| highwaystar101 said: Yeah, Torillian explained what I meant, so I'll leave it to you Slimebeast. However, tomorrow I'm going on holiday for a week. So I'm afraid that I probably wont be able to reply to your post for a while. -edit- 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. |
I agree with this. Separate the marriage label from civil unions and keep that a religious thing.
The big problem with civil unions is where to draw the line beyond gay couples - will we allow polygamy, and partnerships between mother and son, between brothers etc and recognize them as civil unions with the same rights and privileges as hetero couples?
I'm not saying I know where to draw the line, and that's kinda my point, it's difficult to draw the line for what is an accepted civil union and what is not.
