| highwaystar101 said: Perhaps I should explain a little more. In many places civil unions are brought in to give homosexual couples the same rights and privileges from the government as married heterosexual couples, except for a few cases where it is open to heterosexual and homosexual people. Essentially my idea would be to recognise all relationships as civil unions so that we all get the same rights and privelages, regardless of sexual orientation. If you want to get married, you need to apply for civil union to be recognised as a couple. And then if you want to get married a religious organisation working independently from the government will recognise your relationship, but it will not have anything to with the government. The marriage will just be recognised by your church. |
That's exactly how it works (now) here, only that the civil union figure is called "civil marriage". Religious marriages can be performed at will, but only by previously civil married couples, and of course, it has no validity whatsoever to the gov't. I don't see where the difference is, at all
Christian973 said:
|
You could say the same for single parents, and yet they've been adopting children since forever, no one really seemed to care. In fact, gay couples have been doing that precisely, one of the members adopts it as a single parent and they both bring him up....of course that caused a problem since the other member wouldn't have any parental rights over the child, thus this only could be for the better since it protects both the child (assuming that his adoptive father died, he'd be rended orphan even though his other parent still lives) and the parents
