Who believes that marriage should be replaced with civil unions?

Question

This would apply to everyone, not just gays. After all the divorce rate is over 50%, why not just get rid of marriage and go with jusst civil unions?

Answer 1

You're absolutely right! Let marriage be the domain of the church. As for the government...every citizen should be allowed to designate one person...whom ever they choose ...as a legal civil partner.

Answer 2

Because there are just some words that are to beautiful to get rid of marriage is one of them, so is mother, father, family,and baby. Marriage is the way of saying a union between two people in love, gay or straight. I happen to be a gay woman and when the time comes, I don't want a union, I can get that with a live in lover. I want to be married, and I want it called a MARRIAGE.

Answer 3

maybe there should be marriage AND civil unions. then people could go from bf/gf to civil union and then to marriage. make it like a stepping stone to marriage. divorce rate would sure go down and people who have been dating for forever and don't know what else to do besides get married can just do a civil union! ;) ofcourse then a bunch of laws would have to be passed to determine what exactly defines a civil union and all that but i don't think it would be that hard....

Answer 4

I think it's a great idea! If people want to get married in their individual religions, then that should be enough. Anything done by the government should have less to do with religion and include everyone. Civil Unions are a great way to do it.

Answer 5

Marriage is a holy institution, instituted by God!...cannot be replaced. Civil unions and marriages cannot be put together. They are two very different things! The choice is up to individuals as to which one they would like to engage in.

Answer 6

Why does it need to be replaced those that want to be married get married & those that want a civil union get a civil union. These are to different things.
Marriage is based on our beliefs.
Civil Union is a paper.

Answer 7

Hmmm. How to address this? They are basically the same thing. Kinda like stewardess and flight attendant. No offense to any out there.

But here's utopian way of thinking of where this concept is going:

1. All "qualified" women will be treated like heffers and breeding chambers. Before you ladies think this might be a blessing, we do this today with chickens and cows (how do you think they keep producing milk and eggs?)

2. All "qualified" men will be put out to stud. BTW, before you guys get all aroused by this idea, it doesn't mean getting to get your swerve on with every heffer. Coming from a college with a big agriculture and animal husbandry program, that also means getting a cattle prod on your twig and berries to harvest your man-juice for later "opportunities" based on the heffer's cycle.

3. All offspring will be tagged as "qualified" and "unqualified" and be divided accordingly. All "qualified" will continue the vicious cycle while the "unqualified" ... well ... we just won't go there.

So when I ponder this question, I can't help but to ask how and why we as a society have even arrived to this.

'nuff said. A peaceful journey to you all.

Answer 8

Marriage as it stands is between 2 people of the opposite sex to procreate. It originated in the church as a church ruling.
Civil unions are a community commitment and nothing to do with the church.
My opinion is that whatever a pair decides is their business and not the churches.
Maybe more 'marriages' could be saved if the laws were relaxed.

Answer 9

Animals act in that way too: they have kind of a civil union, then find a different spouse.

Answer 10

Wow, that is an idea.

I believe the problem with that would be that women would ultimately be responsible for children when the couple broke up.

This would cause huge financial problems thus eliminating more women from the work force.

That would not be fair since both were part of the birth of the child or children.