Should gays be allowed civil unions?

Question

Not marriages, civil unions? The argument being freedom and equality for ALL. And if not, could you tell me why? or how it might affect heterosexual couples?

justforfun, that is the most hilarious thing I have ever read on here! Heterosexuals = good parents. homosexuals = bad parents. LMAO! Anyhow, that wasn't the question, but thanks for the laugh!

Answer 1

As a gay man, I'll take any improvement I can get. I'll crawl my way toward equality inch by inch. I have patience.

Answer 2

I think the people, acting through their legislatures, should decide, rather than courts. A court that overreaches to give people a result that they like can also overreach to give us something we don't - like Kelo (property takings). Does ANYONE seriously think that was rightly decided, legally speaking?

The argument against same-sex marriage (I'll get to civil unions in a moment) is that society has decided that, all things being equal, a child is best raised by its biological parents. So the union of one man and one woman is given special recognition, benefits and support. But no-fault divorce and single parenthood have already weakened the link between marriage and childbirth (for better or worse) - so one could either argue that this is no different, or that we shouldn't make a bad situation worse, if you accept the "childrearing" argument. And of course we let people stay married who don't have kids, although infertility used to be grounds for divorce back when divorces were hard to get. Times change!

I don't think an analogy to interracial marriage, which some mention, is apt. I think the issue here is not straight and gay, but men and women. They are equal in the eyes of the law (and should be!), but not identical or interchangeable. They're a matched set! We still have barracks and restrooms "segregated" by sex, so there must be some validity to the law recognizing differences. Again, it goes back to the "what is best for the children" assumption, which some have disputed anyway.

I mention all this even though you didn't say marriage because I don't see much of a difference in substance - it's just a label. But many intelligent people (you included!) have valiantly tried to bridge the gap to accomodate those with religious objections.

I guess this issue affects people not intending to enter into same-sex unions the same as many issues stir up feelings in people who aren't directly involved. There's the issue of the use of state resources (a lot more pension and survivor benefits money, and group insurance coverage) and also, rightly or wrongly, the "not in my name" idea - people want a voice in the kind of society they are living in. It would not affect me directly if my neighbors were a same-sex couple, or a polygamous family. But somehow we feel it affects society as a whole.

So what do I think? I think we need a top-to bottom review of our "family" policy. Maybe the "old" concept of marriage should be junked - or maybe strengthened!!! Maybe we should have gay civil unions. Maybe other arrangements deserve state recognition as well. (I admit to an uncomfortable feeling when I think about state recognition for gay unions, for whatever reason, right or wrong. That's my problem; maybe I will change. Maybe the Cheneys felt as I did before their daughter got hitched!) Maybe we should let everyone pick one other person (or more than one?) - no matter who - to be their "buddy" and they will both be responsible for each other. Sex or not. Being alone is one of people's deepest fears, with good reason. Kurt Vonnegut's crazy book Slapstick touched on this, some. We have to answer the question anew, "WHAT IS A FAMILY?" We need a national debate.

I know I'm rambling - all questions and no answers. Mostly, I answered because I wanted to wish you a very, very Merry Christmas, from a long-winded old fart. :)

Answer 3

Gays don't deserve any rights that equal to heterosexual couples, for they are living in sin. Homosexuality is the only SIN in the world that has a civil rights group, go figure?!?!

Leviticus 20:13 (KJ21, 21st Century King James Version)
13"`If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them.

Answer 4

Why not? We live in a Democratic country where everyone is equal to live as they please, right? With civil unions we actually go from the back of the bus to the middle. We have the right to visit one another in the hospital and file joint taxes but we are still denied all the federal protections of marriage.

We couldn't make emergency medical decisions for one another. I have been with my partner for two years and I would have no control if something happened to her!!

We wouldn't be able to take off work to care for our partner if they became seriously ill. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.

We wouldn't have right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means.

We would have no family-related social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.

We would have no right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.

These are only a few of the rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples. How is it fair that, in the land of the free, people still denied these benefits?? Studeis have proven that children raised by same sex couples are actually more likely to be compassionate and well adjusted. There is absolutely no reason why we are prohibited from marrying.

Answer 5

This wouldn't be a problem in the first place if the government had stayed out of the marriage business. Used to be that people were married if they said they were. Some churches would only recognize a marriage if a minister performed the ceremony.

How about if we go back to that system? Anyone who wants to could sign a contract with any other non-minor person with whatever terms they both agree to. Things like agreeing to share assets, take joint responsibility for children, etc. Then the governments only influence would be enforcing contracts. You, different churches, businesses, etc. could chose whether they wanted to recognize people as "married" by whatever criteria they wanted to.

Answer 6

I see no problem with civil unions. Legally, they would be able to protect each other under law financially and receive the benefits of a married couple. I also don't see a problem with them marrying. Those who bellow "the sanctity of marriage" don't seem to realize that it died with no-fault divorce. What's the sanctity of marriage when someone marries 2, 3 or 4 more times? And that's the norm now. First marriages are called "starter" marriages by some people.

Answer 7

Do you really want people with hormonal problems and gender issues raising Children . How can homosexuals properly raise a child when they themselves suffer with so many emotional and psychological problems .
I thought we valued kids a little more then that and did not just want to pass them off on any adult out there .
It is true that any woman can have a child ,but at some point we need to raise the children properly and if this means taking them from parents unable or fit to do the job so be it .
Allowing screwed up people the right to raise kids is just wrong and contributing to that problem by letting Gays adopt is like kicking a kid when he is on the ground already .
Loving nurturing and caring for a child is a lot more important than a fashion accessory to try and fit into main stream America .
Homosexuals are admittedly the way they are because of how the DNA mixed and mutated to make them who they are .Real men avoid dancing at parties when they are young because they get an erection while dancing close to girls .As they get older they learn how to control this to some extent .But if your man is not getting hard during a close intimate slow dance odds are is banging some guy on the side . So tell me again why we should let defective people raise kids .

Answer 8

Pushing religon aside, because that seems to be a deciding factor in EVERYTHING. Anyone should be allowed Marriage. F*ck civil unions. Thats just a contract. The option of getting married should be left to the couple and the church. We, the govrnmt, have NO buisness in the bedrooms of our citizens. And fi you really think about it, it does violate one of the most basic rights of our citizens. "The pursuit of happiness" Granted, this could go for rapiest, murders serial killers, but then again, these people are harming otehrs, and even by human nature, that is a crime. But if you are not hurting anyone, other than someones percious veiws on love, then go for it. That is what America is supposed to be about anyway...

but no, we have to be sooooooo PC and not hurt anyones feelings, that we ban anything that the popular think is absurd, instead of being fair and abiding by what our own consistution states.

So I fully support Gay marriage, anyone wanna fight about it, lets go buddy...

Answer 9

Civil Unions should be allowed only as a stepping stone to first class citizenship and the equal protection right of marriage.

Answer 10

How is a civil union equality? It is not. Only the exact same rights provide equal rights. Equal is equal. Substantially similar is not equal. The government should get out of the business of marriage and start working on problems instead of trying to impose their views of morality on the masses. Remember this when you vote. Hold them accountable.

Answer 11

Really, what difference does it make if they're male, female, or Michael Jackson? If they're in love with each other and care for each other they should have the right to the same things that people who are married have. They should be able to be miserable just like married people are.