Civil Unions as Defined are Discriminatory

[Brambila]

I move  to change the Civil Union status from solely homosexuals to any two people. Limiting civil unions only to homosexuals discriminates against any two couples- platonic or sexual- who want to live with eachother for the rest of their lives.

I therefore propose we change it to:

Any two people will be granted the right to join in a civil union, entailing all the rights of marriage excluding adoption rights.

[Nym90]

That would be fine by me, though heterosexual people already have this right in the form of a marriage.

[Brambila]

I don't think that certain couples should be allowed to adopt, including platonic couples such as two relatives or friends.

Edit: Oh my God I just realized I have over a thousand posts. THat's crazy.

[Nym90]

Ah, ok. I see what you mean. So heterosexual people would have the choice of either a civil union or a marriage.

[Brambila]

Heterosexual or homosexual- whatever.

[Nym90]

Right, though as Atlas Forum Law stands now, there is no option for marriage for homosexuals. So basically this change would make it so that heterosexuals could enter into either a civil union or a marriage, there would be a difference between those two.

[Fritz]

Sorry Brambilla, if you look through the Civil Unions thread you will see that the bill has successfully been amended, such that the words "excluding adoption rights" have been stricken.

I don't think anyone would really object to the concept of civil union being available to non-homosexual couples, though.

[Brambila]

Yeah Fritz, finals, I'm a bit behind.

Nym, you already know my position on marriage. I believe that marriage is more of a privilage as long as you'll produce offspring for society, and civil unions are a right. If a couple has no intention of having children, then they may be civilly united. If they suddenly wish to have children, they may "advance" to marriage.

[Nym90]

I know your position on marriage. What I'm trying to figure out is exactly what this bill would do. If you are heterosexual, you would have the option of either a marriage or a civil union, is that correct? You could enter into one or the other, basically? That's what I'm getting at, what would be the point of allowing civil unions for those who are heterosexual when they can already get married, unless there is some difference between those two that might want to make you choose the civil union instead.

I know you want marriage to only be allowed for those who want to have kids, but this bill wouldn't change current law on marriage to do that.

[Lunar]

Two relatives may not want to get married but could choose a civil union as an alternative.

[Brambila]

Well until my law comes into practice, people with platonic relationships who wish to live eachother for the rest of their lives (roomates, siblings, relatives, et cetera), may be civilly united.

[migrendel]

It's perfectly logical to extend non-marital contractual rights to heterosexual couples, but because of that, I'd call it equally logical to extend marriage rights to homosexuals. Your idea, Brambila, reminds of a French legal agreement called a Civil Solidarity Pact in which any two people can receive the benefits of marriage without actually being married.