Let's have a poll on Civil Unions
"Should we move legal definition to Civil Unions and relegate the definition of marriage to Religion? (By "Religion", I am referring to all religions) |
|
|
| i actually think everyone should be allowed to get 'married,' but if we want to call it civil unions instead.. im fine with that! |
| well, I know in California you have to get licensed by the state to get married, you don't NEED the church part of it, so really, it's all in a name when you are discussing marriage vs civil union (when it comes to traditional). I got licensed and then got the priest to perform the ceremony (whereas a judge could do the same thing, or sea captain--I always liked that one!)...so I think if the name was changed away from marriage when it comes to controversial couplings, then maybe it wouldn't create quite as much of a stir (it's hard for people to break tradition)... |
| If we're still talking so two people of the same sex can get married and have the same benefits, I would still vote no.
Yes, there is a seperation of church and state, but that doesn't mean an individual must keep their religious biases out of the voting process. The seperation of church and state isn't intended to control the people in such a way, but to keep the government in check. ...so to me the necessary responses to answer this question are... Should the union of homosexual couples be considered marriage? ..and should the state recognize homosexual couples as civil unions? I would still say no to both. The answer to the first is obvious, or at least it is obvious to me. The answer to the second isn't so obvious. Yes, religious bias comes into play, but it is also a political bias. Allowing homosexual civil unions sets a precedent for other things. Religious affliations would fall under this rule as well...thus they would be "breaking the law" if they denied employment to homosexuals. By doing so, in my opinion, the state is crossing the line on the seperation of church and state which I don't agree with. So I wouldn't vote in a way that would allow it. |
Joahaeyo wrote: Allowing homosexual civil unions sets a precedent for other things such as not allowing employers to deny employment to those because of their sexual preference. Religious affliations would fall under this rule as well...thus they would be "breaking the law" if they denied employment to homosexuals. By doing so, in my opinion, the state is crossing the line on the seperation of church and state which I don't agree with. So I wouldn't vote in a way that would allow it.
Isn't it currently illegal to bar employment based on religion, race, thnic origin, sexual orientation? Doesn't that fall under the equal employment opportunity act? Not that it doesn't happen, but if an employer gets caught denying employment and it can be proved that sexual orientation alone was the reason, they can get in a boat load of trouble... |
| Sexual orientation is not a protected classification on the federal level at this time. It is a protected classification in several states. I don't even think half of the states protect hiring/firing individuals based on sexual orientation. It is not protected in the state I am from or live in now. |
| Human rights are human rights, no matter what their sexual orientation, religion, race etc....
If two people want to form a union based on whatever they want to base it on, that is their right. If forming that union means depending on each other (as humans we all depend on each other) then when one of those two people dies, or leaves that union, the other needs to be protected IMO It is a matter of survival for some, a matter of only material things to others, and a matter of dignity as well. |
| My vote goes to man and woman only marriages, and IS based on my belief in God and in His Word.
What happens if its Civil Union or whatever you call it, and these two people happen to be related? Is this acceptable? Or, when will it be? JMPO |
mouthypf wrote: What happens if its Civil Union or whatever you call it, and these two people happen to be related? Ahhhh! Great question! I hadn't hought about that! |
mouthypf wrote: My vote goes to man and woman only marriages, and IS based on my belief in God and in His Word.
What happens if its Civil Union or whatever you call it, and these two people happen to be related? Is this acceptable? Or, when will it be? JMPO Can't relatives already marry though? I mean, not siblings, but I remember a show on Dateline, 60 minutes, one of those news shows a couple of years ago where they did a segment on first cousins marrying. I was surprised how many there were! |
| Maybe I am being slow here, but what reason, other than religious
beliefs, would someone base an opinion of NOT allowing non-traditional marriages? I am thinking here, and I can't come up with any other reasons. Every single one I think of goes back to religion. Enlighten me please... Shellie |
| OK, Devil's advocate role engaged:
How about "I think it's best for society to foster and promote mixed couple relationships as societal role models for the youth. I believe it provides a more stable environment, a natural example and is more likely to provide children with a balanced upbringing, free from torment and redicule due to having a family situation that is out of the norm." /Devil's advocate off. |
| I guess I didn't write in the last post that fear would be a reason for
not allowing non-traditional marriages. Of course most of those fears are totally foundless, and irrational - but I guess some would believe them. "Societal role models" implies that non-traditional role models perpetuate non-traditional youth. Not true, obviously. "Stable" would imply that non-traditional is not stable, also no true. (and as for traditional marriages being more stable, well... not really true either when you think of the divorce rate) "Natural example" would imply that non-traditional is not natural - now I realize some believe that one, but really... it isn't a choice, it really isn't. If you are made that way, isn't that 'natural'? As for the ridicule and torment, that is just wrong anyway. I wish there was a way to prevent kids from torment, of any flavor. Weight issues, large ears, funny hair, out of style clothes... most kids get some sort of torment along the way. Not much to do to avoid it. Just playing along! (but IMO, fears like these are just silly  )
Shellie |
Shellie wrote: Maybe I am being slow here, but what reason, other than religious beliefs, would someone base an opinion of NOT allowing non-traditional marriages? I am thinking here, and I can't come up with any other reasons. Every single one I think of goes back to religion.
Enlighten me please.........Shellie I can't leave God out of it, but for this post I will. Say 50-100 years from now the majority have chosen to be homosexual. They pair up and have their civil union. You now have a world of people in a union that can't naturaly have children. So will the majority of the children come from test tubes, or will there be multitudes of people making arrangements with other gay couples to have and swap babies? If you're married (or unioned) you're suppose to remain faithful. If not, then why have a ceremony? (I know not everyone does.) Even in the animal world the biggest male fights for the right to reproduce with the females in that species. The others submit to his victory and the population increases. Some animals (male/female) mate and stay together for life. But, the partner they stay with is of the opposite sex. Your post made me stop and think, so I was just looking for a little enlightenment myself. LOL May be far stretched, but....what if???? After all, they say if you can't beat em', join em, and if the kids are brought up in that environment, it'll be what they're accustomed to so what will become of the traditional marriage, the one with God included? jmop |
| Well, as I said before, it is NOT a choice to be gay.
There have been gay people since the beginning of time, and it has obviously not cut down the human population enough to measure. Seriously, you cannot MAKE someone gay. That isn't even just a little far fetched - that is way out there. After all, gay adults, more often than not, come from hetero parents. So the argument that "what they are accustomed to" is invalid. 50-100 years from now it still won't be a choice to be gay. The majority being gay - also not gonna happen. Have no fear, the human race is not going to die out because there aren't enough hetero people. I do not believe we have a right to impose religious beliefs on anyone's sexual (or otherwise) orientation. ((You might just be surprised at how many people take marriage vows and don't remain faithful. Many many do cheat, some would say as many as half. I don't have the stats right here. I do know that my son is one of the only kids in his class that lives with both parents. Almost every one of my friends or family who has been divorced - now that I think of it- has been a result of one or the other cheating. )) I think that marriage/civil union should be a true commitment. Some do not take it as seriously as is necessary to make it work. My point is, marriage in general is in a pretty say state right now. Some say to keep it sacred between a man and woman and not allow same sex marriage. When people marry and divorce or cheat in record numbers haven't we already tarnished the sacredness and holyness of marriage? Seems half a bubble off to me. Shellie |
| Just to reiterate what Shellie said. People do not choose to be gay. I definitely feel that gay couples should be entitled to the same legal rights as any heterosexual married couple.
mouthypf wrote: I can't leave God out of it, but for this post I will. Say 50-100 years from now the majority have chosen to be homosexual. They pair up and have their civil union. You now have a world of people in a union that can't naturaly have children. So will the majority of the children come from test tubes, or will there be multitudes of people making arrangements with other gay couples to have and swap babies? If you're married (or unioned) you're suppose to remain faithful. If not, then why have a ceremony? (I know not everyone does.)
Even in the animal world the biggest male fights for the right to reproduce with the females in that species. The others submit to his victory and the population increases. Some animals (male/female) mate and stay together for life. But, the partner they stay with is of the opposite sex. Your post made me stop and think, so I was just looking for a little enlightenment myself. LOL May be far stretched, but....what if???? After all, they say if you can't beat em', join em, and if the kids are brought up in that environment, it'll be what they're accustomed to so what will become of the traditional marriage, the one with God included? jmop When you refer to a traditional marriage and you say "God's" eyes, I'm are you referring to a god of your faith only? What about all of the other religions and traditions in our and other countries? I really do have a hard time understanding why so many people in this world do not accept different religious beliefs. If there were no religion in this world, would we still have wars? Maybe, maybe not. But it seems as throughout history, wars have been started for not accepting people for who they are, whether it's due to a cast system, religious beliefs, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Stereotypes are formed and hatred ensues. The bottom line is that not having acceptance & compassion towards a fellow human being just fuels the hatred in the world. So why not try to live with love & peace in your heart? It can start with a random act of kindness to someone you may never have associated yourself with before...and watch it blossom. |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|