Gay Civil Unions

For some reason, I can't see Jesus Christ supporting civil unions. For Him to support civil unions would say that homosexuality is okay. It would make The Bible irrelevant to our living.

 

Both the Old and New Testaments condemn the act of homosexuality

 

It should be up to the people of each state to vote for, or against.

 

Probably never occurred to Jesus that the government would regulate marriages for any reason.

 

I voted for the 4th option, because I don't support "gay" (if by "gay" you mean homosexual) marriage, union or any other euphemistic term you can use to describe a same sex relationship. It is also obvious that Christ opposed homosexuality in any form. That is if one believes the Bible and believes it is the inspired word of God. Why do we persist in referring to this perversion as "gay"?

 

In secular society there are going to be laws and customs that Christians are not going to agree with, has been that way for centuries.

Civil unions seem to be a way to give status to a relationship that enables the courts to deal with issues pertaining to property and children while at the same time maintaining a neutrality toward the moral or immoral status of the people involved in the relationship. I don't think that is necessarily a bad idea. Like heterosexual relationships, eventually a court will be involved whether at separation, divorce or death.

We live in a messy world and sometimes the solutions are less then what we would think would be ideal.

 

But the state allowing civil unions, for whatever reaons, puts a seal of approval on this type of union, whether the state means to do that or not.

And a civil union and same s*x marriage are a difference in name only.

If we allow civil unions for gay people, why not for polygamists? Or brothers and sisters who want to marry? Isn't it discrimination to not allow unions for everyone if we okay gay civil unions?

 

Oh, right. The Son of Almighty God had no idea of what would happen in the future on this earth.

 

I have to disagree with you on that point. This is one of the few exceptions that the federal government needs to take the lead on this issue. Federal law needs to prohibit homosexual marriage & civil unions. Ordinarily, I'd say the decision should be left to each state. I believe that if a couple is in a state that legalizes it, it shouldn't be valid in a state that outlaws it. To take care of this problem, the the feds should just keep it between a man & a woman & leave it at that.

What scares me is that we will have some liberal whether he's a Democrat or Republican to legalize it. The reason I included Republicans in my statement is beacuse sadly, the party is moving toward the left.

 

I would agree with you if the issue was marriage, and not civil unions. I see no reason to allow gay couples the same federal tax benefits (geared for the raising of children) that straight couples receive, and an definitely against gay couples being able to adopt.

Civil union is different. If I understand correctly, it would deal with estate dividing, last wishes, hospital permissions, etc..... That's why I would leave it up to each state.

 

I gotcha. I have always put them in the category. I just feel like if you allow one thing, then it will open the flood gates for other bad things to happen. But I understand your point, especially on dividing an estate.

 

I thought the O/P asked where I stood on them. No cop-out, here.

 

We as a society have the right to set limits or remove them and the Supreme Court has ruled that homosexuality cannot be made illegal, so we have to deal with like it or not. I don't know of anyone wanting to marry their dog, but I pretty sure there are already laws dealing with that type of behavior, same thing for brothers and sisters. I can think of real reasons for stopping that type of behavior and none of them are "I just think it's icky and gross"

When you run to the marry the dog argument you look as one lacking the intellectual depth necessary to discuss this topic, I don't think that is the case but the your argument says otherwise.

There isn't any real reason to prohibit homosexuality or civil unions in a secular society.