my position on civil unions

[.Mikha'el.]

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?

 

[JJB]

My thoughts are that civil unions will not be acceptable to the gay community. It will not be viewed as equal -- even if all the rights are the same as marriage. For some reason, they want to bash down the church doors.

 

[billwald]

Agree with the origional post. The problem is the tax and welfare laws. Married people get tax breaks. Medical benefits are now a big part of one's compensation. A married person with kids gets more compensation than a single person making the same cash wage. An older couple in the church living on the edge of poverty was told that they would be OK if the divorced - because of the medicade rules.

For openers, every employee (say working under the same union contract) should get the same dollar amount of medical benefits which he allocates as he wishes. If he is healthy he should be able to assign half his benefits to his mother or whomever.

 

[intricatic]

My thoughts are that civil unions will not be acceptable to the gay community. It will not be viewed as equal -- even if all the rights are the same as marriage. For some reason, they want to bash down the church doors.

Which leads me to believe that homosexuals are after more than just legal recognition. [I concur in this statement].

 

[Athene]

I'm all for civil unions, not everybody is a christian, why make them hypocrites by vowing to a God they dont believe in.

 

[Stinker]

What needs to happen is for all governments to exit the religious arena concerning this issue. Leave the subject of marriage to churches in churches, to decide who's marriage is acceptable in God's eyes. Let the Government decide who's civil union meets it's standard.

 

[intricatic]

What needs to happen is for all governments to exit the religious arena concerning this issue. Leave the subject of marriage to churches in churches, to decide who's marriage is acceptable in God's eyes. Let the Government decide who's civil union meets it's standard.

I agree.

 

[monkman]

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?

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.

 

[ebia]

What needs to happen is for all governments to exit the religious arena concerning this issue. Leave the subject of marriage to churches in churches, to decide who's marriage is acceptable in God's eyes. Let the Government decide who's civil union meets it's standard.

Um. Marriage is not an exclusively Judeo-Christian idea. It exists in almost every culture past and present.

Do you plan to ban Hindu, Muslim, etc marriages or just secular ones?

 

[INtwNOTOFtw]

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?

Isn't compromising shown to be bad in the Bible?
Since my government is suppose to represent me along with others and I am not alone in not supporting gay marriage or gay civil unions, I don't see a problem and I don't lose sleep over it. There are other forms of marriage that are also not recognized. The gay one is not the only one.

 

[Sam Gamgee]

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?

Works for me.

I'd just like the term to be called "civil marriage" instead of "civil union".

As the courts said in the landmark decision about gay marriage in Massachusetts; "history has shown that 'separate but equal' is rarely ever equal."

And having two completely different names, "marriage" and "civil union", is a separate but equal approach.

So, I think if it were called a "civil marriage", we could all understand the similarity.

I have always fought for same-sex marriage, but always in the civil arena. I'm not expecting a church to approve the gay life, much less approve gay marriage. However, the civil sector must approve it eventually. The future will prove that it is unconstitutional not to legalize same-sex marriage.

 

[Sam Gamgee]

My thoughts are that civil unions will not be acceptable to the gay community. It will not be viewed as equal -- even if all the rights are the same as marriage. For some reason, they want to bash down the church doors.

That's your perception, that we're trying to bash down the doors. That perception is based out of fear.

In fact, we are not fighting for the right to marry in church. We never have. But, since the church if the primary opponent to gay marriage, we are having to fight the church's influence.

The fight for gay marriage is, and has always been, based in the civil arena.

 

[Sam Gamgee]

Which leads me to believe that homosexuals are after more than just legal recognition. [I concur in this statement].

What more would we want?

Either our church supports us, or they don't.

Why would I want to marry in a church, under God, when the church doesn't support me?

Plus, if God wants to bless my union, He can do it regardless of whether I'm standing in the house of God when the union is made.

 

[intricatic]

What more would we want?

Either our church supports us, or they don't.

Why would I want to marry in a church, under God, when the church doesn't support me?

Plus, if God wants to bless my union, He can do it regardless of whether I'm standing in the house of God when the union is made.

Well, my idea is that it's not exactly about the marriage end, but about acceptance from society in general.
I accept all people, but I reject all lifestyles that embrace sin. The lifestyles do not equate to the people, however, as all people are above their circumstances.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

That's your perception, that we're trying to bash down the doors. That perception is based out of fear.

In fact, we are not fighting for the right to marry in church. We never have. But, since the church if the primary opponent to gay marriage, we are having to fight the church's influence.

The fight for gay marriage is, and has always been, based in the civil arena.

Umm... why do I hear the Wizard of Oz quote, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0701/p02s01-ussc.html
http://www.gaychurch.org/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_ang3.htm

 

[beechy]

Umm... why do I hear the Wizard of Oz quote, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0701/p02s01-ussc.html
http://www.gaychurch.org/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_ang3.htm

There are two discussions going on, I think, and they intersect for those who consider themselves both Christian and gay. I'm personally not sure if God would consider what I have with my same-sex partner to be "marriage", but I'll humbly ask that He bless the relationship.

I wholeheartedly believe, however, that what I have with my same-sex partner should accorded the same civil rights and responsibilities as I would have with an opposite sex partner. I hope someday that society will recognize the life I'm trying to build with the person I love has just as much value as it would if she was a he.

The problem with civil unions as they exist today is that they are often not recognized once you cross state borders, and they aren't recognized on a federal level like marriage is for IRS tax purposes. If civil unions were universally recognized (on a national level, that is) and carried the same rights and responsibilities as the legal institution of marriage, that would be fine with me -- although I'm not sure why we wouldn't just call it marriage, then, or strike the legal marriage thing and call everything civil unions

 

[Sam Gamgee]

Well, my idea is that it's not exactly about the marriage end, but about acceptance from society in general.
I accept all people, but I reject all lifestyles that embrace sin. The lifestyles do not equate to the people, however, as all people are above their circumstances.

I'd agree with that...

I think, to an extent, we all want people to accept us and like us. We all want to be liked by those around us.

 

[intricatic]

I'd agree with that...

I think, to an extent, we all want people to accept us and like us. We all want to be liked by those around us.

Same here. And I don't fault you, or anyone else for that.

 

[immortalavefenix]

I also do not think that civil unions should be restricted to homosexual couples

Why? Why should I need to be married in a church or by the "church"? I should be able to marry anyone, for the argument let us say female, without having to alinge myself with any religous organization, and I should be able to do this without suffering any social-ecomonic penalties for doing so.

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.

That it is otherwise is an injustice to an extreme.

It will not be viewed as equal

Because of course having a homosexual lifestyle makes you less then [eg. not equal] a human. Really?

For some reason, they want to bash down the church doors

If that is it's concept of human equality, then far more then simply bashing down of doors need be done.

marriage to churches in churches, to decide who's marriage is acceptable in God's eyes

? Ah, And if Im not a member of a church? Though nuts to me then?

there's nothing I can legally do to stop people from living together

Why oh why my child would you want to be in the position to do so?

mean that there aren't consequences to actions

Like being the victims of disrespect, ridicule and disrcimination. Yeah, there are consequences indeed.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

[noflame]

Lets remember the rules everyone and try to be respectful in our posts.