• 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
Wow...a total lack of knowledge when it comes to language. Even in modern times it is quite evident that language and definitions change. Gay use to mean that a person was happy. Now it is used almost exclusively to refer to homosexuals. Same with "faggot". It use to mean a bundle of sticks...when was the last time someone told you that they were going to get a faggot and have it mean a bundle of sticks?

More evidence is that there are dead languages. IE languages that no one speaks anymore.

Actually, I agree with you. The homosexual community should be ashamed of embracing the term "gay" because it discriminates against people who are actually gay. Now, gay people can't say who they originally are without appearing homosexual.

The same applies to faggot. The term's "evolution" is rather arbitrary:

The Straight Dope: How did "faggot" get to mean "male homosexual"?
 
dammit stop derailing my thread. It is a simple question. Do you care what the government calls it?

Yes. I don't think that it is right for any religion to push government out of something which it was involved in far longer than that religion.
 
Actually, I agree with you. The homosexual community should be ashamed of embracing the term "gay" because it discriminates against people who are actually gay.[/url]

They should be ashamed of embracing the term "gay"? Really?
 
There will NEVER be the kind of order that you are talking about. It is an impossibility. And why would you want it anyways? If there was complete order in everything then we would stagnate and die off. Chaos, for want of a better term, is necessary to our survival. It helps us grow and think and expand.

Actually, it's called peace, and its impossibility is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's only impossible because people say it's impossible.

Chaos, on the other hand, is violence. It's deliberately inefficient. It's like evaluating the growth of a city by how noisy it is, not how smooth it is.
 
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 don't give a flying **** what the government calls it. The only problem I'd have with civil unions/marriage would be if churches were required by law to perform those marriages. That's all anyone should be concerned with, since, in my opinion, marriage is more of a religious ceremony than anything else. The rest of it? Simple Contract Law.

I'm tired of all the energy being expended to deny a couple what really amounts to nothing more than a legal contract. I think most of the opposition comes from religious people and their institutions. The Catholic Church has long not recognized the unsanctified marriage of a Catholic to someone outside their faith. This is no different. Everybody's happy.
 
Regardless of what name they want to use, if the purpose is to extend the benefits enjoyed by a normal union (marriage) to those who want benefits based upon a union founded in unatural acts, then I am definitly against it. I am not against homosexual unions that simply recognise two peoples commitment to each other, I am only against the extension of marriage benefits.
 
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 oppose gay marriage regardless of what term you use to call it.
 
Actually, it's called peace, and its impossibility is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's only impossible because people say it's impossible.

Chaos, on the other hand, is violence. It's deliberately inefficient. It's like evaluating the growth of a city by how noisy it is, not how smooth it is.

Order does not equal peace and chaos does not equal violence. You can have chaos without any violence..don't believe me? Have a couple of kids. ;) And you can have fighting even with order. A simple difference of opinion in an orderly way shows this.
 
Regardless of what name they want to use, if the purpose is to extend the benefits enjoyed by a normal union (marriage) to those who want benefits based upon a union founded in unatural acts, then I am definitly against it. I am not against homosexual unions that simply recognise two peoples commitment to each other, I am only against the extension of marriage benefits.

So what about a heterosexual couples who enjoy bondage, or female-into-male strap-on play?
What about heterosexual couples who are a-sexual?

Should they be denied marriage because their sexual inclinations are "unnatural"?? No? Just the gays? That's discrimination.
 
Honestly, so long as you call it a Civil Union, and the benefits are only those that are directly related to THE GOVERNMENT, I have no problem with it. Taxes, inheritance, etc.... on the GOVERNMENT side. So long as it would not require non-governmental entities (employers, etc...) to accept it as the equivelant of a marriage, that's fine with me. The moment they start trying to force private (non-governmental) entities to act as if it's a marriage, then I have issues with it.
 
Regardless of what name they want to use, if the purpose is to extend the benefits enjoyed by a normal union (marriage) to those who want benefits based upon a union founded in unatural acts, then I am definitly against it. I am not against homosexual unions that simply recognise two peoples commitment to each other, I am only against the extension of marriage benefits.

Nature shows that homosexuality is completely natural. Over 1200 species of animals (including humans) have shown homosexual behaviors.
 
Would you opposed to marriage between any 2 consenting adults being called a Civil Union at a government level for the benefits of marriage?

Not so long as the Marriage License exists. The marriage license is government issued and recognized contract, the individual has right to contract. So long as it exists, same sex couples should have their free exercise to the right of contract recognized.
 
dammit i worded this thread poorly. The real question i am curious about is whether or not people care if the government stops acknowledging the term marriage and instead refers to it only as a Union.
 
Order does not equal peace and chaos does not equal violence. You can have chaos without any violence..don't believe me? Have a couple of kids. ;) And you can have fighting even with order. A simple difference of opinion in an orderly way shows this.

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.
 
Would you opposed to marriage between any 2 consenting adults being called a Civil Union at a government level for the benefits of marriage?

Sorry, but the Supreme Court rejected "separate but equal" in Brown v Board of Education.
 
Not so long as the Marriage License exists. The marriage license is government issued and recognized contract, the individual has right to contract. So long as it exists, same sex couples should have their free exercise to the right of contract recognized.

the question is not about offering a 2nd contract or different terms or even about gay rights or ssm or anything else. Simply whether or not you care about the term marriage as used by the government.
 
Not so long as the Marriage License exists. The marriage license is government issued and recognized contract, the individual has right to contract. So long as it exists, same sex couples should have their free exercise to the right of contract recognized.

What about children? Do children contract their parents before being introduced into society?

Marriage is irrelevant when children are removed from the picture. You don't have to be married to be in love.

On the other hand, children had out of wedlock are exposed to not having guaranteed role models or provision.
 
Regardless of what name they want to use, if the purpose is to extend the benefits enjoyed by a normal union (marriage) to those who want benefits based upon a union founded in unatural acts, then I am definitly against it. I am not against homosexual unions that simply recognise two peoples commitment to each other, I am only against the extension of marriage benefits.

"unatural acts"
(sic) Same-Sex Behavior Seen In Nearly All Animals

Mankind is part of the animal kingdom, no matter what your specific religious belief has to say on the subject. We humans ain't special except for our capacity for advanced thought.
 
I don't oppose civil unions, I would favor enacting them for all "marriages." The straight marriage is no more special or commitment driven than the homosexual marriage. Marriage is a social thing and different societies define it differently, that's why I could support enacting state recognized unions and just allowing individuals to say they are married or not married.
 
wtf does that have to do with my question?

Tf it has to do with your question is that the government cannot instiute a segregated system. This means no "marriage" for straights and "civil unions" for gays. It is marriage for both or marriage for none. Those are the only two Constitutional options.
 
Tf it has to do with your question is that the government cannot instiute a segregated system. This means no "marriage" for straights and "civil unions" for gays. It is marriage for both or marriage for none. Those are the only two Constitutional options.

when did i say anything about a segregated system or any system. Please show me where i said that.
 
Honestly, so long as you call it a Civil Union, and the benefits are only those that are directly related to THE GOVERNMENT, I have no problem with it. Taxes, inheritance, etc.... on the GOVERNMENT side. So long as it would not require non-governmental entities (employers, etc...) to accept it as the equivelant of a marriage, that's fine with me. The moment they start trying to force private (non-governmental) entities to act as if it's a marriage, then I have issues with it.

18% of U.S. companies already recognize domestic partners for the purpose of healthcare benefits, family leave, etc. They realize what the American people have yet to do: it's not worth the effort to discriminate against same-sex unions. There are better fish to fry.

For those who think it should be a state issue? I don't think that's right either. The effect of that concept is that if a same-sex couple is legally married in Massachusetts and subsequently moves to a state who doesn't recognize them? That state can and will deny their rights to the 'contract aspects' of marriage.

Anti-discrimination of same-sex marriages should be handled at the Federal level as a Civil Rights issue and let's just fry bigger fish.

Just because it's interesting: SSM became legal in Massachusetts in 2004. In its first year, 6,000 couples were married, 64% of them female. In the second year? 1,900 couples were married. By contrast, 36,000 heterosexual marriages is the average yearly count. Spouse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom