Christians: If you are against gay "marriage", would you instead support....?

Question

....A civil union system where coupled gays are granted ALL the rights and privileges of married people, but they just aren't "called" married people?

To mutilate an old saying, would a rose by another name have fewer thorns pricking at you? I ask because a lot of you say that the problem you have with gay "marriage" is that it's an insult to your own "marriage". But if none of you have civil unions, then maybe there's no objection that that?

Answer 1

*sigh* Yeah... would they sit them at the back of the bus and tell them to be happy with their place so long as they're ON the bus at all?

I'm sure no matter what they do, it'll all come down to how they feel about homosexuals RELIGIOUSLY. They don't give a CRAP that their faith and their "deity" has NO place in secular legislation. They may have some "moral objection" but the U.S.A. is NOT in the business of legislating based solely on morality.

Without moral dissaproval, their opposition crumbles. There is NO expectation of ability to procreate in marriage law so same sex couples cannot be held to a higher standard. The slippery slope argument is nothing but a worthless logical fallacy. The "mental illness" argument is bunk on more than one level (homosexuality ISN'T a mental illness and even if it was, people who are psychologically disordered marry every day). The "against nature" bit doesn't hold up because marriage doesn't exist to preserve the notion of "natural". Homosexuality isn't A CRIME and whether people think it's "unnatural" is irrelevant. THAT opinion is neither expert nor rational.

Answer 2

Well I understand why some take offense to the term "marriage" but I myself don't have a problem with any consenting adults spending their lives together. However I do wish that the "marriage benefits" that the gays want so much would be extended to any one in a long term "relationship" even if its not of a romantic nature. I think if a couple high school friends end up living together because neither has found someone they want to settle down with, or maybe a couple of widows share house because they don't want to remarry, then they should also have such benefits. Say maybe, if you share life expenses with anyone for longer than 2 years then you can have all the legal benefits of marriage. Also, make it more like a divorce if you happen to split, whereas no one is left with nothing and property is divided.

Answer 3

Apparently what Christians are for or against isn't taken into account, at least here in Canada. Gay marriages have already been recognized by some of the provinces; so that would mean that all of the rest of the rights and privileges automatically go along with.

Personally, I stand on the Word of God and what God says about marriage and homosexuality.

Answer 4

We have had gay marriage/civil union in the UK since December 2005 and it has not affected my life or the country so i don't see what the problem is with this.

Some religious groups have tried to stop another new law that would make it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals in work, services, hotels ext. They failed and the law comes into force in April, and was introduced in northern ireland on Jan 1st.

What is the big problem in USA? Its the 21st century now, and everyone has a right to be happy, and live their lives as they wish as long as its not harming other people.

Answer 5

I'm not homosexual but I would rather have a civil union than a marriage. I don't want any part of their precious little religious ceremony, and I don't think that the government should even recognize their godly marriages.

Xians should be forced to have civil unions if they want the relationship to be legally recognized.

The law should have no religious bias.

Answer 6

I don't recall anything in the Bible saying that married people should pay lower taxes, or that only married people should have joint health care benefits, or that only married people should have death benefits. All of those things are man's creations.

Just because we could call two gay people "married" doesn't mean that churches would have to perform every marriage. I'm Lutheran, but I can't walk into a Catholic church and demand to be married. They only marry Catholic people. I have no problem with this.

The anti-gay marriage people are absolutely biased and bigoted, but they are unable to see it due to long-embedded societal values that are biased and bigoted. Unfortunate.

Answer 7

Did you know that every "civilization" that embraced the homosexual lifestyle died from within? They became corrupt, there were no mores, and they lost the will to maintain their status. Pleasure ruled.

All you need do is look at world history. While homosexuality may not have been the primary factor, it was a common factor. The Assyrians, Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, and so forth. All of the "great" civilizations died shortly after homosexual practice became public and commonplace.

Answer 8

I wouldn't support it, but I wouldn't oppose it either. If that's the direction society wants to go, that's society's choice and it wouldn't affect me at all. I do see the validity of keeping it separate from "marriage" even if in name only, as it would be a re-defining of something that affects many people.

Thank you for an interesting question. I've often wondered this same thing.

Answer 9

Yeah, I have no problem with it if they call it a civil union, and get those visiting and tax rights. For me, it really is about just preserving a definition of a word.

Answer 10

Would not support either way it's wrong and that's all there is to it. our young are growing up and being told that it is alright to be a homosexual or a lesbian, and that's not a good thing for society, we are becoming a malignant morally decaying society that will fall one day, mankind really needs to clean up it's act if he wants to move into the future.