Replies

ignoring the fact that these civil unions are marriage.

Actually, they're not. Marriage is an institution created by God (religious authority). Civil unions are an institution of the state (secular authority). The problem is that we have devalued marriage until it seems no more than a civil union. But the solution is not to devalue it further.

My suggestion is that we limit marriage to that of a union of a man and a woman blessed by God (and performed as a religious ceremony), and call all the secular 'things' civil unions. In essence, everyone who is 'married' (always one man and one woman) would also need a 'civil union' license to replace the current 'marriage' license (grandfathered in for those who already have a marriage license). Those who do not qualify for the religious institution of marriage could just get the 'civil union' license.

I think it devalues the marriage relationship to have any sexual relation outside of marriage - or even to lust after someone other than your spouse. That includes the James Bond type of heterosexual promiscuity, serial adultery of people who 'marry' and divorce repeatedly, cohabitation, and all the rest. Homosexuality is just another of those wrongs.

Yet, as a nation founded on the idea of religious freedom, I can't see why secular government 'benefits' should be limited based on a carry-over from a religious institution. If two (or more) consenting adults want to enter into a committed relationship, then I'd need to seem some secular harm before I'd preclude it. Casual marriage that drops kids on society from broken homes, or casual promiscuity that drops kids on society who never knew they fathers does at least as much secular harm. Of course, I don't think the secular government should be in the business of providing benefits for that sort of thing either. Benefits (tax, inheritance, whatever) should be focused on children, not on the adults. And the lack of a penalty (such as inheritance taxes) should be addressed by getting rid of that redundant taxation for everyone.

Actually, they're not. Marriage is an institution created by God (religious authority). Civil unions are an institution of the state (secular authority).

Based on this, I would think Americans would be for chucking the state's involvement entirely (as someone else just suggested above your post). But I don't hear them saying that. Maybe that is what I'm missing.

I do believe the only reason that the civil institution exists is because of the religious institution. But I also believe there is a civil reason to maintain it. Therefore I would argue against civil unions and marriage for homosexuals.

I guess I would agree with you if that's what I heard the candidates and polls saying. And maybe they are but I just missed it.

Oh, and I agree with you 100% on the heterosexuals destroying marriage long before the homosexuals asked for the "right."

Shalom.

Marriage as a state institution exists to provide for the future of society. It is in society's best interest to encourage, even subsidize, marriage as that is the absolute best environement to raise children.

Children of course are the next generation of the society, without them the society fails (see shakers). It is the duty of any society to provide itself the best next generation (yet another reason why palestinians will never amount to much, they sacrifice their future)

Only a union of a man married to a woman is the best environment for raising children.

A 'homosexual' union cannot produce children and is a harmful environment for children. Therefore it should never be encouraged or even allowed

A union of a man and a woman who are sterile would still serve as an excellent enviornment for children if they choose to adopt. This makes them worthy of subsidy.

Argee, The only reason for someone to support 'civil unions but not 'homosexual marriage' is that they are lying to themselves. They are 'homosexual' enablers but don't want to admit it.

We've gotten so wussy about offending people and treating others nicely that we are afraid to stand up and say "I don't care who you want to sleep with, It's not a marriage unless its a man and a woman" so we try to mollify our bruised sense of political correctness by supporting 'civil unions'