• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Civil Unions

Do you oppose Civil Unions?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 22.6%
  • No

    Votes: 24 77.4%

  • Total voters
    31
When a GB couple "marry" in a civil (non-church) ceremony, it's known colloquially as a wedding or marriage. Nobody talks about going to a civil union last weekend...
 
I don't agree with this idea. I agree that the rights granted to homo- and heterosexual couples need to be identical, but I don't think it's necessary that they're called the same thing.

Why not? It's the same thing, why give it two different names? That's like saying "it's all water, what's wrong with making blacks drink out of a different fountain?"
 
Why not? It's the same thing, why give it two different names? That's like saying "it's all water, what's wrong with making blacks drink out of a different fountain?"

The question of this thread was not whether or not it should have 2 different names. Damn trolls derailed it and made it into that.

The question was simply would you have a problem with the federal government changing the term marriage to civil union for government purposes.
 
The question of this thread was not whether or not it should have 2 different names. Damn trolls derailed it and made it into that.

The question was simply would you have a problem with the federal government changing the term marriage to civil union for government purposes.

I don't give a damn what you call it, so long as it's all called the same thing. Call it "mashed potatoes" for all I care.
 
I don't give a damn what you call it, so long as it's all called the same thing. Call it "mashed potatoes" for all I care.

Sadomasichism might be an appropriate alternate name for marriage.

What is the difference between a mans wedding and his funeral?
At his funeral, you don't know for sure he is going to hell.
 
Sadomasichism might be an appropriate alternate name for marriage.

What is the difference between a mans wedding and his funeral?
At his funeral, you don't know for sure he is going to hell.

No way, the difference is that he can finally have some peace and quiet.
 
The government sticking it's beak into marriage has nothing to do with what it is and isn't.

Thank you for your opinion. It is demonstrably inaccurate being as the government does hand out marriage licenses.
 
I am interested if straight people care if the government refers to their marriage as a union. Tell me why or why not.

I don't care if government refers to all marriages as "unions", so long as they refer to marriages between both heterosexuals and homosexuals in exactly the same way. It's when straight folks can get "married" but homosexuals can only get "unionized" that I object.

Personally, I think calling marriage a "marriage" is fine, and it should apply to all marriages regardless of gender makeup.
 
Marriage is historically a religious institution. Government licensing doesn't change that.

Marriage stopped being a religious institution a long time ago. You can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want, you're not married until you get that piece of paper from the state.
 
Marriage is historically a religious institution. Government licensing doesn't change that.

And historically it's been a government one as well (along with a multitude of other forms of marriages not least of which was common law marriages, which had nothing to do with religion or the government). You are, however, perfectly allowed to claim that those marriages are invalid. I certainly can't stop you from doing that (and honestly have no desire to do so). But that doesn't change the fact that those marriages still remain real. In other words, your opinion changes nothing.
 
And historically it's been a government one as well (along with a multitude of other forms of marriages not least of which was common law marriages, which had nothing to do with religion or the government). You are, however, perfectly allowed to claim that those marriages are invalid. I certainly can't stop you from doing that (and honestly have no desire to do so). But that doesn't change the fact that those marriages still remain real. In other words, your opinion changes nothing.

Never said that.
 
Never said that.

Right. You said "marriage is a religious institution." Now unless I misunderstood you (entirely possible) I took that to mean that marriage is a religious institution to the exclusion of other entities, (government, common law or otherwise), and thus designations of marriage by those entities were invalid. Was I wrong? If so, what did you mean?
 
Disagreements can be organized. That's why they're orderly.

The problem here is people are mandated to accept something for what it's not. It's like calling a square a circle.

But there is still an element of chaos in those disagreements. Order = agreement. Chaos = disagreement.

Basically you cannot have one without the other.
 
Would you opposed to marriage between any 2 consenting adults being called a Civil Union at a government level for the benefits of marriage?
I categorically oppose Civil-Union/Domestic-Partnership.

No more half measures. We need to **** or get off the pot, "marriage" or nothing at all. Stop ****ing around. It's time we put this issue to bed so the People aren't distracted and can deal with real problems. Whatever you're going to do, just ****ing do it already.
 
Last edited:
Why not? It's the same thing, why give it two different names?

Because personally I think that getting gays the same rights as married couples that straight people have is what's important. I don't really care what it's called, and if calling it something other than marriage gets it done faster, then I'm all for that (as long as the rights granted by a civil union are truly equal to those granted by a marriage)

That's like saying "it's all water, what's wrong with making blacks drink out of a different fountain?"

I think some segregation is okay. After all, we have separate bathrooms for men and women don't we? That's segregation. Yes, it's treading on thin ice, but segregation is not automatically bad. The problem with racial segregation was that they were separate, but nowhere close to equal.
 
Because personally I think that getting gays the same rights as married couples that straight people have is what's important. I don't really care what it's called, and if calling it something other than marriage gets it done faster, then I'm all for that (as long as the rights granted by a civil union are truly equal to those granted by a marriage)

That's like saying "I think that getting blacks water is what's important, so what if they have to drink out of a different fountain".

Sorry, I just don't buy it.
 
Because personally I think that getting gays the same rights as married couples that straight people have is what's important. I don't really care what it's called, and if calling it something other than marriage gets it done faster, then I'm all for that (as long as the rights granted by a civil union are truly equal to those granted by a marriage)

I think some segregation is okay. After all, we have separate bathrooms for men and women don't we? That's segregation. Yes, it's treading on thin ice, but segregation is not automatically bad. The problem with racial segregation was that they were separate, but nowhere close to equal.

The entire point of segregation is that one party gets a crappier end of the stick than another. If both ends of the stick were equally clean, there wouldn't be a need for segregation. In this case the crappier end is the loss of the totality of what "marriage" conveys, which is a symbol of love and life-time commitment legitimized in the eyes of the community, among other things. "Civil Union" hilariously falls short when compared to the historical breadth of what the word "marriage" has come to mean, otherwise there wouldn't be people who are trying to hoard the word for themselves.

Segregation always shares at least one common aspect with religion: just as no one ever claims that it's people of the other faith that are chosen in the eyes of God, so too do those in favor of segregation never argue that it should be the other people who should get the better end of the treatment. Convenient, huh?
 
Civil.unions for everybody.

Marriage from the belief system of your choice.

Piss everybody off and put an end to all the nonsense.
 
Civil.unions for everybody.

Marriage from the belief system of your choice.

Piss everybody off and put an end to all the nonsense.

(bold mine)

Does that inlcude me? I'm an atheist.
 
Back
Top Bottom