What Civil Rights Afforded Married Couples Should Be Extended to "Alternate" Types of Couples Anyway?

[Elizium23]

Please specifically quote such instruction. TYIA

USCCB FAQ on marriage and family
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.

 

[edwest2]

I’m sorry, I just don’t get it.

Now we have prominent Church members stating that though we mustn’t recognize homosexual unions or cohabitating couples as married, there might be ways of legally protecting their “civil rights.” Precisely what civil rights? To me, these folks should individually have the same civil rights as any single people, and no more.

Yes, partly because I’m a single celibate person and nobody’s going out of their way to see that I get special treatment. But really! Just because you shack up, suddenly you have a set of “rights” that did not exist before?!

I don’t buy it. :nope:

I don’t buy it either. There’s welfare fraud already and just because two people live together, they a have a “right” to a handout? Definitely not.

Peace,
Ed