Civil Unions

[Neopatriarch]

But on this topic marriage is available to all people equally already. Homosexuals are only 2-3% of the total population, they already have the right to put together a legal bundle which would approximate marriage, but it will never be marriage, civil unions are just a fake compromise and to gays credit they see it as just that.

Good point. Perhaps I've just been unclear on how to define a 'civil union'. Vermont Act 91, 2000 Session says,

[Marnie]

Vermont Act 91, 2000 Session says,

[Openly Curious]

Hello list,

The thread on homosexual friends has sparked me to ask what everyone thinks about civil unions.

I think most Christians will recognize that same-sex marriage and homosexuality are morally wrong. This much is a no-brainer. But what about civil unions? Some friends of mine have said they would be willing to get civil unions just for economic reasons, forget about homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Are civil unions okay?

Also, although we recognize that homosexuality is immoral, should there be a law against it since some people here say we are no longer under the law? Are far as I can tell, there is no civil legislation against homosexuality in the NT. In the OT we have Lev 18:22, but, if we are no longer under the law, the state would have no obligation to enforce it. So why not civil unions?

-Neopatriarch

Civil unions where not institued by God but marriage was. So civil unions are wrong and not ordained of God. Marriage is in the NT and taught it was from the beginning. Matthew 18 It is found in Romans 1 that homosexuality is wrong. Again civil unions are not ordained by God but marriage was ordained of God.

OC

[Neopatriarch]

Vermont Act 91, 2000 Session says,

[psalmone]

Recognizing that some people in society are yet to believe, I am sometimes moved with compassion for the young people whose future might seem a frustrating, daunting prospect with the deliberate confusing of values that they witness going on by foolish influnces who try to profit from corruption.

Though I believe that Christian marriage is what is correct, common law marriage or civil union might be an attempt toward commitment pending faith, where some might have felt the need to contextualize their lives at least agreeably with society.

I think of a non-credibility block for the unmarried that might need to be addressed mindful of the unbelief factor and if it wouldn't be worth acknowledging 'the life that is the light of all men' that was manifest in even the unjust steward(implying even the life-zealous unbeliever), and that God might be able to work with such? Because of 'the world overcoming factor' of the things of God can be 'a chasm apart' so to speak from what unbelievers can envision, it may be wise that some hope might be there that can at least aid movement, because unbeliever don't live by faith and need some realistic structure to even try for things.

The above is subject to validation. These were a few consideration that there might stir some issues with regard to what our children might be faced with.

Having said all that I believe Christian marriage and all the Biblebased teaching related to it is the correct way to go forward and that such substantiates the Kingdom vision.

The other alternative which I am for is to just preach the Word and let everyone relate to it according to their conviction. It would impacts the church world and the secular and political world on merit and I believe It is able and 'will not return void'

[Rick-Parker]

Sex outside of marrage is a sin. I would not support legislation legalizing civil unions. Marrige is between a man and a woman. I am opposed to any Constitutional amendment that would legitimize same sex marrage or civil unions. I have said before this that employee benefits should be available to domestic partners. Gay or not.

[psalmone]

I don't like to defend certain practices too excessively as the strength of the scripture is what it is. For accuracy's sake let us also remember that Christ 'nailed to the cross all the handwriting of ordinances that was against us' (COL 2:14), lest we be found unreasonable. I can't pay to be lacking in due grace. God Bless.

Edited February 6, 2008 by psalmone

[psalmone]

I am against civil unions not because of the gay issue but because of the many non-gay's who would use it as an excuse to not marry yet get some benefits of marriage. I think it would further weaken the importance and cultural stability of true lifelong marriage and hurt children in these "quasi" families with parents who are playing at real marriage. I mean what would you say to your kids?

[Marnie]

Wow, typo alert from my earlier post, 12. I meant to write that I AGREE with Smalcald's statements on marriage. Sorry my friend.

In reality, civil unions exist to give the same tax breaks to couples who are not married as couples who are. The real problem here is the moronic tax code we have. If we had either a flat tax or a consumption tax instead of a complicated system that forces us to deal with itemizing so as not to over pay, this whole issue would likely dissapear. We need to address this issue at it's core, which means doing away with the current progressive tax system with it's complicated system of deductions. What we don't need to do is have the government sanctioning gay marriage. I agree with you that it doesn't really do any harm to the institution of marriage, but I don't like the idea of the government sanctioning this perverted lifestyle.

I also agree with what you wrote, Butero. The tax code is moronic and punitive and civil unions would serve to eliminate some of that inequity. Look, I agree with your stance on civil unions to a point, but we have to live and operate within this system; so if we are stuck with it we need to find ways to work around it. Perhaps civil unions could accomplish this.

From this I gather you are defining a 'civil union' differently than Vermont Act 91. If a 'civil union' is non-sexual then that does indeed seem more innocuous than the kind of civil union that is equivalent to marriage since marriage is sexual. Nevertheless, this may come down to an issue of what rights, goods, services, etc. the state can legitimately provide to people in a 'civil union'. Personally, I believe in limited government.

First, I doubt there are too many people who are more pro-small government than I am.

Yes, there are actually different types of civil unions being discussed. Christians are unduly fixated on what goes on in the bedrooms of people who are in a civil union. I have already stated, tongue in cheek, that I am homophobic, but at the same time I really could care less what kind of sexual deviance, if any, they may or may not be engaged in since what they do in their own homes doesn't effect me. Now if their perversions spill over into my yard, I'll take appropriate action.

You say you are for a limited government, and I believe you. But government sanctions marriages. Government gives tax breaks to families. Insurance companies give breaks to married people. You may not like it, but if you are married you owe the good graces of the government big time because you pay less in taxes than a single person. So, as I said to Butero, we are stuck with a horrible system that is unfair to everybody and civil unions could even the playing field in terms of economics. Please understand, I am not some liberal here. Again, as I wrote earlier, what makes a marriage is not a piece of paper but a relationship condoned in G-d's eyes.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Civil Unions? I know of Heterosexual couples who have had them and then watched as they fell apart. I have no problem with Heterosexual couples having one, that said, I do not believe that God sanctions any Marriage outside of the confines of a Covenant and that this is just another answer to not entering into one.

As far as Homosexual Unions civil or otherwise? No Nation who sanctions such can long stand or remain blessed.

Peace,

Dave