Gay marriage v. Civil Union?

Question

Is there a difference? Should one or the other be legalized?

Answer 1

Marriage should be between one man and one woman.

Liasions and relationships can be between any sex (as in male/male or female/female).

Definitions:

civil union
n.
A legal union of a same-sex couple, sanctioned by a civil authority.


mar·riage (măr'ĭj)
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Answer 2

I believe that gay and lesbian couples should be allowed a civil union. Certainly this would help in case of a medical emergency, insurance, filing joint taxes and the traditional benefits married couples receive concerning legal issues.i.e., property etc. I also think that the same couples should be subject to the same issues other couples face in the event of a divorce,

Answer 3

Civil unions for all couples married by a justice of the peace, and marriage for those wedded in a church. That makes the most sense to me.

Answer 4

A civil union would encompass everything. I've known son's that have adopted their parents, siblings that have gone into legal partnerships for business reasons. We need a one size fits all contract. In my book marriage should be a religious event much like baptisms.

Answer 5

There seems to be a rhetorical difference, in that many more people take offense at one than at the other.

A common argument against both claims that there is data showing that children are better off if they are exposed to adult role models of both genders. This seems to me to be sloppy reasoning, because the proposed solution (prohibiting any form of same-sex union with legal privileges similar to marriage) simply guarantees that children being raised by same-sex couples are placed at risk by denying the government support offered to children being raised by married couples. If the welfare of the children is the important point, then let us see that it is protected, which would be better done by allowing similar privileges to same-sex couples (at least if they are raising children).

In fact, I don't see any valid reason for government to be involved in recognizing marriages at all, except for the purpose of helping protect family stability. That should not depend on government picking and choosing whom we consider family. Why should government allow me to choose my own next of kin, and deny that right to someone else?

We seem to have a lot of people talking about "traditional marriage." They miss the point: the same-sex couples seeking this right are asking precisely for traditional marriage; they want what most of us already enjoy. Many of these couples have been in steady relationships for longer than a lot of Presidential candidates have been married to their current spouses, and therefore have a better claim on traditional marriage.

Not too long ago in parts of the U.S.A., families could not be headed by a couple who came from different "races" (despite the difficulty of defining the term). Doubtless those who opposed interracial marriages were defending their concept as "traditional marriage," too.

Politically, civil unions seem to be the safer choice in that they cause less nasty opposition. However, if a couple in a civil union chose to regard themselves as "married" or refer to each other as husband, wife, or spouse, I would see no reason not to accept their own definition of the relationship, whatever the government papers say.

Answer 6

Marriages should be for all races, sexes, religions ertc. get over your ingorant old ways.(To person who answered first)