• 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
Redress said:
Because there is no logical reason for the extra set of regulations.
Click to expand...

No, you are mistaking "what I think" for "what everyone must find logical".
 
ChrisL said:
I'm sure that just out of the blue and after legalizing gay marriage, a state just decided to change the language on marriage certificates. :lamo
Click to expand...

They did it in the past as well, since the Washington marriage licenses at least in the 1950s used to not say either "bride/groom" or "husband/wife" at all. They just said "<This person> is legally married to <this person>". So why is it such a big deal now? It is still something that people can change to something more suitable if it is a big enough issue to enough people. For petty stuff, like this, it is still left up to the state to decide because it is not truly infringing on anyone's rights in anyway with what a person is referred to on a marriage license, as long as it is fair/non-offensive (reasonable person standard) to all.

The reality is though that most people don't even look or care what terminology is used to describe them on the marriage license as long as they can get married.
 
roguenuke said:
They did it in the past as well, since the Washington marriage licenses at least in the 1950s used to not say either "bride/groom" or "husband/wife" at all. They just said "<This person> is legally married to <this person>". So why is it such a big deal now? It is still something that people can change to something more suitable if it is a big enough issue to enough people. For petty stuff, like this, it is still left up to the state to decide because it is not truly infringing on anyone's rights in anyway with what a person is referred to on a marriage license, as long as it is fair/non-offensive (reasonable person standard) to all.

The reality is though that most people don't even look or care what terminology is used to describe them on the marriage license as long as they can get married.
Click to expand...

Good, then no one should ever make a stink about changing the existing terminology on marriage licenses.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't have a problem with SSM, so long as they don't try to change everything about it. Get married and accept it for what it is or isn't.
Click to expand...

But it is stupid to act like a change on a marriage license is really a big deal. It isn't. It is just a legal document. If the people in your state, where you get your marriage license from are willing to spend more money to offer more options for marriage licenses so they please everyone, then work a campaign to do that. The same is true for any state. But no state should be denying equal access to marriage just because some don't want verbiage on the paperwork to change.
 
roguenuke said:
But it is stupid to act like a change on a marriage license is really a big deal. It isn't. It is just a legal document. If the people in your state, where you get your marriage license from are willing to spend more money to offer more options for marriage licenses so they please everyone, then work a campaign to do that. The same is true for any state. But no state should be denying equal access to marriage just because some don't want verbiage on the paperwork to change.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So if it does state bride/groom, then that shouldn't be a issue either then, using your logic.
 
ChrisL said:
Good, then no one should ever make a stink about changing the existing terminology on marriage licenses.
Click to expand...

The only one making a stink about this is you and a few other complainers. If Washington state wants to change their paperwork, that is their decision. If the people feel their legislators did this wrongly, then they will vote in people who will change it to something more suitable or they will vote to change it back by popular vote, but it is still something unrelated to having two different contracts for the same thing just with different names and/or for different people.
 
ChrisL said:
Exactly. So if it does state bride/groom, then that shouldn't be a issue either then, using your logic.
Click to expand...

Have I ever said it was an issue to me, personally, what the license said? No, I am pretty sure I haven't.

I have an issue with people complaining about it and blaming this on same sex marriage being legal, and subsequently same sex couples just because the change was made. If you don't like the change, work to change it back instead of making "suggestions" about having two different contracts because of this one stupid issue. The two issues are not connected. Same sex couples should not have to settle for something less or different just because of the potential for a change in verbiage to the existing marriage licenses.
 
roguenuke said:
The only one making a stink about this is you and a few other complainers. If Washington state wants to change their paperwork, that is their decision. If the people feel their legislators did this wrongly, then they will vote in people who will change it to something more suitable or they will vote to change it back by popular vote, but it is still something unrelated to having two different contracts for the same thing just with different names and/or for different people.
Click to expand...

I'm not making a stink. I'm stating my opinions which the OP asked for. I voted for other, and I am explaining why. Like I've stated a few times at least, I have no problem with gay marriage, but if they want to start making changes (and I used WA as purely an example), then they should go for a civil union, and civil union should include every benefit that marriage does. :shrug: What's the problem?
 
roguenuke said:
Have I ever said it was an issue to me, personally, what the license said? No, I am pretty sure I haven't.

I have an issue with people complaining about it and blaming this on same sex marriage being legal, and subsequently same sex couples just because the change was made. If you don't like the change, work to change it back instead of making "suggestions" about having two different contracts because of this one stupid issue. The two issues are not connected. Same sex couples should not have to settle for something less or different just because of the potential for a change in verbiage to the existing marriage licenses.
Click to expand...

Again, whether the state was behind the proposed changes or not, I don't know. I know that the OP made it sound as if changes were going to be made to appease certain groups of people. Whatever, that was just an example of what COULD come in the future.

I am certainly not asking for same sex couples to settle for anything less or more than anyone else gets.
 
ChrisL said:
I'm not making a stink. I'm stating my opinions which the OP asked for. I voted for other, and I am explaining why. Like I've stated a few times at least, I have no problem with gay marriage, but if they want to start making changes (and I used WA as purely an example), then they should go for a civil union, and civil union should include every benefit that marriage does. :shrug: What's the problem?
Click to expand...

The problem is that you are connecting two things that should not be connected and then using that as an excuse to put into place two contracts to do the same thing just because of a potential change in verbiage to paperwork that has no real impact on marriages at all. And such a thing would cost all of us more money. The federal government would have to recognize both marriages and civil unions, which it currently doesn't. Every state would have to agree to recognize civil unions at the same levels as they do marriages, which means changes to every state law in some way. And then those states that still want a lower level of recognition for couples, which is what civil unions currently do in many states now, would have to change the wording of laws about current civil unions in those states to something else to separately identify them as such. It is a huge waste of money. And it would mainly be taxpayer money. All because of the potential that a state legislature or even the voters of a state may choose to change the verbiage on the marriage license to something generic, not even offensive (from a reasonable person standard).
 
What makes people think that my answering the OP question and explaining my opinions as requested is making a stink? Am I only allowed to state my opinions on this matter if they are in 100% agreement with SSM no matter what?

Mmmmm. I don't think so.
 
roguenuke said:
The problem is that you are connecting two things that should not be connected and then using that as an excuse to put into place two contracts to do the same thing just because of a potential change in verbiage to paperwork that has no real impact on marriages at all. And such a thing would cost all of us more money. The federal government would have to recognize both marriages and civil unions, which it currently doesn't. Every state would have to agree to recognize civil unions at the same levels as they do marriages, which means changes to every state law in some way. And then those states that still want a lower level of recognition for couples, which is what civil unions currently do in many states now, would have to change the wording of laws about current civil unions in those states to something else to separately identify them as such. It is a huge waste of money. And it would mainly be taxpayer money. All because of the potential that a state legislature or even the voters of a state may choose to change the verbiage on the marriage license to something generic, not even offensive (from a reasonable person standard).
Click to expand...

You are still not getting that this is my point. I don't have a problem with SSM as long as they don't try to change the way things are. It's really very simple.
 
That OP about WA changing terms on marriage licenses is another thread too. I keep getting these two mixed up. :lol:
 
ChrisL said:
What makes people think that my answering the OP question and explaining my opinions as requested is making a stink? Am I only allowed to state my opinions on this matter if they are in 100% agreement with SSM no matter what?
Click to expand...

That is correct. Diversity In Everything. Except Thought.
 
ChrisL said:
You are still not getting that this is my point. I don't have a problem with SSM as long as they don't try to change the way things are. It's really very simple.
Click to expand...

No I understand your point. I think it is petty. It is just fiscally irresponsible for such a petty issue as verbiage on paperwork. Change happens all the time. Sometimes it is good, sometimes bad. But you don't cost the rest of society money and/or treat people differently because you have an issue with potential change. That is wrong, particularly in a time when we have a bad economy and are working to improve it. Trying to prevent slight changes with much bigger, more expensive ones is not going to help the economy.

And you say "I don't have a problem with SSM as long as they don't try to change the way things are." Yet what you suggest as an alternative would in fact change things from the way they are anyway because "civil union" is already a certain legal contract right now. Making it equal to marriage would change things from the way they are. Then having to make another, differently named contract to take the place of the civil unions so that those who want it have a contract at the level of recognition/protection that they did have with civil unions would change things from the way they are.
 
:roll: yeah. everyone I've met in the SSM debates is up in arms over the fiscal irresponsibility of paperwork.
 
roguenuke said:
No I understand your point. I think it is petty. It is just fiscally irresponsible for such a petty issue as verbiage on paperwork. Change happens all the time. Sometimes it is good, sometimes bad. But you don't cost the rest of society money and/or treat people differently because you have an issue with potential change. That is wrong, particularly in a time when we have a bad economy and are working to improve it. Trying to prevent slight changes with much bigger, more expensive ones is not going to help the economy.

And you say "I don't have a problem with SSM as long as they don't try to change the way things are." Yet what you suggest as an alternative would in fact change things from the way they are anyway because "civil union" is already a certain legal contract right now. Making it equal to marriage would change things from the way they are. Then having to make another, differently named contract to take the place of the civil unions so that those who want it have a contract at the level of recognition/protection that they did have with civil unions would change things from the way they are.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what your bugging out about here. What is your problem with making civil union have equal benefits to marriage? That way, if someone doesn't actually want to have a "marriage" (if they want to change things about it), then they can have their civil union and still enjoy all the benefits that married people do. It isn't about separate but equal but about letting people choose while NOT having to change things for others. In reality, if you wanted to change things about marriage, then it is obviously not marriage that you want, but something else like a civil union. You can keep saying terminology and traditions don't matter, but that is strictly an opinion.

What's so wrong about that?
 
cpwill said:
:roll: yeah. everyone I've met in the SSM debates is up in arms over the fiscal irresponsibility of paperwork.
Click to expand...

No, many are upset about the verbiage on the paperwork. "They could cause the paperwork wording to be changed from something that it has been for about 30 years so they need to be called something different and we can just change all of the other paperwork to match that change because we don't like change."

So you don't care about fiscal irresponsibility?
 
Funny, on the one hand "terminology isn't important and is petty (as are traditions)." Yet on the other hand, you get "we should have gender-neutral terminology!" Well, which one is it?
 
ChrisL said:
I don't understand what your bugging out about here. What is your problem with making civil union have equal benefits to marriage? That way, if someone doesn't actually want to have a "marriage" (if they want to change things about it), then they can have their civil union and still enjoy all the benefits that married people do. It isn't about separate but equal but about letting people choose while NOT having to change things for others. In reality, if you wanted to change things about marriage, then it is obviously not marriage that you want, but something else like a civil union. You can keep saying terminology and traditions don't matter, but that is strictly an opinion.

What's so wrong about that?
Click to expand...

Because it is stupid to have two different words/forms/setups in the place that give the exact same things. It is fiscally irresponsible. It involves a lot more change than simply allowing same sex couples full access to marriage, even if that means some states change their marriage license/paperwork to account for same sex couples. And civil unions already exist for another purpose, to provide couples with a different level of recognition/protection that don't want to be married.

What do you not understand about your suggestion comes with a lot more change, just in different places of the law and for different people than just opening up marriage to same sex couples, even if that means a little change to the paperwork? It is still going to cause change. Just because that change won't affect you or won't affect certain people doesn't mean it won't be change.
 
roguenuke said:
Because it is stupid to have two different words/forms/setups in the place that give the exact same things. It is fiscally irresponsible. It involves a lot more change than simply allowing same sex couples full access to marriage, even if that means some states change their marriage license/paperwork to account for same sex couples. And civil unions already exist for another purpose, to provide couples with a different level of recognition/protection that don't want to be married.

What do you not understand about your suggestion comes with a lot more change, just in different places of the law and for different people than just opening up marriage to same sex couples, even if that means a little change to the paperwork? It is still going to cause change. Just because that change won't affect you or won't affect certain people doesn't mean it won't be change.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with marriage being opened up to same sex couples, but like you stated arguing over the terminology is just stupid, so I am expecting no one will have a problem with existing terminology and customs.
 
ChrisL said:
Funny, on the one hand "terminology isn't important and is petty (as are traditions)." Yet on the other hand, you get "we should have gender-neutral terminology!" Well, which one is it?
Click to expand...

I'm not the one suggesting "gender neutral" terminology, but I do see the necessity for it, even if it is choosing "bride/groom, bride/groom" on the forms. But it is better to make those small changes than it is to have to make huge changes just to avoid changing one form to include gender neutral terminology. But what is on the forms, as long as it covers everyone, should be left up to the individual states, since it doesn't actually affect anyone's rights.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't have a problem with marriage being opened up to same sex couples, but like you stated arguing over the terminology is just stupid, so I am expecting no one will have a problem with existing terminology and customs.
Click to expand...

Terminology changes and customs change over time. No one is talking about changing customs. In fact, most people have different customs pertaining to marriage already since there are no legal custom requirements pertaining to marriage.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't understand what your bugging out about here. What is your problem with making civil union have equal benefits to marriage? That way, if someone doesn't actually want to have a "marriage" (if they want to change things about it), then they can have their civil union and still enjoy all the benefits that married people do. It isn't about separate but equal but about letting people choose while NOT having to change things for others. In reality, if you wanted to change things about marriage, then it is obviously not marriage that you want, but something else like a civil union. You can keep saying terminology and traditions don't matter, but that is strictly an opinion.

What's so wrong about that?
Click to expand...

So you would be fine if inter-racial marriage were outlawed, but people of different races were able to civil union each other?
Afterall, they would still be able to enjoy all the benefits that same race married people do, while NOT having to change things for others. I mean.....either terminology and traditions matter or they don't right? So you would be fine with going back to our original terminology and traditions before "marriage" was bastardized by allowing different races to marry each other?
 
roguenuke said:
No, many are upset about the verbiage on the paperwork.
Click to expand...

Precisely. It's not about rights and privileges. It's about a word.

So you don't care about fiscal irresponsibility?
Click to expand...

I find it's invocation here unserious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom