Question on civil unions

[tpillip]

I would like your thoughts on this—is it ok to be for civil unions on a non-sexual basis—example if two men or women wanted to get civil union they could do it–it wouldnt be based on sex though–even if a older “couple” that had no sexual interest in each other and were just good freinds wanted to get acivil union they could–obviously some gays would get the civil union–but it wouldnt be based on sex----i look forward to hearing your opinions

 

[Lisa_N]

So you suggest a particular contract that precludes sexual relationships? I don’t think that will be a big seller. The reality is that homosexuals want civil unions IF they can’t have marriage. They figure all of us unenlightened souls will eventually come around and decide that Bill and Joe are the same as Bill and Sally.

There is no right that heterosexual couples obtain by marriage that any couple or for that matter any group cannot obtain, other than the right to file joint tax returns. I hardly think filing jointly is a hill worth dying for. What do you think?

Lisa N

 

[tpillip]

how about just answer te question–would it be morally acceptable to hold this position—for two people to have a civil union–

 

[Island_Oak]

I’m not sure of the purpose you seek to fulfill. There are a number of legal vehicles available depending on your goals. You can always form a partnership for purposes of buying property or holding other assets jointly. You can appoint a trustee or executor if you are concerned about your assets, even after your death. You can even grant a power of attorney or designate a guardian for health care decisions in the event you become incompent. It is unnecessary to mimic marital unions if the purposes of marriage are not desired, sought or even relevant.

 

[Lisa_N]

tpillip:

how about just answer te question–would it be morally acceptable to hold this position—for two people to have a civil union–

It’s not even a moral question. It’s a legal question. If the two people are engaged in a non marital sexual arrangement then signing a piece of paper calling it a ‘civil union’ is not going to make their sexual relationship a morally acceptable one. If the purpose of a civil union is to hold property jointly then the question is moot as there are other ways to do that. Ditto with hospital visits, leaving your estate to someone, joint bank accounts, and sadly even adopting a child is possible if a person is not married. Again civil unions are not necessary to provide a structure for the majority of arrangements between two or more people and they will not magically turn an illicit sexual relationship into a sacramental marriage.

Does that answer your question or do you actually have a hidden agenda that you hope someone will figure out

Lisa N

 

[joshua1]

I concur with Lisa. I have said before that the marriage license or any other legal contact that you sign is not the marriage. The marriage license is a legal recognition by the state for legal purposes. The sacrament of Matrimony is different. The sacrament is not the the little certificate you recieve. The sacrament of matrimony is what you live each day of your life with your spouse. I do not look at marriage as something tangible that can be held in your hand. Thats why homosexual marriage, which I think is an oxymoron, could never be accepted by any moral person who believes in Divine Law and the original purpose of marriage to begin with. So all marraiges have a civil union component to them, but only in the secular sense. The sacrament goes deeper.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

For a while, I was very active in the fight against civil unions, gay marriages, and anything of the like.

Then I realized that it isn’t that important what the government thinks, unless we look to the government for our morals. I still think it’s a bad idea, but I’ve lost some energy fighting it.

Personally I believe there is more to being male and female than to have interlocking pieces. Therefore, I think the whole concept of gay marriages, for example, is flawed on the very basis of lack of diversity, which is stupidly used (and we let them get away with it) as a banner for why we should have them! Plus, feminists have been insisting for years that no worthy institution can be run without any women in charge, but now we are turning over the institution of marriage to leadership with no women, in some cases. I guess men with the right policital stance are effectively women for these purposes?

Anyway, the whole thing is stupid, but I have learned to care much less than I used to.

I’ve also thought about a union based on non-sexual union. If that’s the case, the liberals should be very afraid of a son marrying his wealthy widowed mother, and transferring wealth without paying the beloved “death tax!”

Proponents of gay marriage and civil unions have one thing right; how is it that what they’re proposing is actually destructive to the “sanctity of marriage?” After working as a tax preparer I can safely say that legally, marriage has precious little sanctity anyway. It seemed like the rare exception when I prepared taxes for a married couple with only children of their own. Sometimes I sent up couples shacking up away with thousands of dollars, when if they were married I could have only gotten them maybe $200. One couple tried to pretend they were only kidding about getting married when they found that they would have to pay in $500 as a married couple, but everything else equal they would receive over $3000 if they were unmarried. I figure if gays get civil unions and both work modest income jobs, the first thing they’ll do when they go to file a joint tax return is try to get out of them.

Let Caesar do whatever Caesar is going to do, and let us continue to do right by God. We need to strengthen our faith communities and take back some of our power from the Imperial federal government, but in the mean time I don’t take anything they do or say as an indicator of what is righteous.

Alan

 

[mark_a]

AlanFromWichita:

Then I realized that it isn’t that important what the government thinks, unless we look to the government for our morals. I still think it’s a bad idea, but I’ve lost some energy fighting it.

Yep. And don’t even get me started on the ten commandments in the courthouses issue.

interlocking pieces.

That’s just too good.

 

[jman507]

Alan, silly me, I was supposing the government was worth trying to salvage. But I guess your right. We can mess the contract of marraige all up, atleast God won’t let the sacrament of marriage become corrupt.

 

[1ke]

tpillip:

I would like your thoughts on this—is it ok to be for civil unions on a non-sexual basis—example if two men or women wanted to get civil union they could do it–it wouldnt be based on sex though–even if a older “couple” that had no sexual interest in each other and were just good freinds wanted to get acivil union they could–obviously some gays would get the civil union–but it wouldnt be based on sex----i look forward to hearing your opinions

What you describe has no purpose. What would the purpose be?

If it is for property rights, or healthcare directives, those already have a legal remedy: Wills and Power of Attorney

 

[tuopaolo]

tpillip:

I would like your thoughts on this—is it ok to be for civil unions on a non-sexual basis—example if two men or women wanted to get civil union they could do it–it wouldnt be based on sex though–even if a older “couple” that had no sexual interest in each other and were just good freinds wanted to get acivil union they could–obviously some gays would get the civil union–but it wouldnt be based on sex----i look forward to hearing your opinions

I’m not sure what the nature of this civil union would be. Recognition and establishing any sort of union is moral or not depending on the nature of the thing being established and recognized. If the nature of the union were simply friendship then I’m not sure that would need to be recognized in law and I don’t know of any proposals anywhere to do such a thing, but there wouldn’t necessarily be a moral problem with it as long as it did not constitute in any way a legal recognition or affirmation of homosexual practices or emotions or anything else homosexual AND it was not motivated by any desire to be aggreeable to the homosexual agenda.

 

[CatQuilt]

AlanFromWichita:

For a while, I was very active in the fight against civil unions, gay marriages, and anything of the like.

Then I realized that it isn’t that important what the government thinks, unless we look to the government for our morals. I still think it’s a bad idea, but I’ve lost some energy fighting it.

Let Caesar do whatever Caesar is going to do, and let us continue to do right by God. We need to strengthen our faith communities and take back some of our power from the Imperial federal government, but in the mean time I don’t take anything they do or say as an indicator of what is righteous.

Alan

Oh dear. The chief purpose of marriage (from a secular viewpoint) is to have a stable environment in which to raise children. I still believe that is worth fighting for. Not to mention the fact that I don’t believe civil marriage is necessarily the end-game for homosexuals.