If marriage is a religious institution, than I believe a church should have the option to marry and not marry, who they choose.
However, if two consenting adults want to enter into a partnership recognized by the government...call it union, or marriage, whatever...in order to have the same rights and priviledges as heterosexual married couples, why does this concern you? Homosexual couples pay equal, if not more, in taxes than heterosexual couples, so shouldn't they be granted the same right to marry/partnership with the person they love?
What would be wrong with having a civil marriage recognized by the government for all...and a religious marriage which is left up to the church to decide?
Wouldn't this be the humane compromise?
Your thoughts?
2007-06-26 09:25:46 · 21 answers · asked by G.C. 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
the purpose of a union would be to insure that a person could visit their partner in intensive care in the hospital...provide long-term care for the partner, make decisions on their behalf, and have inheritance rights, etc... all legal rights automatically granted to heterosexually married couples.
The homosexual couple cannot obtain such rights without costly legal assistance and many times the courts will not uphold such rights because they couple are unmarried, unrelated persons.
2007-06-26 09:28:00 · update #1
I would support civil unions, not only for gays but for others. Maybe 2 widowed women who dont intend on marrying again, they can legally support eachother and neither can leave the other high and dry. Maybe some college friends buy a home together etc... I think we should be able to say who we want on our insurance, who our next of kin is and so forth. This should be a right for everyone, not only gays.
2007-06-26 09:31:57 · answer #1 · answered by impossble_dream 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. Allowing homosexuals to marry reinforces the idea that they can actually be a couple and cheapens the idea of marriage completely. (You can call it a union if you want but everyone knows its the same thing). When you cheapen the idea of marriage it affects the psyche of the population in general, and divorce rates go up.
Furthermore, there are benefits to being married, which encourage marriage. If those same benefits are offered to homosexual couples they will also be encouraged to marry, and not produce any benefits in return (in the form of new members to society).
Also, for the record, I am not homophobic. In fact I have several gay friends. Homosexuals were created by God, just like everyone else, and should be treated with dignity and respect just like everyone else. Nevertheless, homosexuality is a disorder, and therefore "homosexual marriage" should not be equated to anything close to heterosexual marriage.
I'm sure everyone will give me a thumbs up for this one ;)
2007-06-26 09:36:49 · answer #2 · answered by Thom 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If you've ever been married you'll notice that the courthouse gives you your marriage license, not a church. I feel that civil unions don't offer the protection that marriages do and I also feel that their marriages are just as sacred. I feel that a church has a right to decide if they want to marry people but people married by a Justice of the Peace are still considered married.
2007-06-26 09:32:57 · answer #3 · answered by Yogini 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I wholeheartedly support same-sex MARRIAGE. The people who are playing games with semantics in order to protect the so-called "sanctity of marriage" are trying to hide their homophobia under a PC hat.
If they receive the same rights and privileges as other married couples, then call it marriage. Don't call it "civil union" or any other stupid term to differentiate it from "real" marriage.
"Separate but equal" didn't work for the blacks in the 60s. It won't work now.
A church has the right to decline to marry a gay couple in its confines. A church does NOT have the right to deny a gay couple the legal institution of marriage.
2007-06-26 09:31:28 · answer #4 · answered by Nandina (Bunny Slipper Goddess) 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sure, but in that case both heterosexual and homosexual couples should have civil unions according to the state. Religious institutions could do whatever they believe is appropriate.
2007-06-26 09:31:43 · answer #5 · answered by Let Me Think 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Most states will opt for civil unions,which safeguard the assets of a deceased partner from plunder by relatives and ensure access to survivor's benefits by a life- partner.
2007-06-26 09:30:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I support civil unions for all couples capable of consenting, regardless of their gender distribution.
However, if churches marriages are to be granted the status of a civil union, then all churches must have that right.
2007-06-26 09:34:24 · answer #7 · answered by LabGrrl 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Um hello this has already been done in all of CANADA and many states????? Really just ask someone it is civil union
2007-06-26 09:29:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont think there should be any compromise with the church. Civil unions should be allowed. Period.
2007-06-26 09:28:16 · answer #9 · answered by ♨UFO♨ 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why is there a need to compromise? Allow them to get married if they want. What's the big deal here?
2007-06-26 09:31:20 · answer #10 · answered by Don W 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋