Civil Unions?

[Inquiringperson]

Are civil unions a matter of prudential judgement, since roommates and siblings can use civil unions?

 

[MichaelHowling]

Yes.

A civil union or divorce for that matter may be used to handle “civil” stuff…they however have no place or connection with Marriage because it is a spiritual movement.

 

[edwest2]

Are civil unions a matter of prudential judgement, since roommates and siblings can use civil unions?

How?

Peace,
Ed

 

[DexUK]

I’ve never heard of a ‘civil union’ being allowed between siblings.

In fact, on every occasion I’ve heard the laws on them being discussed, sibling ‘civil unions’ have always been legally excluded.

 

[sw85]

I recall once the Church supporting something like a “civil unions” package, understood as a bundle of benefits conveniently packaged together that had nothing to do with procreation, on the proviso that they not be limited to two unrelated people. This was in Oregon or Washington, I recall. If I remember right homosexual activists refused this compromise on the grounds that it wasn’t marriage-like enough.

 

[Inquiringperson]

How?

Peace,
Ed

Someone could use prudential judgement to see whether supporting civil unions would be helping society by giving benefits to siblings or roommates living together or whether its going to help support the homosexual agenda.

 

[fix]

Are civil unions a matter of prudential judgement, since roommates and siblings can use civil unions?

Any legislation that weakens marriage would be wrong.

 

[Elizium23]

USCCB FAQ on family and marriage
USCCB:

**What about “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” between two persons of the same sex?
**Marriage is a unique good in itself. Nothing compares to the unique partnership of husband and wife, who through their sexual difference form a life-giving communion. No relationship between persons of the same sex can be the same as that between a man and a woman, nor should they ever be treated as analogous to marriage in any way. Thus, legal categories such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” that claim equivalent or analogous status to marriage are wrong and unjust, harmful both to the person and to society. Legal categories such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” should never be treated as analogous to marriage. Such legal approval of “civil unions” contributes to the erosion of the authentic meaning of marriage. As such, they are never acceptable. Basic human rights are not protected but violated by the erosion and redefinition of marriage.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Are civil unions a matter of prudential judgement, since roommates and siblings can use civil unions?

There is a very simple test, if it excludes people due to blood ties such as siblings then it is a pseudo-marriage and must be opposed, if it does not exclude certain people based on blood ties then it is probably not a pseudo-marriage and is a matter of prudential judgement

 

[edwest2]

Someone could use prudential judgement to see whether supporting civil unions would be helping society by giving benefits to siblings or roommates living together or whether its going to help support the homosexual agenda.

Nobody deserves a free handout just because they live together. Getting a job or government assistance for a disability is the best way to handle this, not yet another “trillions of dollars in debt” States and the Federal Government entitlement program.

Peace,
Ed