevolent dictatorship.)

The will of the majority was to allow slavery in certain places. It was allowed places north of the Mason-Dixon line at one point. However, those states chose to remove it, and then declare the other states as backwards. In the Southeast, that will was overruled by a superior military force, but probably have been changed as technology advanced. As antiquated and biased as some people's views may be, I defend them by offering this quote:
Kirk: That's the most preposterous thing I've ever heard!
Spock: There's one thing you have overlooked, Captain.
Kirk: And what's that, Mr. Spock?
Spock: The system works.

What am I doing about the problems in the church? I personally am married (13 year veteran), and plan to raise my children as Christians. I have gotten involved with lay ministry as part of the 20% of laymen that actually do so. (That means 80% of churchgoers are missing out on the blessings.) I cannot change the world, just my corner of it.

My point on the whole matter is this: If you want to thrive in a society, you have to conform to it's conventions. Here in America, that includes following the laws as written, using US dollars for commerce, and speaking (for the most part) American English. If you feel that society needs changing, you have to follow the rules, participate in the political (or legal) processes, and convince your neighbors of the necessity for change. As far as civil unions go, the more populous areas of America have not been convinced of the necessity for change.

 

[beechy]

To clarify myself:

America isn't a pure democracy. We are a democratic republic. Everyone of age, with certain exceptions, has the right to vote for their representative in the governmental process. [Off the subject here, but have you voted recently? If you didn't participate, you shouldn't have the right to complain about the results. I know that hasn't stopped anyone before...] If the majority is large enough, the American Constitution can be changed to allow their will. The Constitution was originally designed to protect basic human rights to be afforded to everyone, based on the ideal that all people were created equal. Yes, that had to be clarified to include a blindness to race and gender, but the basic rights are there.

My point about "Intolerance" was to point out how the term has been used in ad hominum attacks. It is easier to label someone as intolerant than to point out how their logic is flawed or unreasonable. Since when has it been a bad thing to be intolerant? The city I live in doesn't tolerate murders, arson, car theft, underage drinking, and many other crimes too numerous to mention. I don't see that as a bad thing.
When I was a security guard, I didn't have to "tolerate" a person cursing me out on the phone. I was trained to warn the person about their language, and to hang up if they persisted. I wasn't to "tolerate" misbehavior in the classroom when I was a teacher in public schools. (Yes, the majority of my students were of a minority culture. A classroom isn't a democracy, it's a benevolent dictatorship.)

The will of the majority was to allow slavery in certain places. It was allowed places north of the Mason-Dixon line at one point. However, those states chose to remove it, and then declare the other states as backwards. In the Southeast, that will was overruled by a superior military force, but probably have been changed as technology advanced. As antiquated and biased as some people's views may be, I defend them by offering this quote:
Kirk: That's the most preposterous thing I've ever heard!
Spock: There's one thing you have overlooked, Captain.
Kirk: And what's that, Mr. Spock?
Spock: The system works.

What am I doing about the problems in the church? I personally am married (13 year veteran), and plan to raise my children as Christians. I have gotten involved with lay ministry as part of the 20% of laymen that actually do so. (That means 80% of churchgoers are missing out on the blessings.) I cannot change the world, just my corner of it.

My point on the whole matter is this: If you want to thrive in a society, you have to conform to it's conventions. Here in America, that includes following the laws as written, using US dollars for commerce, and speaking (for the most part) American English. If you feel that society needs changing, you have to follow the rules, participate in the political (or legal) processes, and convince your neighbors of the necessity for change. As far as civil unions go, the more populous areas of America have not been convinced of the necessity for change.

Until the Constitution is amended accordingly, violation of the Equal Protection and/or Due Process clauses are grounds for declaring an offending state law null and void. Whether the majority likes it or not.

And there are lawsuits and legislative initiatives popping up all over the country, in keeping with the legal and political processes you admire, with the aim of effecting change in this area. Who in this thread has advocated change by any other means?

And yes, I vote.

 

[NPH]

let the government offer civil unions to any two people, and let the those people have "marriages" (if they desire) at their church/mosque/hoedown of their choice

I wholeheartedly agree with you here! It's long past time the government got out of the marriage 'business'. What the government should offer to all citizens is a civil 'union' or 'marriage' (whichever term people like) that carries the benefits currently allowed to married couples.

If these union/marriages are to be performed in a church then it is up to that church to determine whether it is allowable or not. If it is allowable, then it is basically a religious and civil union/marriage and will also hold whatever benefits that particular church affords to it's married congregation.

 

[NPH]

My point on the whole matter is this: If you want to thrive in a society, you have to conform to it's conventions. Here in America, that includes following the laws as written, using US dollars for commerce, and speaking (for the most part) American English. If you feel that society needs changing, you have to follow the rules, participate in the political (or legal) processes, and convince your neighbors of the necessity for change. As far as civil unions go, the more populous areas of America have not been convinced of the necessity for change.

The wonderful thing about America is that we don't have to conform, we are afforded the opportunity to change those things in a variety of legal ways ... most importantly through our individual votes.

As has been pointed out, majority rules does not necessarily dictate our laws. I'm fairly certain that a majority of Americans oppose abortion and yet it is currently legal based upon our Constitution. If the laws of the states or federal government are found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court then it doesn't matter if 99.99% of the population wanted those laws. Personally I feel it is inevitable that gay marriage or some form of civil union will occur in this country, the Constitution will demand it.

I shudder at the thought of the idea of a constitutional amendment to flat out prevent gay marriage. Not just because I feel it is discriminatory but because it opens the door to oppressing any group simply because of who they are. Every time I hear someone talking about how they hope it happens I gently remind them to watch over their shoulder, their group might be next.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

The wonderful thing about America is that we don't have to conform, we are afforded the opportunity to change those things in a variety of legal ways ... most importantly through our individual votes.

As has been pointed out, majority rules does not necessarily dictate our laws. I'm fairly certain that a majority of Americans oppose abortion and yet it is currently legal based upon our Constitution. If the laws of the states or federal government are found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court then it doesn't matter if 99.99% of the population wanted those laws. Personally I feel it is inevitable that gay marriage or some form of civil union will occur in this country, the Constitution will demand it.

I shudder at the thought of the idea of a constitutional amendment to flat out prevent gay marriage...

Then I suppose you should start shuddering. The States are doing just that, amdending their constitutions to safeguard against these lawsuits and attempts in forcing the citizens and government of the citizens to support that model.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/nov/04110304.html

Not just because I feel it is discriminatory but because it opens the door to oppressing any group simply because of who they are. Every time I hear someone talking about how they hope it happens I gently remind them to watch over their shoulder, their group might be next.

Umm... you ARE aware that there are other models that are likewise not supported by the citizens BESIDES gay marriage... aren't you?
i.e. polygamy, pragmatic, incest, cohabitation, etc., but of course it varies from state to state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

 

[Bonhoffer]

I have noticed some reservations to the idea of civil unions on this site. I have thus decided to start a thread discussing my own position on the matter.

I am a supporter of the concept of the civil union as being a reasonable compromise to the issue of gay marriage, which I oppose completely. However, I see nothing wrong with homosexual couples having some of the same legal and financial benfits of married couples.

My position on civil unions is that they should be pursued, but I do not think that such a union should ever be consecrated by the church. I also do not think that civil unions should be restricted to homosexual couples. I think any two cohabitating adults whose living arrangements are similar to those of marriage should be eligible to the sorts of benefits that a civil union would provide, regardless of the sex, race, ethnicity, or a possible biological relationship between the two individuals.

Any thoughts?

I agree with you entirely!!

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Petrarch,

I think that "marriage" is a church issue while "civil unions" is a state issue. The state should keep it's nose out of the church's business and vice versa. I also support civil unions for homosexual couples, but religions do not have to marry them.

Diane

 

[4ujesus]

Ahhhhhh...
Behold that corrupts society.

Though this whole concept disturbs me, because this is a free country, there's nothing I can legally do to stop people from living together. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't consequences to actions. Just because the live together, doesn't mean anything close to marriage.
In terms of children, a legal arguement could be made saying that the second party be legal guardian should something happen to the true parent in question, but not until then.

I don't endorse homosexually, nor will I allow it, within legal boundries, of course.

Amen,

We cannot and should not condone the behavior in any way shape or form.

Don't get me wrong, I have a burden for homosexuals, to see them saved. And while I know that we cannot effectively legislate morality, we should not condone immorality either.

Legal rights for sinful behavior only gives it even more legitimacy.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

Amen,

We cannot and should not condone the behavior in any way shape or form.

I do not, which is part of the reason I say that civil unions should in no way be exclusively for the benefits of homosexuals.