If you don't support gay marriage, do you support civil unions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter followingtheway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

followingtheway

Guest
A lot of people who don’t support gay marriage support “civil unions”, are you of these people?
 
I actually do as I believe marriage should be made a religious matter and civil union a government activity.
 
As a civil union, regardless of being a government function, causes people to believe that they can live as a married couple, then no, I do not.
 
Because the admission of gay civil unions sends a message that gay activity is morally acceptable, I say no.
 
Can I enter into a civil union with my ailing mother? With a college roommate? With my business partner?
 
Civil unions are govt. sanctioned so whatever the applicable legislation says would be allowable. As for encouraging sin, most of what we legislate does that anyways – why draw a line here. Homosexual acts are virtually no different from masturbation, although they do involve another so they would be more pernicious in that sense.
 
It is a far better idea as it at least doesn’t water down the meaning of marriage. Personally I still wouldn’t support it though.
 
Most definitely not, it effectively condones homosexual acts
 
ringil said:
I actually do as I believe marriage should be made a religious matter and civil union a government activity.
Click to expand...
I agree. Keep religion for the religious and government for the political.
 
No, I don’t support civil unions.

If you’re not married, you have no business acting as though you were. It is sinful and will inevitably scandalize others.
 
I don’t support either. Gay “marriage” is obviously worse - there is no such thing as “husband and husband” or “wife and wife” and it all goes back to “unity and procreation”. But, similarly, you can’t have a union between two people of the same sex. I believe it goes against reason.

EDIT: And what Bearer said.
 
djeter said:
Homosexual acts are virtually no different from masturbation, although they do involve another so they would be more pernicious in that sense.
Click to expand...
Not only that but they obviously involve a member of the same sex, which goes against both unitative and procreative aspects to sexual intercourse.
 
I suppose it depends on what a civil union is. I’ve got nothing against there being a nice simple form to fill out to set up all of your legal situation, like medical power of attorney, etc. Perhaps such a thing would simplify the law and its execution.

I’m not sure what other purpose it would serve for society, or if it even serves the above mentioned.
 
djeter said:
Civil unions are govt. sanctioned so whatever the applicable legislation says would be allowable. As for encouraging sin, most of what we legislate does that anyways – why draw a line here. Homosexual acts are virtually no different from masturbation, although they do involve another so they would be more pernicious in that sense.
Click to expand...
Thomas Aquinas said that masturbation was worse than Adultery and even homosexuality I believe! Not saying I agree, just pointing out a funny little factoid. 🙂
 
to a degree i do.

In the sense of visitation, inheritance, and other rights that 2 people who are devoted to one another should be afforded, i do. The sinful nature of their devotion is a religious issue, and shouldn’t be factored into a legal system which doesn’t establish state religion.

I am, however, very wary about the issue of child-rearing. I believe there’s enough perfectly secular evidence that all things equal a child is much better off with a male and female parent. Single parents can do a good job, mom/dad combos can do a bad job, and i’m sure in about a decade or so we’ll come to learn that some same-sex couples did an overall good job as well (by religiously neutral standards)…

but

all things equal, it’s insane to me that we’d ever think a child is not best off with a mom and a dad.

there should at least be some law in place that says that same-sex couples can only be eligible to adopt if there aren’t any good opposite-sex takers.

but obviously that’s not going to happen in today’s climate.

and honestly,i don’t think its a useful contest at this point. We’re going to see gay marriage and gay child-rearing become a reality all over the country, and throwing tantrums and spitting venom over it isn’t going to clothe Jesus. Best thing we can do is teach love and find common ground in order to make the world as good a place as possible for kids of all parents.
 
Jonatello said:
to a degree i do.

In the sense of visitation, inheritance, and other rights that 2 people who are devoted to one another should be afforded, i do. The sinful nature of their devotion is a religious issue, and shouldn’t be factored into a legal system which doesn’t establish state religion.

I am, however, very wary about the issue of child-rearing. I believe there’s enough perfectly secular evidence that all things equal a child is much better off with a male and female parent. Single parents can do a good job, mom/dad combos can do a bad job, and i’m sure in about a decade or so we’ll come to learn that some same-sex couples did an overall good job as well (by religiously neutral standards)…

but

all things equal, it’s insane to me that we’d ever think a child is not best off with a mom and a dad.

there should at least be some law in place that says that same-sex couples can only be eligible to adopt if there aren’t any good opposite-sex takers.

but obviously that’s not going to happen in today’s climate.

and honestly,i don’t think its a useful contest at this point. We’re going to see gay marriage and gay child-rearing become a reality all over the country, and throwing tantrums and spitting venom over it isn’t going to clothe Jesus. Best thing we can do is teach love and find common ground in order to make the world as good a place as possible for kids of all parents.
Click to expand...
👍

Also, from a practical point of view, we have children growing up unadjusted, moving between foster homes and having a greater than average chance of ending up in low-incomes/drug abuse/emotional neglect etc - and a huge shortage of parents willing to adopt. The government (especially here in the UK) cannot afford to NOT allow same-sex couples to adopt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top