You’ve probably already heard this question a lot, but I’m just curious.
Personally I don’t have a problem with civil unions at the moment because America is moving toward redefining marriage to include gay people. I am willing to give it the time it needs to help everyone see that just because the government redefines marriage to include gay couples, it doesn’t mean straight couples are given anything less than what they already have.
No I would not.
What such an arrangement would cause in me is the question why. Why in society would we find a need to go out and create a new name for something that already has a name?
What in fact surprises me is that the men and women of the land are not in fact up in arms over the fact that they can NOT have a civil union. Its illegal for a mixed sex couple. Strange.
If you were forced into something called a civil union that had all of the benefits of marriage, but were told that it wasn’t a marriage would you be alright with it?
Personally, if a civil union has all the benefits of a marriage then I feel that it should simply be called marriage.
we could see if I rather have this authentic. You renowned that there are advantages that marriage has over residing at the same time. via different than a collection of human beings from such advantages makes it discrimination. you assert in simple terms human beings commencing a kin must be married. ok so if a pair marry and that they do no longer start up a kin are you asserting they could desire to return any economic earnings and their marriage must be canceled. don’t be distressed on the assumption of a western government been so chilly. Its already got here approximately. i individually recognize somebody who’s Hermaphrodite and upon the government right here in Australia figuring out this individual is in reality a woman, a letter arrived advising them that their before criminal marriage replaced into canceled.) As for our taxes. i encourage your pardon. I additionally pay taxes. I rather have finished so for the final 30 years. i are not getting a discounted tax fee inspite of me no longer making intense demands on the tax device. I in reality pay an greater fee of tax.
This discussion only exists because we are, for reasons beyond my comprehension, trying to compromise with idiots who believe the word ":marriage": is somehow their copyrighted property.
And to that I say thanks but no thanks.
Really, HOW can people be okay with the idea that if I want to spend the rest of my life with person X, I marry him, but if I want to spend the rest of my life with person Y, I enter into a civil union with her? How can anyone accept the utter idiocy of using a different name just because some religious nutcase has decided some unions are unworthy of the term ":marriage":?
Personally no. Its a mater of Duty at that point, they are still making a statement by saying that our love is different and deserves something different. Even if it all was the same, the title and what is stands for isn’t.
No, we won’t. Because you see should we do that, it would give our very aggressive opponents the ability to ban it through legislation, because of that different name.
Calling it marriage would make doing such a thing far more difficult.
Congratulations! You have successfully re-invented Apartheid!
Now think for a minute how well that worked out for the South African Government. Think hard.
Right. Got any more straw-man arguments you want to have knocked down?
If it is the same thing than why would there be any need to call it something different other than to imply that it is not the same thing? It is discrimination. There is no such thing as separate but equal.
*gets down on one knee* will you civilly unite with me? Then maybe later we can watch ":Me Best Friend’s Civil Union": together?