Talk:Civil union

"it has the effect of elevating them above unmarried heterosexual couples" - In much of the United States a marriage license is required for heterosexual couples to have rights reserved for marriage. Civil unions, in those states that him them and give the rights of marriage, obviously give preference to the homosexual unmarried state over the heterosexual one. This is not a comment about the "rightness" or "wrongness" of that position, only that it exists. I seem to recall reading in Massachusetts that IBM was mulling over what to do with their medical coverage policies since they used to allow homosexual employees the right to carry a partner just like married couples, but now that marriage was allowed in the state for homosexuals, would they continue to give this preferrential accommodation to homosexuals that heterosexuals could not have short of marriage?

I also hope you are using fact citations for the good of Conservapedia. If you feel an entry is in error because you have knowledge that would go contrary to what is written, then a fact citation or, better yet, a discussion in talk is appropriate. If you merely want to see a reference, then a fact citation is counter productive to article readability for those students who use this site as a source for their work or just their common reading.

You may also wish to consider article improvement by adding information or sources or possible rewording in areas where it is not clear. Thanks. Learn together 15:54, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't follow your reasoning. The government refuses to allow homosexuals to get married. Then when gays apply for civil unions because their marriages are not recognized, you say 'Aha! Their unmarried unions are elevated over heterosexual unions!' That's like telling someone they are not allowed to use the main entrance to a building, only the service entrance; then chastise him because he's using a door off limits to the public. You can't refuse someone the right to get married and then condemn him for living with an unmarried partner.

As for adding to the article, I wrote the original article, but my citations and clarifications were removed because I did not write like homosexuality was an abomination. I leave it to you. Maestro 16:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Please refrain from using the innuendo that opposition to gay agenda is like racism, i.e. "using the service entrance" or "riding the back of the bus." This is incivil behavior, and a blockable offense. Rob Smith 16:14, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

I was clear I was not writing about the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the situation, but only the obvious nature of the issue that under civil union conditions extra rights are afforded to non-married homosexual couples over heterosexual couples. That was what you put a fact citation on was it not? If you wished me to debate the merits of civil unions with you I think you will find that I did not take up that mantle, nor do I have any intention to do so. Learn together 16:20, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm not trying to make this a racism parallel. I added the fact citation because I did not (and do not) see how granting a civil union is superior to a heterosexual marriage. This is your cite, not mine. Maestro 17:22, 8 August 2007 (EDT)