Are all civil unions wrong?

[bengal_fan]

would you support civil unions for heterosexual people who choose to live in community but not engage in sex and do not marry? i am specifically thinking of secular people with secular jobs who pool their resources together as a community to live. these little communities are popping up in a lot of places. one of the more noticed right now is in philadelphia where a group of people moved into the poorest neighborhood and live there in community. they all have to file seperate taxes when they are all sharing income. would you support tax benefits for them and insurance coverage for them (they actually do their own insurance as a group partnering with other Christian communities, they just put money aside and pay for each other’s medical bills as they arise… they are not frivilous in going to the doctor)? i am just curious if you would support some sort of way for them to get the tax benefits of marriage since they are committed to each other but aren’t sexual and aren’t married?

 

[rwoehmke]

How would one administer such a situation and make it available to a “Community Grouping” of a non-sexual nature without allowing it to a “community grouping” where homosexual acting out is taking place?

One either allows “civil unions” or one does not. A middle ground is not legally or enforcably feasable.

Until we decide that a major purpose of the marriage union is not to have and care for possible offspring, civil unions are a non-starter. I am of the opinion that a fair number of states in our country have reached that point. There are already rumbles, and they have been around for a time, that people without children should not have to pay taxes for the education of other people’s children.

 

[He_Man]

would you support civil unions for heterosexual people who choose to live in community but not engage in sex and do not marry? i am specifically thinking of secular people with secular jobs who pool their resources together as a community to live. these little communities are popping up in a lot of places. one of the more noticed right now is in philadelphia where a group of people moved into the poorest neighborhood and live there in community. they all have to file seperate taxes when they are all sharing income. would you support tax benefits for them and insurance coverage for them (they actually do their own insurance as a group partnering with other Christian communities, they just put money aside and pay for each other’s medical bills as they arise… they are not frivilous in going to the doctor)? i am just curious if you would support some sort of way for them to get the tax benefits of marriage since they are committed to each other but aren’t sexual and aren’t married?

This is why Civil Union’s are a farce. I have already read about men who are straight but having civil unions in order to take advantage of the benefits homosexual civil unions have.

The question will become, in order to receive benefits from these unions, do you have to be sexually active with your partner?

Why can’t two heterosexual men simply have a civil union in order to get the same tax benefits as two homsexual men or women?

 

[BlestOne]

no…
Because the whole purpose for the tax incentives and insurance coverage is for the survival of our society… i.e. for procreation… it is not an entitlement for people who live together, or have babies together… it is for families

 

[He_Man]

I agree, but how does that mesh with the legality of civil unions?

And what is to stop two straight guys from having one to enjoy these benefits?

 

[BlestOne]

I agree, but how does that mesh with the legality of civil unions?

And what is to stop two straight guys from having one to enjoy these benefits?

Nothing except their conscience if they have any moral beliefs and it is “legal”. Herein lies the problem… people seem to think that all laws are moral and just… well they aren’t! Look at abortion… it is legal but definitely not moral nor just. The truth of the matter is that we live in a society of entitlement… people think they are entitled to whatever they can get. It isn’t right nor is it healthy for us… as a matter of opinion, I think it spiritually bankrupts us to compromise our morals for personal gain just because it is legal.

If only those people who need these services actually signed up and received them… it would be so easy, but people want what others have or want something for nothing all the time…

Now the whole purpose for the tax incentives and health insurance for spouses was so that the wife could stay home and the husband work… for the stability of the family, therefore the stability of society.

 

[Sr_Sally]

These communities are presumable made up of more than 2 at a time adults, so how could they enter a civil union, unless we were going to expand those to 3 or more at a time!

Communities like the one you describe have other means of tax shelters if that is what they are interested in. They can register as some time of not-for-profit for example. There have been other groups like that that were not religious orders and figured out a way to handle their finances and taxes. I’m sure with a little research, these new groups can do the same.

 

[didymus]

would you support civil unions for heterosexual people who choose to live in community but not engage in sex and do not marry? i am specifically thinking of secular people with secular jobs who pool their resources together as a community to live. these little communities are popping up in a lot of places. one of the more noticed right now is in philadelphia where a group of people moved into the poorest neighborhood and live there in community. they all have to file seperate taxes when they are all sharing income. would you support tax benefits for them and insurance coverage for them (they actually do their own insurance as a group partnering with other Christian communities, they just put money aside and pay for each other’s medical bills as they arise… they are not frivilous in going to the doctor)? i am just curious if you would support some sort of way for them to get the tax benefits of marriage since they are committed to each other but aren’t sexual and aren’t married?

There’s no way to stipulate that they won’t be sexual, so forget that.

The way things are going I just about ready to say get the government out of registering marriages and go to civil unions for those who want the tax/insurance benefits. Those who want to be married can do so in church.

 

[He_Man]

There’s no way to stipulate that they won’t be sexual, so forget that.

The way things are going I just about ready to say get the government out of registering marriages and go to civil unions for those who want the tax/insurance benefits. Those who want to be married can do so in church.

Problem is, a lot of guys in their twenties will have civil unions to take advantage of the benefits until they are ready to marry. Why not? If you’re morals aren’t where they need to be, it makes sense. Then, they can get a divorce, and marry for love.

The whole concept is a sham and a joke.