Civil unions vs. Marriage

[revolutionist90]

I've been wondering about this and if this is safe to support. I believe homosexuality is a sin and homosexual marriage should not be legalized. I am beginning to think about civil unions for homosexuals. The word "marriage" is a religious term and would honestly be an insult because it is against nature/normalcy for two people of the same sex to marry under a holy union. It is not really anything holy about the joining of two couples so it should be a union instead of a marriage. If the president really wanted to get the same-sex thing going (I don't think he's not the most biblical person in office) then allow for the gays to have civil unions instead of marriage. I'm supporting but it seems to be the lesser of two evils if the gov really did go with the LGBT community. I think this would also somewhat negate the religious discrimination that is already happening (i.e people against gay marriage are getting fired) since the gay union would not hold a religious connotation. But is this safe to think? Should I be totally against any form of gay union or is this lesser of two evils type of thinking okay? Again I am not supporting just saying what I think would be the best compromise or outcome.

[Guest]

If we are not going make acts of homosexuality illegal, as I think they once were, then it seems to me that the govt as already sort given a stamp of approval to it (the relationship/act). I am not sure how I feel about that aspect really, but I am not wanting to encourage the govt to become the moral arbiter either. I believe that the word marriage, has a definition that involves opposite genders, and I personally would prefer to see it remain that way. Therefore, there can be no such thing as a homosexual marriage, it is a contradiction in terms. The idea of a civil union, gains all of the civil rights they beleive should be theirs. For the most part, I agree with those. If a company wants to give health care to a mans wife or a womans husband, then why shouldn't the unmarried have the same benefit. Here is your 'insurance for a significant other credit. This of course, should then be extended to singles, whether cohabitating or not. It is only "fair". But then, do we really need a domestic partner or civil union law, or just one that says treat everyone equally? Hospital visitation? Same thing, allow people to have a card in there wallet, that allows the specification of a few close individuals. These kinds of things to not really need a civil union statute. Maybe it is just easier, but why limit it to gay people and discriminate against heterosexual couples who are also living in sin. My concern is over the battle for the word marriage. If we allow civil unions, then the next battle will be of the discriminatory usage of the word marriage. If we allow that, then they have a small moral victory because it is implied that homosexual unions and married hetero sexual ones are the same thing, have equal moral status. In a secular mindset, maybe they do. However, the country is not secular, and not religious, it is homogenous and we make out society together. Sometimes, we cannot all have our way.

I am not a fan of slippery slope arguments, like if we allow this then what next - adult/child unions, human/animal unions? Sad thing is, that likely those would be next. I think it is fine to leave things alone. It has served most societies as a whole, well, for most of history. I am a big fan of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Providing laws for equal treatment without having to define new kinds of couples, is to me the solution with the least amount of pitfalls. I cannot, in good conscience, endorse anything that adds legitimacy to the sin of homosexuality. In my frame of mind, for me do to so is a sin itself. I am not a hater, I have a dear friend who is gay. He knows I am a Christian, he knows my position, That does not keep us from being good friends.

James 4:17 Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.

[Qnts2]

I believe government licenses marriages for legal reasons. Married couples have certain 'rights' such as a person not being required to incriminate their spouse. Tax deductions. Issue which give next of kin authority. etc.

I actually would not object to the government licensing civil unions for all couples. Let the religious institutions perform marriages, and authorize these marriages to qualify for license as civil unions for government purposes. Of course, there will be religious institutions which will perform marriages for couples who are not biblically able to marry.

The only question would be, if a Christian business owner does not wish to cater to a couple, as a couple, who are not biblically married, but the government recognizes the civil union, will that still be discrimination according to the law? The answer will likely be yes. And the reasoning to disallow different treatment of differing couples, will be things which were wrong, such as racial discrimination, Jim Crow laws, etc.

The easiest way out is to outlaw any marriage which is not biblical, but that heads down a very sticky road also. There are marriages which are outlawed in the OT, which many today would not dream of banning. (Jews can't marry non-Jews. Mamzers are children of biblically illegal unions and these children are restricted who they can marry. They can marry other mamzers. etc.)

Edited March 20, 2013 by Qnts2

[Tinky]

I don't support either. Why should they get special rights for choosing to live a perverted lifestyle?

What's next - special rights for polygamists? Pedophiles?

[AceDude]

Equal protection under the law.

[Guest]

... I am beginning to think about civil unions for homosexuals.

IMO All Unions (Same-Sex Or No) Sanctioned By The State Are Civil Unions

Civil That Is EXCEPT For Those Which Damn The Peoples And Mock The God Of Abraham, Isaac And Jacob

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV)

And The Only Hope For All Sinners Is Jesus Christ And Him Crucified

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

And Thus We Pray Save Now LORD

Save Now~! In Jesus' Name, Amen

May The LORD Bless All Hopeless Sinners

With The Knowledge Of His Mercy

And The Power Of His Grace

Love, Joe

[revolutionist90]

If we are not going make acts of homosexuality illegal, as I think they once were, then it seems to me that the govt as already sort given a stamp of approval to it (the relationship/act). I am not sure how I feel about that aspect really, but I am not wanting to encourage the govt to become the moral arbiter either. I believe that the word marriage, has a definition that involves opposite genders, and I personally would prefer to see it remain that way. Therefore, there can be no such thing as a homosexual marriage, it is a contradiction in terms. The idea of a civil union, gains all of the civil rights they beleive should be theirs. For the most part, I agree with those. If a company wants to give health care to a mans wife or a womans husband, then why shouldn't the unmarried have the same benefit. Here is your 'insurance for a significant other credit. This of course, should then be extended to singles, whether cohabitating or not. It is only "fair". But then, do we really need a domestic partner or civil union law, or just one that says treat everyone equally? Hospital visitation? Same thing, allow people to have a card in there wallet, that allows the specification of a few close individuals. These kinds of things to not really need a civil union statute. Maybe it is just easier, but why limit it to gay people and discriminate against heterosexual couples who are also living in sin. My concern is over the battle for the word marriage. If we allow civil unions, then the next battle will be of the discriminatory usage of the word marriage. If we allow that, then they have a small moral victory because it is implied that homosexual unions and married hetero sexual ones are the same thing, have equal moral status. In a secular mindset, maybe they do. However, the country is not secular, and not religious, it is homogenous and we make out society together. Sometimes, we cannot all have our way.

I am not a fan of slippery slope arguments, like if we allow this then what next - adult/child unions, human/animal unions? Sad thing is, that likely those would be next. I think it is fine to leave things alone. It has served most societies as a whole, well, for most of history. I am a big fan of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Providing laws for equal treatment without having to define new kinds of couples, is to me the solution with the least amount of pitfalls. I cannot, in good conscience, endorse anything that adds legitimacy to the sin of homosexuality. In my frame of mind, for me do to so is a sin itself. I am not a hater, I have a dear friend who is gay. He knows I am a Christian, he knows my position, That does not keep us from being good friends.

James 4:17 Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.

Yeah that's true. I feel uncomfortable thinking about that endorsing civil unions because I believe homosexuality is such a sin. I also have a strange feeling that if it is legalized their will be others who wish to have their own sins legalized. For example, there is a group called the Man/Boy love association who wishes to abolish child consent laws for marriage and identify themselves as homosexuals. The homosexual movement used to promote the association but then later on stopped due to obvious reasons. But I can see the association and others like incest and polygamy jumping up and crying "foul" because the homosexuals can get married but they cannot. I sometimes just don't understand all the publicity over gay marriage...

[revolutionist90]

The only question would be, if a Christian business owner does not wish to cater to a couple, as a couple, who are not biblically married, but the government recognizes the civil union, will that still be discrimination according to the law? The answer will likely be yes. And the reasoning to disallow different treatment of differing couples, will be things which were wrong, such as racial discrimination, Jim Crow laws, etc.

The easiest way out is to outlaw any marriage which is not biblical, but that heads down a very sticky road also. There are marriages which are outlawed in the OT, which many today would not dream of banning. (Jews can't marry non-Jews. Mamzers are children of biblically illegal unions and these children are restricted who they can marry. They can marry other mamzers. etc.)

But don't we live under the NT law and not the OT law? So while there are laws in the OT that are important for us to note the laws that have traveled from the OT into the NT (homosexuality, bestiality, sexual immorality) are the ones that Christians must abide by...which is why we can eat pork/shellfish. So while there are marriage bans in the OT what about in the NT- are the bans the same? Am I correct in this thought process?

[revolutionist90]

I don't support either. Why should they get special rights for choosing to live a perverted lifestyle?

What's next - special rights for polygamists? Pedophiles?

That is true. Also if it was legalized there would definitely be more discrimination against Christians in the work place. There is also a lack of understanding( or care) of why gay "marriage" can be so disrespectful to many Christians and how something like a union wouldn't be such a slap in the face like marriage. I have also thought about the condoning of pedophilia and polygamist rights. It does sound like a slippery slope.

[WIP]

I don't support either. Why should they get special rights for choosing to live a perverted lifestyle?

What's next - special rights for polygamists? Pedophiles?

I agree Tinky these preverted unions should NEVER be santioned by born again believers...they are disgusting and should be totally condemmed . To add to your what" next-special rights list" is " group marriage" and human to animal.

Come quickly Lord Jesus !!