|
sprtslvr1973
|
 |
« on: August 03, 2012, 06:23:22 AM » |
|
Anyone have a good understanding of the difference?
I have heard many say that they support gay CU but not GM
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
|
|
|
Nicene
Elder
 Offline
Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 430
|
|
« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2012, 06:29:23 AM » |
|
No real difference from a governmental perspective. Most Civil unions as I understand offer the same benefits as Marraige does, the same legal status, the only thing is I think homosexuals want some signifficance attached to their union. Something good about it and marriage is viewed as good, a bland contract between two people doesn't contain the same signifficance and thus why there are those who want this.
I think however governmental marraige should be abolished in favour of bland personal contracts. Devoid of any of these terms.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Tallitot
|
|
« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2012, 06:31:36 AM » |
|
No real difference from a governmental perspective. Most Civil unions as I understand offer the same benefits as Marraige does, the same legal status, the only thing is I think homosexuals want some signifficance attached to their union. Something good about it and marriage is viewed as good, a bland contract between two people doesn't contain the same signifficance and thus why there are those who want this.
I think however governmental marraige should be abolished in favour of bland personal contracts. Devoid of any of these terms.
That is simply not true. CU's do not offer the benefits of marriage. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
You don't need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.
|
|
|
|
JamesRottnek
|
|
« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2012, 12:52:52 PM » |
|
No real difference from a governmental perspective. Most Civil unions as I understand offer the same benefits as Marraige does, the same legal status, the only thing is I think homosexuals want some signifficance attached to their union. Something good about it and marriage is viewed as good, a bland contract between two people doesn't contain the same signifficance and thus why there are those who want this.
I think however governmental marraige should be abolished in favour of bland personal contracts. Devoid of any of these terms.
That is simply not true. CU's do not offer the benefits of marriage. Well not everywhere anyways; though I'm under the impression that in the U.K. they are literally the same thing, except that one is called a civil union and the other a marriage (and a civil union is dissolved while a married couple must be divorced). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice. Can you guess what it is?
The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.
American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.
Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
|
|
|
|
NicholasMyra
|
|
« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2012, 01:30:53 PM » |
|
No real difference from a governmental perspective. Most Civil unions as I understand offer the same benefits as Marraige does, the same legal status, the only thing is I think homosexuals want some signifficance attached to their union. Something good about it and marriage is viewed as good, a bland contract between two people doesn't contain the same signifficance and thus why there are those who want this.
I think however governmental marraige should be abolished in favour of bland personal contracts. Devoid of any of these terms.
That is simply not true. CU's do not offer the benefits of marriage. What are the added benefits of marriage? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ven muerte tan escondida/ que no te sienta comigo/ porqu'el gozo de contigo/ no me torne a dar la vida.
|
|
|
|
JamesR
|
|
« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2012, 04:21:00 PM » |
|
The government should not give out marriages at all and they should not give out legal benefits to married people either. The reason being that if you allow this for one group of people (heterosexuals) then you CANNOT prohibit it for another group of people (homosexuals). Period. Leave marriage to be a private affair among the people but do not give any legal benefits to it or anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Wherever goes JamesR goes, he is there. -Orthonorm |
|
|
|
Tallitot
|
|
« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2012, 04:26:01 PM » |
|
No real difference from a governmental perspective. Most Civil unions as I understand offer the same benefits as Marraige does, the same legal status, the only thing is I think homosexuals want some signifficance attached to their union. Something good about it and marriage is viewed as good, a bland contract between two people doesn't contain the same signifficance and thus why there are those who want this.
I think however governmental marraige should be abolished in favour of bland personal contracts. Devoid of any of these terms.
That is simply not true. CU's do not offer the benefits of marriage. What are the added benefits of marriage? "According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138[1] statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
You don't need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.
|
|
|
|
HabteSelassie
|
|
« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2012, 04:27:52 PM » |
|
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! Anyone have a good understanding of the difference?
I have heard many say that they support gay CU but not GM
Civil Unions are legal matters regarding taxes, residency, insurance policies and other such things. Gay Marriage is a socio-cultural and religious movement to reform religious interpretations of marriage such as what is occurring in the Anglican communion and also several other Protestant churches. The government should not give out marriages at all and they should not give out legal benefits to married people either. The reason being that if you allow this for one group of people (heterosexuals) then you CANNOT prohibit it for another group of people (homosexuals). Period. Leave marriage to be a private affair among the people but do not give any legal benefits to it or anything.
The only sensible way for this to be enacted in the US is for ALL marriages to be considered legally as Civil Unions. Essentially it becomes a debate about semantics really.. stay blessed, habte selassie |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 03, 2012, 04:29:39 PM by HabteSelassie »
|
Logged
|
"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
|
|
|
|
NicholasMyra
|
|
« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2012, 04:49:09 PM » |
|
The only sensible way for this to be enacted in the US is for ALL [civil] marriages to be considered legally as Civil Unions.
If only people were that sensible. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ven muerte tan escondida/ que no te sienta comigo/ porqu'el gozo de contigo/ no me torne a dar la vida.
|
|
|
|
celticfan1888
|
|
« Reply #9 on: August 03, 2012, 05:33:09 PM » |
|
The US government just needs to stay out of marriage, it is a religious institution. Leave it to each individual church. As long as they don't force the Orthodox Church to marry gays I don't care. Let the Anglicans and whomever marry gays. It's not the governments right to interfere in religion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Forgive my sins.
According to the behaviour of some posters of this forum, I have learned from their example that apparently you are to judge everyone. After you judge them, mock them. Humility is apparently a joke. Because some people are just better people than others, and are more righteous.
|
|
|
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
Offline
Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601
Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.
|
|
« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2012, 05:45:22 PM » |
|
The problem with those who say that marriage shouldn't be a legal reality as well as a religious one have a problem. It, in fact, is both. For us, IIRC, a liturgical service for matrimony as separate from a civil service, didn't exist until about the 9th century.
That said, my personal view is to allow civil unions/marriages to be issued and regulated by the state, or by a religious institution if you're married within it. I don't care what the state calls what they do, as long as they don't force policies upon religious groups.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
|
|
|
|
HabteSelassie
|
|
« Reply #11 on: August 03, 2012, 05:52:38 PM » |
|
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! The US government just needs to stay out of marriage, it is a religious institution. Leave it to each individual church. As long as they don't force the Orthodox Church to marry gays I don't care. Let the Anglicans and whomever marry gays. It's not the governments right to interfere in religion.
So should Americans kindly return all the legal benefits of marriage such as tax credits and insurance benefits too? That will be real popular  Civil Unions are not exclusively homosexual, in fact in California history they were initiated for heterosexual, non-married couples and homosexual couples fought in the courts to receive the same status. There are a lot of legal reasons for the government to rightfully recognize marriage, in fact during slavery, one of the most dehumanizing aspects was that black social institutions and families were purposefully broken up and disregarded, and the affects of this on the black family in America is still with us today hundreds of years later! If the government stayed out of the Church's working of marriage, we'd solve all our mutual grievances. If the government had folks who were married in the Church ALSO apply for civil unions instead of marriage licenses, we might not be having this divisive debate in the US today. We have a separation of Church and State for good reason in America (after all, during the Colonial era the Puritans executed as many people as did the Inquisition, some estimates even suggest many many more died in the colonies  ) and religious marriage should therefore rightfully be separated from sociocultural and legal institutions. In other words, if the state keeps up out of our business in the Church, we will have no reason to get into their secular business in regards to homosexuals and non-married heterosexual couples (equally taboo in Orthodox society). stay blessed, habte selassie stay blessed, habte selassie |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 03, 2012, 05:54:10 PM by HabteSelassie »
|
Logged
|
"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
|
|
|
|
celticfan1888
|
|
« Reply #12 on: August 04, 2012, 12:29:12 AM » |
|
religious marriage should therefore rightfully be separated from sociocultural and legal institutions. In other words, if the state keeps up out of our business in the Church, we will have no reason to get into their secular business in regards to homosexuals and non-married heterosexual couples (equally taboo in Orthodox society). My point exactly |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Forgive my sins.
According to the behaviour of some posters of this forum, I have learned from their example that apparently you are to judge everyone. After you judge them, mock them. Humility is apparently a joke. Because some people are just better people than others, and are more righteous.
|
|
|
|
NicholasMyra
|
|
« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2012, 01:15:59 AM » |
|
For us, IIRC, a liturgical service for matrimony as separate from a civil service, didn't exist until about the 9th century.
You forget that a liturgical service for matrimony at all didn't exist until around that time, if I'm not mistaken. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ven muerte tan escondida/ que no te sienta comigo/ porqu'el gozo de contigo/ no me torne a dar la vida.
|
|
|
|
OrthoNoob
|
|
« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2012, 01:46:07 AM » |
|
The government should not give out marriages at all and they should not give out legal benefits to married people either. The reason being that if you allow this for one group of people (heterosexuals) then you CANNOT prohibit it for another group of people (homosexuals). Period. Actually, you can. And for the most part we do. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
William
|
|
« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2012, 01:58:41 AM » |
|
The problem with those who say that marriage shouldn't be a legal reality as well as a religious one have a problem. It, in fact, is both. For us, IIRC, a liturgical service for matrimony as separate from a civil service, didn't exist until about the 9th century.
And the civil service didn't come about till long after God united Adam and Eve. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Still 'round the corner there may wait / A new road or secret gate; / And though I oft have passed them by, / A day will come at last when I / Shall take the hidden paths that run / West of the Moon, East of the Sun.
I quit OC.net.
|
|
|
|
