02-20-2004, 04:05 AM
Bland Wrote:Ok. Here's the opinion.The Jays Wrote:Ok.that is correct. there would be no difference other than what would happen on the honeymoon.
Hypothetical here.
Say Marriage and Civil Unions carry the same rights. Same benefits, same everything.
Then the only matter would be the fact that one defines a heterosexual union, the other a homosexual union.
I have no problem with civil unions having the same benefits as a marriage.
I have no problem with civil unions being recognized in the state of New York.
It would seem that calling a union between two people of opposite genders the same thing as a union between two people of the same gender is problematic, because by doing that, it seems that there, inherently, a problem with being homosexual, rather than heterosexual, which is not true. There is no problem whether a person is homosexual or heterosexual. There is no problem with being different. So why is there a problem with calling one a marriage and one a civil union, if both of them are A-OK, and both of them carry the same benefits?