Marriage vs. Civil Unions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bluezone7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bluezone7

Guest
Should the federal and state governments grant homosexual couples the right to unite under civil unions that would allow them many legal rights and privileges as married heterosexual couples? State your opinions.
 
The whole reason for marriage being recognized by govenment is to protect the “wife and kids” from the burdens that occur when a man is providing for a family and when a woman is bearing and raising children. Why should homosexual couples get the benefits afforded to married couples and families when both partners are able to work because they are not bearing and raising children? In a homosexual relationship there will be no “ordinary” chance of 2 men or 2 women conceiving and bearing a child so why should they get benefits that are reserved for this purpose? For that matter why should my tax dollars and yours be spent on increased insurance costs to treat more AIDS instances in homosexual couples? I voted NO because I think that allowing for gay marriage or civil unions to receive benefits thus far reserved for families reduces the very sanctity of what marriage was intended for.
 
40.png
bluezone7:
Should the federal and state governments grant homosexual couples the right to unite under civil unions that would allow them many legal rights and privileges as married heterosexual couples? State your opinions.
Click to expand...
It’s a slippery slope that has already be started in Sweden. See this article that appeared this week:

A Swedish Restaurant owner has been Fined $10,000 for Asking a Lesbian Couple to Leave after they were smooching in public, even though he said he’d also boot a heterosexual couple for such inappropriate behaviour in public
 
The term “Civil Unions” should be used for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. The laws can still protect children, but it allows the term Marriage to be used properly in its correct defnition. Can you imagine how many people with only civil marriage would pee their pants if that would occur!

If you want to get married you should go to a church, if you are looking for the legal benefits of a domestic relationship then you get a Civil Union. I really don’t care if the government calls defines my own marriage as a “civil union” because as so many secularists call it “it is just a piece of paper”, and to me that it is what the civil aspect of marriage is. It is the belief in the Sacrament of Marriage, is what defines it as a marriage.
 
If the term civil union were simply meant to bundle a group of rights into one contract to be used by ANY two people, then fine. I understand in some countries in Europe civil unions are used by friends, siblings, etc to protect property rights, allow medical decisions to be made etc. Fine with me. There is not the implicit approval of a deviant sexual partnership in a true civil union. Unfortunately in this case, civil union is simply a way for homosexuals to try to achieve parity with heterosexuals when their relationship is completely different, has no biological, traditional, historical or religious basis for state recognition.

Lisa N
 
Any attempt to use civil unions to legitimize homosexual conduct should not be allowed and the Church says it is wrong.
 
I tend to agree with renee on this. Render unto Caesar. If the demented State wishes to grant these unions, then so be it. I will vote against it, but won’t fight against it. I am a Catholic first, then a husband, father, a teacher, and then I suppose, an American.

If the USA would drag it’s collective butt out of the collective sewer, then my national allegiance could (COULD) climb to #2. Until then. . .forget it.
 
Where the government’s policy is* de facto* tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
 
Lisa N:
If the term civil union were simply meant to bundle a group of rights into one contract to be used by ANY two people, then fine. I understand in some countries in Europe civil unions are used by friends, siblings, etc to protect property rights, allow medical decisions to be made etc. Fine with me. There is not the implicit approval of a deviant sexual partnership in a true civil union. Unfortunately in this case, civil union is simply a way for homosexuals to try to achieve parity with heterosexuals when their relationship is completely different, has no biological, traditional, historical or religious basis for state recognition.

Lisa N
Click to expand...
My thinking on this is similar. Civil unions, if they are allowed, should be as far as the state is concerned something along the lines of formation of a monastery: the union of adults who do so for mutual support and service to society, and not for the purpose of procreation. Civil unions, then, would be open to any group of adults who cannot marry but who are recognized by society as being a mutually supporting unit… that is, by mutual and committed care and responsibility for common property, health, welfare, retirement, and so on. Partners (or members) in a civil union, then, would have no right to consort, for instance. Their sexual behavior would be no more nor less the business of the state than for the unmarried. It would be legally assumed that children of the union would have at least one biological parent outside the union who would retain the full perogatives of parenthood.

Under this model, marriage would enjoy those rights and be given additional responsibilities over civil union when such were related to the establishment and durability of the biological family.
 
Any legal device that can used as legitimizing homosexual unions should be opposed. I would think there are plenty of legal remedies available people could use that would not give cover to the “gay” agenda.

This civil union nonsense is an attempt to legitimize the illegitimate behavior of a few.
 
40.png
fix:
This civil union nonsense is an attempt to legitimize the illegitimate behavior of a few.
Click to expand...
That is a legitimate fear. Nevertheless, marriage laws are being used to keep health care and other costs down, for instance, by offering benefits to as few as possible. It is not illegitimate for adults who cannot marry to nevertheless want to care for each other. Neither is it illegitimate for the state to pass laws that encourage the stability of marriage, particularly in the interest of children.

We have to steer a course where justice is served and legitimate lifestyles are not denied because they might be used by some in a scandalous manner. I would like to see two widows, for instance, to have a way to take care of each other that does not require attorney fees that will exhaust their already meager resources. If civil unions are adopted, I’d like to see them modelled on this kind of arrangement: where it is assumed, as far as the state is concerned, that the relationship is not sexual in nature and that any children involved are the child of only one partner and have parents outside the union.
 
40.png
BLB_Oregon:
That is a legitimate fear. Nevertheless, marriage laws are being used to keep health care and other costs down, for instance, by offering benefits to as few as possible. It is not illegitimate for adults who cannot marry to nevertheless want to care for each other. Neither is it illegitimate for the state to pass laws that encourage the stability of marriage, particularly in the interest of children.

We have to steer a course where justice is served and legitimate lifestyles are not denied because they might be used by some in a scandalous manner. I would like to see two widows, for instance, to have a way to take care of each other that does not require attorney fees that will exhaust their already meager resources. If civil unions are adopted, I’d like to see them modelled on this kind of arrangement: where it is assumed, as far as the state is concerned, that the relationship is not sexual in nature and that any children involved are the child of only one partner and have parents outside the union.
Click to expand...
With the number of lawyers in this world I think someone can come up with a remedy that does not include so-called civil unions. This concept has gained national attention for one reason only. The rest of the buzz is to misdirect the focus.
 
40.png
BLB_Oregon:
That is a legitimate fear. Nevertheless, marriage laws are being used to keep health care and other costs down, for instance, by offering benefits to as few as possible. It is not illegitimate for adults who cannot marry to nevertheless want to care for each other. Neither is it illegitimate for the state to pass laws that encourage the stability of marriage, particularly in the interest of children.

We have to steer a course where justice is served and legitimate lifestyles are not denied because they might be used by some in a scandalous manner. I would like to see two widows, for instance, to have a way to take care of each other that does not require attorney fees that will exhaust their already meager resources. If civil unions are adopted, I’d like to see them modelled on this kind of arrangement: where it is assumed, as far as the state is concerned, that the relationship is not sexual in nature and that any children involved are the child of only one partner and have parents outside the union.
Click to expand...
I see what your saying, but the concept of “civil unions” is a bogus concept of fairness/equality.
I dont get what you mean by keeping healthcare costs down and other forms of “favoritism” for a limited few? The undelying problem in what you are stating is the fact that such laws as drive thru divorce and civil unions (in some states) are exactly why two widows would even be thinking about living together in such a way. The problem is the family has been attacked and divided, so when it comes time for a woman/man to age they are on their own, instead of family taking care of them. Also Widows have lived together all the time and no such laws were needed for them to go on.
 
I think this is just another blatant intrusion into the heart of human relationships by the state.

What does a judge have to decide on what constitutes a marriage?

I’ve never been married, but no judge is going to have the last say of whether I am married or not, my priest will have the last say in that.

So if two homosexuals have a civil union, I just go blank; civil union means nothing to me. A civil union cannot possibly equal a marriage and it ain’t a judge’s place to say so either! :mad: .
 
Catholic Dude:
I see what your saying, but the concept of “civil unions” is a bogus concept of fairness/equality.
I dont get what you mean by keeping healthcare costs down and other forms of “favoritism” for a limited few? The undelying problem in what you are stating is the fact that such laws as drive thru divorce and civil unions (in some states) are exactly why two widows would even be thinking about living together in such a way. The problem is the family has been attacked and divided, so when it comes time for a woman/man to age they are on their own, instead of family taking care of them. Also Widows have lived together all the time and no such laws were needed for them to go on.
Click to expand...
What does drive-through divorce have to do with being a widow? I’m talking about a version of the monastic life, not a parallel to marriage. That, I don’t buy. Nevertheless, your concerns (which I have had myself) make me think that addressing the ability of adults to care for each other without spending a small fortune on lawyers might be achieved in some way other than civil union.

I go back and forth on this. I’m not willing to sell justice to defend marriage, or vice versa. I’m not willing to believe that we have to, but when someone makes an objection, I think it bears examination.

I am also not willing to blame the break-down of marriage and family on homosexual pushes to join the institution. They have had little or nothing to do with it. In fact, the farce that secular marriage has become has had everything to do with homosexuals wondering aloud why the benefits may not be extended to them! It is all about serial “monogamy”, allowing adults to separate control of their lives from their parents lives, giving their current partner health care benefits, and property rights, rather than to establish a life-long union meant to provide a framework from which extended families may be generated. Why wouldn’t they?
 
O.K. what if judges started to approve civil priests? Would a guy with a degree in theology who petitions in court to be made a priest be valid if the court approves his request and is made a ‘civil’ priest through court order?

Then why should a court ordered civil union carry the same weight as a marriage?
 
40.png
BLB_Oregon:
What does drive-through divorce have to do with being a widow? I’m talking about a version of the monastic life, not a parallel to marriage. That, I don’t buy. Nevertheless, your concerns (which I have had myself) make me think that addressing the ability of adults to care for each other without spending a small fortune on lawyers might be achieved in some way other than civil union.

I go back and forth on this. I’m not willing to sell justice to defend marriage, or vice versa. I’m not willing to believe that we have to, but when someone makes an objection, I think it bears examination.

I am also not willing to blame the break-down of marriage and family on homosexual pushes to join the institution. They have had little or nothing to do with it. In fact, the farce that secular marriage has become has had everything to do with homosexuals wondering aloud why the benefits may not be extended to them! It is all about serial “monogamy”, allowing adults to separate control of their lives from their parents lives, giving their current partner health care benefits, and property rights, rather than to establish a life-long union meant to provide a framework from which extended families may be generated. Why wouldn’t they?
Click to expand...
Your points are well made and very fair. In the end so called civil unions are about legitimizing homosexual conduct. The rest is a ploy. There are plenty of ways to address your other points through other means.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top