• 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!

Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?[W:237]

Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?

  • Yes, civil unions are an acceptable compromise.

    Votes: 17 17.2%

  • No, they are not, because:

    Votes: 51 51.5%

  • The government should not be involved with marriage, at all.

    Votes: 23 23.2%

  • Other (Please Explain)

    Votes: 8 8.1%
  • Total voters
    99
celticwar17 said:
So you agree ANY consenting adults should be able to get these benefits?
but why call it marriage? This is a problem for me... Tell me your definition of marriage.
Click to expand...

no not any, there are rights and benefits some adults dont need or may not be of sound mind to enter into a contract.

you having a problem is also meaningless, many people have problems with marriages right now.

what my OPINION of marriage is, is meaningless to legal marriage :shrug:
 
Objective-J said:
1.) your alteration is meaningless to your OP and the actually topic, your opinion isnt supported by facts and history.
2.) lmao keep saying no, fact wont change simply cause your OPINION disagrees :shrug:
3.) yes and the definitions of marriage and the benefits that come with it do not care about religion as i still get them with or without religion involved nor does the definition of marriage care about religion either :shrug: nott sure why you cant grasp this fact.

religious marriage is a separate entity and varies from religion to religion, legal marriage doesnt care about it.
4.) i dont forget tha at all what you forget is that "tradition" isnt defined, it varies from person to person.
5.) it needs SOME definition because its a legal contract, thats basic common sense and the government provides many of the benifits and protects them, again basic common sense.
6.) gays shouldnt be restricted, some others should because of the rights and benefits provided and other legal precedences like contracts with minors that cant be made.
7.) i cant define marriage because its subjective in anything else accept legal.
8.) yes in some ways legal marriage is in some ways its not at all. and that cultural tradition will not be effected by law, my family has traditions they do when weddings comes, those things wont be effect one bit we will still do them
9.) already answered above
Click to expand...
Your avoiding the issue.

No, I want you to legally define what marriage is.

"gays shouldnt be restricted, some others should because of the rights and benefits provided and other legal precedences like contracts with minors that cant be made."

I agree that gays shouldn't be restricted, and I agree that contracts with minors shouldn't... but whynot anyone else? Literally anyone else?
 
Objective-J said:
no not any, there are rights and benefits some adults dont need or may not be of sound mind to enter into a contract.

you having a problem is also meaningless, many people have problems with marriages right now.

what my OPINION of marriage is, is meaningless to legal marriage :shrug:
Click to expand...

No, I want to know what you think marraige should be defined as according to the government.
 
celticwar17 said:
No, I want to know what you think marraige should be defined as according to the government.
Click to expand...

i think its fine the way it is, im not familiar with all the 1400 rights and benefits, im sure some tweaking could be done :shrug:
 
celticwar17 said:
1.)Your avoiding the issue.

2.)No, I want you to legally define what marriage is.

"gays shouldnt be restricted, some others should because of the rights and benefits provided and other legal precedences like contracts with minors that cant be made."

3.)I agree that gays shouldn't be restricted, and I agree that contracts with minors shouldn't... but whynot anyone else? Literally anyone else?
Click to expand...

1.) nope havent done that in the least thats just a deflection by you to try and go off topic and make meaningless points
2.) i cant i dont know what the appox 1400 rights and benefits are, look it up lol
3.) because the rights, protections and benefits that make up marriage arent needed by everyone :shrug: again pretty simple

not to mention this has nothing to do with equal gay rights lol
 
Objective-J said:
i think its fine the way it is, im not familiar with all the 1400 rights and benefits, im sure some tweaking could be done :shrug:
Click to expand...

But what does the government define as marriage? as far as when it relates to individuals who participate in it?

Or to you is marriage literally just this agreement in which two individuals get these benefits? If it is that then why can't anyone who is not a minor or mentally disabled participate in these benefits?
 
Objective-J said:
3.) because the rights, protections and benefits that make up marriage arent needed by everyone :shrug: again pretty simple

not to mention this has nothing to do with equal gay rights lol
Click to expand...

Who determines who needs these benefits or not? Does anyone actually need these benefits? And who determines what kind of relationship is enough to qualify for these benefits?

It is related to the push for gay marriage, because I don't agree with the institution of marriage by government in the first place. So even more of it, i dont agree with.
 
Last edited:
celticwar17 said:
Im not factually wrong the marriage laws in this country have been modeled after the christian definition of marriage. It should never of happened, but it did.
Click to expand...

We live in the present, not the way things were.

And if we go back further in history we will find that marriage was not a religious thing. Plus, marriage has never been in this country just left to those who are religious.

No religion owns the term marriage, not even Christianity.

And it would be fiscally irresponsible to change the term we use to describe the most solid unions between two people, making them legal family. It would cost taxpayer money to change everywhere we use "marriage" in law to "civil union". And it would all be done just to appease those who wrongfully believe they own a term they don't.
 
celticwar17 said:
Who determines who needs these benefits or not? Does anyone actually need these benefits? And who determines what kind of relationship is enough to qualify for these benefits?

It is related to the push for gay marriage, because I don't agree with the institution of marriage by government in the first place. So even more of it, i dont agree with.
Click to expand...

The fact that we allow blood relations to have certain legal rights/benefits necessitates that we have a way for adults to grant those rights and benefits to someone other than blood relations. The most efficient way to do that is with a legal agreement that takes care of everything related to legal kinship being granted to that non-relative all with just one document.

Now, if you are against some of the benefits of marriage, go ahead and fight those things. But it is really not logical to be against a legal contract that makes things more efficient than having several in its place.
 
roguenuke said:
The fact that we allow blood relations to have certain legal rights/benefits necessitates that we have a way for adults to grant those rights and benefits to someone other than blood relations. The most efficient way to do that is with a legal agreement that takes care of everything related to legal kinship being granted to that non-relative all with just one document.

Now, if you are against some of the benefits of marriage, go ahead and fight those things. But it is really not logical to be against a legal contract that makes things more efficient than having several in its place.
Click to expand...

No , I'm not against the contract existing. Im against the government defining what marriage is, and who can participate in marriage, marriage is a cultural tradition. I'm not even against the benefits, but I am not naive enough to not understand where the motivations of these. benefits come from.
 
roguenuke said:
We live in the present, not the way things were.

And if we go back further in history we will find that marriage was not a religious thing. Plus, marriage has never been in this country just left to those who are religious.

No religion owns the term marriage, not even Christianity.
Click to expand...
I now realize I threw people off with the relation to Christianity thing... My point is that marriage is a subjective tradition, but the marriage laws in the U.S. were created with the christian method of marriage in mind. But the second is not important to my main point overall, but it does play a factor in how a large part of the population can take offence (this stems from how the government has no right to define marriage, nor does Christianity have any right to define it either.)

roguenuke said:
And it would be fiscally irresponsible to change the term we use to describe the most solid unions between two people, making them legal family. It would cost taxpayer money to change everywhere we use "marriage" in law to "civil union". And it would all be done just to appease those who wrongfully believe they own a term they don't.
Click to expand...
This is where we disagree full-heartedly.
How is it fiscally irresponsible, it can easily be changed with an Act, like the defense of marriage act.

Again, who are you and who is the government to determine who qualifies a relationship fit enough to be a marriage? Why can't ANY two or more individuals (as long as it is not a minor or mentally disabled)?
 
roguenuke said:
The fact that we allow blood relations to have certain legal rights/benefits necessitates that we have a way for adults to grant those rights and benefits to someone other than blood relations.
Click to expand...
Blood relations don't have the same legal rights as a individuals that participate in a marriage contract.
 
celticwar17 said:
1.)But what does the government define as marriage? as far as when it relates to individuals who participate in it?

2.)Or to you is marriage literally just this agreement in which two individuals get these benefits?
3.)If it is that then why can't anyone who is not a minor or mentally disabled participate in these benefits?
Click to expand...

1.)not sure what you are asking i said its about 1400 different things
2.) yes thats all LEGAL marriage is but thats not all my marriage would consist of, not sure why this is so hard to understand since its common sense.
3.) like i already answered earlier because the government would want some restrictions since these laws, benefits and rights are already had by some in ways.
 
celticwar17 said:
1.)Who determines who needs these benefits or not? Does anyone actually need these benefits? And who determines what kind of relationship is enough to qualify for these benefits?

2.)It is related to the push for gay marriage, because I don't agree with the institution of marriage by government in the first place. So even more of it, i dont agree with.
Click to expand...

1.) dont know how all that was determined i would imagine our government and voting process lol
2.) no you only TRY to make it related, it really isnt in reality.
 
Objective-J said:
1.) dont know how all that was determined i would imagine our government and voting process lol
Click to expand...
Haha, now we get somewhere.

This is what is inherently wrong with the system. You can't pick favorites among relationships, the government shouldn't discriminate that only certain individuals can have these benefits. Because if they do, than they defined marriage in a way that is discriminatory.... just like it is now. Any two or more consenting adults should be able to get these benefits to be fair and not discriminatory.
 
Objective-J said:
3.) like i already answered earlier because the government would want some restrictions since these laws, benefits and rights are already had by some in ways.
Click to expand...

So what about the ones that arn't "had by some in ways".
 
celticwar17 said:
what is your definition of marriage? I can't address it unless we all have the same definition. But is that part of the problem.

When it comes down to the government all it is, is that two or more individuals have an agreement to have certain responsibilities and benefits. Is this what marriage is? I don't think so. In my opinion a civil union describes this a lot better. Not only is it the right description, but it also doesn't define something that is cultural and is different to many different cultures. The government should not define such a thing.
Click to expand...

The government shouldn't do a lot of things. What is more relevant is what the government can, does, and will do.

As far as my definition of marriage...I view it as a life long commitment between two people. You don't need the government to have one of those, nor do you need a religious organization. However, given that the government can, does, and will recognize life long commitments between heterosexual couples and bestow rights and privileges for those couples, I know of no reason they cannot do the same for same sex couples.
 
CriticalThought said:
The government shouldn't do a lot of things. What is more relevant is what the government can, does, and will do.

As far as my definition of marriage...I view it as a life long commitment between two people. You don't need the government to have one of those, nor do you need a religious organization. However, given that the government can, does, and will recognize life long commitments between heterosexual couples and bestow rights and privileges for those couples, I know of no reason they cannot do the same for same sex couples.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't think the government should, because of all the my previous reasons. So I cannot advocate for something I don't believe has a right to be there in the first place.

Marriage is still discriminatory even when gay couples are introduced.why can't multiple people get married? Why can't a brother and sister? Two friends? Why do divorce laws condemn adultery? There is tons of bias with divorce laws....

how can you say you are for no discrimination when you only focus on one aspect of the problem?
 
CriticalThought said:
The government shouldn't do a lot of things. What is more relevant is what the government can, does, and will do.

As far as my definition of marriage...I view it as a life long commitment between two people. You don't need the government to have one of those, nor do you need a religious organization. However, given that the government can, does, and will recognize life long commitments between heterosexual couples and bestow rights and privileges for those couples, I know of no reason they cannot do the same for same sex couples.
Click to expand...

I like this response, but you seem to look at it too simply for me. You are right, but I try to confront the real problem and not pretend I stand on some kind of higher moral ground.
 
celticwar17 said:
Haha, now we get somewhere.

This is what is inherently wrong with the system. You can't pick favorites among relationships, the government shouldn't discriminate that only certain individuals can have these benefits. Because if they do, than they defined marriage in a way that is discriminatory.... just like it is now. Any two or more consenting adults should be able to get these benefits to be fair and not discriminatory.
Click to expand...

no you only think we are, nobody is playing favorites in reality only in the fantasy world you are making up. LOL

if you think i against others fighting for what they deem as equal rights buy all mean they are free to do so but again that has nothing to do with equal rights for gays

you are TRYING to make a point but you keep falling short and not providing any reason to deny gays equal rights
 
celticwar17 said:
So what about the ones that arn't "had by some in ways".
Click to expand...

what about them? they are free to marry like others are that fit the definition of others :shrug:

seems you come a far way from the BS that marriage is religious LOL

you are still wrong and havent made one valied point to deny gays equal rights?
 
Objective-J said:
no you only think we are, nobody is playing favorites in reality only in the fantasy world you are making up. LOL

if you think i against others fighting for what they deem as equal rights buy all mean they are free to do so but again that has nothing to do with equal rights for gays

you are TRYING to make a point but you keep falling short and not providing any reason to deny gays equal rights
Click to expand...
I never was denying gays equal rights.... this is hopeless... You can't get a firm grasp on my points, it's obvious because you can't even address them correctly at least CriticalThought did, you seem to be having an argument with someone else other than me.
 
Last edited:
celticwar17 said:
I never was denying gays equal rights.... this is hopeless...
Click to expand...

thats the topic of the op LMAO and what the only and real issues is, if you cant see that yes you are hopeless about this topic

gays deserve equal rights, period
 
Objective-J said:
seems you come a far way from the BS that marriage is religious LOL
Click to expand...

marriage is often religious, and what I was saying earlier is that the U.S. marriage laws kept Christian thoughts on marriage heavily in mind in the development of them in this country. BUT ANYWAY that was pages ago, we both already came to the conclusion that we both agreed that marriage is at least a cultural tradition that is subjective. That was the only thing that was important to my points.

Answer me this, do you think that ANY two or more consenting adults should be able to participate in the marriage contract? If you don't have an issue with this, then I have very little issue except that the term marriage does not describe this kind of contract.
 
celticwar17 said:
No, I want to know what you think marraige should be defined as according to the government.
Click to expand...

It is up to the states to decide, within the confines of the constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom