The reason for the opposition is that civil unions are simply an attempt to gain approval, legitimacy, and government benefits for sexually active homosexual relationships. Can you explain exactly what the difference is between a same-sex couple in a civil union and a same-sex couple that has been “married”?Civil unions have not been around for thousands of years, they have only been around for decades. So why is the church opposing civil unions as well as same-sex marriages? If the logic is simply to protect something which had been around for thousands of years, then civil unions should be ok
Throughout history, there has always been one underlying fact of marriages: They are between two complimentary sexes. All of the examples you have listed as “different definitions” all maintain this same fact.And, yet, the definition of marriage has changed time and time again throughout history. The ages at which people can marry, the race of those who can marry, the nationality of the people involved - many things. Yet people who make this claim about “marriage remaining the same” deny this. if it is mentioned, they will claim that marriage has always been between one man and one woman. This may be true, but that’s not what you’re claiming. Your claim is that marriage has always remained the same throughout history, and this is a claim that is, simply put, false. It bugs me a bit, because it’s a ‘fact’ that’s repeated time and time again, yet it isn’t true.
For the government, interracial marriage has the same benefit that single-race marriages have: Propagation of the tax base and workforce through children. Same-sex “marriage” provides NO benefit to either the government or society.I suppose the only reason for the government to allow gay marriage would be if there was unanimous support for it from the public. I do believe you’d support other legislation that wouldn’t benefit the government, though. Interracial marriage, for example. Please keep in mind that I’m not trying to make ‘gay rights’ into a civil rights issue.
But it isn’t just “Abrahamic” religions. They were never recognized in pagan Rome, ancient Egypt, the ancient Far East, the pre-Islamic (and pre-Christian, and pre-Judaic) Middle East, the Americas before contact… True, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but so far we see that defining marriage as something that can happen between members of the same sex is something unrecorded in every known culture. It’s reasonable, then, to wonder if it really is as wonderful a thing as its proponents would have us believe. Granted, no other culture in history had mechanized travel or industry on the same level that we do, but that’s a matter of science. Homosexual “marriage” isn’t a matter of physics, or chemistry, or biology - it’s a matter of behavior.I guess the only people it benefits are those who want to partake in such relationships. I can’t tell you with absolute authority that homosexual unions have never existed prior to now, though. Most societies probably opposed homosexuality completely due to religious reasons, especially with the huge belief in Abrahamic religions throughout much of the world.
Marriage is a sacrament that has been around for thousands of years.The reason for the opposition is that civil unions are simply an attempt to gain approval, legitimacy, and government benefits for sexually active homosexual relationships. Can you explain exactly what the difference is between a same-sex couple in a civil union and a same-sex couple that has been “married”?
What is the legal difference between ‘civil union’ and ‘marriage?’Marriage is a sacrament that has been around for thousands of years.
Civil unions are a legal document that have been around for dozens of years.
Asking what is the difference is like asking what is the difference between baptism and dunking a baby in water.
If people are claiming that marriage needs to be preserved because it’s meaning has been the same for thousands of years, then there should be no objection to civil unions. If you object to civil unions, then you must have some ulterior motive than protecting the sacrament of marriage.
And the argument “they won’t be satisfied with civil unions” is a pretty poor one as well, since they won’t be satisfied without them as well. There are no moral reasons why people should not be allowed civil unions. We can either compromise, and let them have those, or stay our ground, and homosexual marriage will be legal in 20 years, tops.
That’s only true if benefiting society is is limited to raising children, and it’s not. Do you consider couples without children freeloaders? And same-sex marriage does benefit society. Stability is one quick example. Recognizing equal protection under law is another.For the government, interracial marriage has the same benefit that single-race marriages have: Propagation of the tax base and workforce through children. Same-sex “marriage” provides NO benefit to either the government or society.
So is a marriage between an opposite sex couple. Marriage is a social institution, no matter the genders. Your confusing reproduction, a biological process with marriage, a social institution.But it isn’t just “Abrahamic” religions. They were never recognized in pagan Rome, ancient Egypt, the ancient Far East, the pre-Islamic (and pre-Christian, and pre-Judaic) Middle East, the Americas before contact… True, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but so far we see that defining marriage as something that can happen between members of the same sex is something unrecorded in every known culture. It’s reasonable, then, to wonder if it really is as wonderful a thing as its proponents would have us believe. Granted, no other culture in history had mechanized travel or industry on the same level that we do, but that’s a matter of science. Homosexual “marriage” isn’t a matter of physics, or chemistry, or biology - it’s a matter of behavior.
For one thing, the US Federal government does not recognize Civil Unions so they are excluded from Federal benefits.What is the legal difference between ‘civil union’ and ‘marriage?’
That doesn’t answer my question. I asked the question to someone who seemed to be advocating same sex civil unions but not same sex marriages; and assuming that became law:For one thing, the US Federal government does not recognize Civil Unions so they are excluded from Federal benefits.
What is the legal difference between ‘civil union’ and ‘marriage?’
Correct and sometimes people even get married on the beach by a religious person. I know of an Episcopal priest who married a couple on the beach on a Christmas morning with the bride wearing leather and the wedding party showing up on motorcycles.Because marriage is not always linked with religion.
Millions of people do not follow a religion and when they get married, they do it civilly…in a courthouse, on a beach, skydiving–whatever. Not in a church or temple, etc.
But you probably already know that.
For religious people, it is a religious institution. For others, it is a governmental one.
Legal criteria recognising either as existing i.e. a duly signed document in the former and sexual consummation in the latter and the respective differences in grounds for dissolution and annulment.What is the legal difference between ‘civil union’ and ‘marriage?’
This isn’t about any given individual couple - it’s about the entire class of married couples. On average - as a class - married couples produce children, which is a direct benefit to the society and culture in which they live. Why else does the government provide additional incentives in the form of tax breaks for each child? The government doesn’t care one whit about “stability”, else no-fault divorce would not exist. As for equal protection, gay people have the exact same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as I do, and they would gain the exact same benefits as I would. This is not a civil-rights issue.That’s only true if benefiting society is is limited to raising children, and it’s not. Do you consider couples without children freeloaders? And same-sex marriage does benefit society. Stability is one quick example. Recognizing equal protection under law is another.
I was making the point that while science has advanced throughout human history, giving us several things which have never before existed (cell phones, cars, computers, etc.), the basic format of marriage - a union between opposite and complimentary sexes - has been the same throughout all of history as far as we can tell. Therefore, those who are pushing for the redefinition of something as basic and long-standing as marriage need to come up with a more compelling reason than “I want it”.So is a marriage between an opposite sex couple. Marriage is a social institution, no matter the genders. Your confusing reproduction, a biological process with marriage, a social institution.
That’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking what the practical difference between “civil unions” and “marriage” would be. From what I have come to understand, it’s the same as the difference between a Patagonian Toothfish and a Chilean Sea Bass. One sounds more attractive than the other, but they are still the exact same thing. Changing the label of something doesn’t change its nature.For one thing, the US Federal government does not recognize Civil Unions so they are excluded from Federal benefits.
Because the governments of men have always wanted to control the actions and sway the opinions of religious institutions. To have a powerful secular as well as influential religious arm.Why is this a government question? They are not a capable body to make such a definition. I think the government should get out of the marriage business and let competent bodies make the call. They can use another word for what same sex couples want to do. If you agree, consider signing the petition linked below.
wh.gov/UwiP
But having children is still not the be all and end all of marriage’s benefit to society. Dependent care tax credits are given if a dependent is being cared for, regardless of marital status of the person/people raising the child.If LGBT people and their allies were concerned about the civil right to marry a person on the opposite sex we wouldn’t this discussion. Don’t be ridiculous. Straight people have the right to marry the person they desire according to their sexual orientation. Gays and Lesbians do not.This isn’t about any given individual couple - it’s about the entire class of married couples. On average - as a class - married couples produce children, which is a direct benefit to the society and culture in which they live. Why else does the government provide additional incentives in the form of tax breaks for each child? The government doesn’t care one whit about “stability”, else no-fault divorce would not exist. As for equal protection, gay people have the exact same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as I do, and they would gain the exact same benefits as I would. This is not a civil-rights issue.
That’s only if marriage rests on opposite gender pairing. It doesn’t. It’s not a redefinition, it’s a correction.I was making the point that while science has advanced throughout human history, giving us several things which have never before existed (cell phones, cars, computers, etc.), the basic format of marriage - a union between opposite and complimentary sexes - has been the same throughout all of history as far as we can tell. Therefore, those who are pushing for the redefinition of something as basic and long-standing as marriage need to come up with a more compelling reason than “I want it”.
The government doesn’t - and shouldn’t - care one iota about “feelings” or “desire” beyond valid consent by both the man and woman. Where in the law does it state that “feelings” ever enter into the equation?But having children is still not the be all and end all of marriage’s benefit to society. Dependent care tax credits are given if a dependent is being cared for, regardless of marital status of the person/people raising the child.If LGBT people and their allies were concerned about the civil right to marry a person on the opposite sex we wouldn’t this discussion. Don’t be ridiculous. Straight people have the right to marry the person they desire according to their sexual orientation. Gays and Lesbians do not.
So, every human society throughout all of history - plus God Himself - got it wrong, and those pushing for same-sex “marriage” are the first ones ever to get it right?That’s only if marriage rests on opposite gender pairing. It doesn’t. It’s not a redefinition, it’s a correction.
Ahh, totalitarianism. The idea that the good of society trumps individual liberty. In a totalitarian society, individuals only receive those rights which help society. Luckily, we do not live in a totalitarian society. In a democratic society like the one in which we live, individuals have rights unless those rights ham society.The government doesn’t - and shouldn’t - care one iota about “feelings” or “desire” beyond valid consent by both the man and woman. Where in the law does it state that “feelings” ever enter into the equation?
My core point is that, even from a purely secular point of view, there is no reason for same-sex “marriage” (or civil unions, or whatever one chooses to call it) to be recognized by the government on the same level as marriage because marriage provides for the continuation of the workforce, society, culture, and species. Same-sex “marriage” does not. Therefore, there is justification for conferring benefits on marriage.
Same-sex “marriage” proponents have yet to produce a reason that doesn’t boil down to “I want it”.
Neither baptism or dunking change the babies legal status. Are you saying there would be no legal difference between civil unions and marriage?Marriage is a sacrament that has been around for thousands of years.
Civil unions are a legal document that have been around for dozens of years.
Asking what is the difference is like asking what is the difference between baptism and dunking a baby in water.
Acceppting deviant and disordered behavior and claiming it is normal, does in fact, harm socoety though. So Im glad you realize that. It shouldnt be made legal.Ahh, totalitarianism. The idea that the good of society trumps individual liberty. In a totalitarian society, individuals only receive those rights which help society. Luckily, we do not live in a totalitarian society. In a democratic society like the one in which we live, individuals have rights unless those rights ham society.
So your statement that same sex marriage (or civil unions) should only be allowed if they have a proven benefit to society is a irrelevant question in this society.
Letting people who don’t need to drive SUV’s and trucks doesn’t help society. It should be illegal.
Letting people choose the color of their car does not help society. It should be illegal.
Letting people drink soft drinks does not help society. Illegal.
Letting people decide where to live and work doesn’t help society, it causes traffic jams. Illegal.
Not once in the history of this country has a group been required to prove that giving them a freedom will benefit society before they are allowed to have that freedom. Why are you suggesting we start now?
On the contrary: people can already get most, if not all, of the rights and privileges associated with a civil union. So a contract which silly tires all those rights together shouldn’t be harmful to society, and doing so gives more individual liberty, so it should be allowed.
So, exactly how does same-sex “marriage” not harm society?Ahh, totalitarianism. The idea that the good of society trumps individual liberty. In a totalitarian society, individuals only receive those rights which help society. Luckily, we do not live in a totalitarian society. In a democratic society like the one in which we live, individuals have rights unless those rights ham society.
It’s completely relevant. See below.So your statement that same sex marriage (or civil unions) should only be allowed if they have a proven benefit to society is a irrelevant question in this society.
People who drive low-emission vehicles are eligible for a tax break. Are we therefore punishing SUV drivers?Letting people who don’t need to drive SUV’s and trucks doesn’t help society. It should be illegal.
Only three states don’t require auto insurance, and two of those require some form of bond or fee as an alternative. Several insurance companies charge more for a policy based on the color of the vehicle. Is this punishing those who like red?Letting people choose the color of their car does not help society. It should be illegal.
New York City has banned the sale of sugar sodas over 16oz in any restaurant. Is this punishing those who like Coke?Letting people drink soft drinks does not help society. Illegal.
If one owns a home, one gets a tax break for any interest paid on the mortgage. Are we punishing those who choose to rent by not extending a tax break to them? People who have cars pay multiple taxes on them (sales, gasoline, property tax, licensing fees…). Are they being punished because of their choice of transport?Letting people decide where to live and work doesn’t help society, it causes traffic jams. Illegal.
Really? All of those who fought for civil rights never presented any argument other than “We want it”?Not once in the history of this country has a group been required to prove that giving them a freedom will benefit society before they are allowed to have that freedom. Why are you suggesting we start now?
This isn’t about liberty at all. This is about people who want the benefits attached to an institution while ignoring the core basis of that institution.On the contrary: people can already get most, if not all, of the rights and privileges associated with a civil union. So a contract which silly tires all those rights together shouldn’t be harmful to society, and doing so gives more individual liberty, so it should be allowed.
First we would have to define “Alaska Resident” than maybe find out why they get the “benefit.” Then it would be clear that declaring ever other person in the in the world an “Alaska Resident” might be a legal fiction.As an analogy: Alaska pays a dividend to residents due to profits from the Alaska Pipeline. I would also like to receive this dividend. Is it a violation of my rights that I be required to move to Alaska to collect this benefit?