View Poll Results: Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?

Voters
105. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, civil unions are an acceptable compromise.

    17 16.19%
  • No, they are not, because:

    55 52.38%
  • The government should not be involved with marriage, at all.

    25 23.81%
  • Other (Please Explain)

    8 7.62%
Page 30 of 83 FirstFirst ... 2028293031324080 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 830

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

  1. #291
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,813

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

    [QUOTE=ChrisL;1061231421]
    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post

    1.)In the other thread, it said that they were eliminating (or so I thought) bride and groom and replacing them with spouse A and spouse B.



    2.)It isn't discrimination if BOTH options are open to everyone, and I don't see any reason why they couldn't change things so that civil union does include all of the benefits of marriage. Besides, don't the benefits given vary from state to state?



    3.)To be honest, like I said, I don't care, as long as they don't try to force unwanted/unnecessary changes on everyone else just to be "PC".



    Well, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that yes, I could see your point if we were talking about schools, workplaces, markets, entrances to public buildings, etc. Also, if you eliminate all of the traditional aspects of a wedding, you are kind of left with a legal contract which is what a civil union is.
    1.) yes the STATE was making a form easier to fill out and more universal, the form has nothing to do with marriage, verbiage said whill getting married or any traditions. Washington didnt always even use bride and groom and they used to use participating parties and many states have never used bride and groom on the contract/licenses/certificate form.

    people will still be husband and wife if that's what they want, the form is meaningless

    2.) no it is still discrimination just like minority separate but equal laws are and just like my presidential / woman example is theres no changing the fact its discrimination. As for making them match that would be VERY hard to do since legal precedence as already been set that civil unions/domestic partnerships are not equal, a waste of money and time having government doing two things that are the sae and again it doesnt address the discrimination and insulting aspects of it.

    and yes SOME of them vary but there are still about 1400 many of which cant be achieved any other way.

    3.) well again this simply isnt happening

    4.) but where this logic fails is NOTHING is being eliminated traditional aspects of a wedding, not one singles thing ? IF that was happening id be against it myself but the fact is its not.

    so bottom line is its discriminaiton plane and simple, what do you think of my example about the president and women, you didnt directly comment?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  2. #292
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,813

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    I hope you're right.
    she is thats what happened, nothing else, the other nonsense being said by some people in this thread is simply not true and fantasy hyperbole.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  3. #293
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

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

    [QUOTE=Objective-J;1061231505]
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post

    1.) yes the STATE was making a form easier to fill out and more universal, the form has nothing to do with marriage, verbiage said whill getting married or any traditions. Washington didnt always even use bride and groom and they used to use participating parties and many states have never used bride and groom on the contract/licenses/certificate form.

    people will still be husband and wife if that's what they want, the form is meaningless

    2.) no it is still discrimination just like minority separate but equal laws are and just like my presidential / woman example is theres no changing the fact its discrimination. As for making them match that would be VERY hard to do since legal precedence as already been set that civil unions/domestic partnerships are not equal, a waste of money and time having government doing two things that are the sae and again it doesnt address the discrimination and insulting aspects of it.

    and yes SOME of them vary but there are still about 1400 many of which cant be achieved any other way.

    3.) well again this simply isnt happening

    4.) but where this logic fails is NOTHING is being eliminated traditional aspects of a wedding, not one singles thing ? IF that was happening id be against it myself but the fact is its not.

    so bottom line is its discriminaiton plane and simple, what do you think of my example about the president and women, you didnt directly comment?
    Sorry, had to grab a bite. I was starving! Anyhow, like I told Redress, I hope you're right.

    Regardless of what you might think, MY example was NOT discriminatory at all, as both options are open to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

    About your "example" I must have missed that. Post it again please.

  4. #294
    Professor
    TheLastIndependent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    08-29-15 @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,545
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Because marriage is the central institution by which our society thrives and survives, and weakening it's structures results in a weakening of our ability to do so.



    No. For example, we have blue laws that are perfectly Constitutional, and murder is illegal as well.
    Murder would be illegal regardless of the Bible. Religion would not play a role in that.

    As for the Blue laws, with the exception of Federal observance of holidays and no alcohol sale on Sundays, most of the Blue laws have been repealed, unenforced, or declared unconstitutional.

    How does stopping 2 people from marrying make marriage stronger? Would that not make it weaker?
    "The trust of the innocent is the liar's most useful tool." : Stephen King

    "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson

  5. #295
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,813

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

    [QUOTE=ChrisL;1061231590]
    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post

    Sorry, had to grab a bite. I was starving! Anyhow, like I told Redress, I hope you're right.

    Regardless of what you might think, MY example was NOT discriminatory at all, as both options are open to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

    About your "example" I must have missed that. Post it again please.
    No apologies need but thank you, hope you ate something good lol

    making them different names is discriminatory no matter how much you think its not and history proves that so im sorry but you are simply wrong on that point.
    but if you like me to lead you to water i will
    here is a simply question about your solution, when i ask you WHY you are making them separate what would your answer be?

    and no problem here is my example post, maybe thats why you missed it it wasnt directly to you but from another post and i just quoted it but here it is again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    simple question what if the term president of the united states was changed to something else or a new term was used only for black presidents or in the future women presidents, or a different or new title for women CEOs, bosses etc.

    SOrry mr Obama we cant call you POTUS, "traditionally" thats never been a man of color and we think a black man holding that title will harm the "sanctity" of it, so we are going to call you CEO of america, then if somebody else wins that is male and white we will go back to calling him POTUS, now mind you, you will still have all the power and responsibility but we just cant call you POTUS.

    no thanks thats beyond dumb and to the honesty eye discrimination and insulting.
    so based on this stuff above would you be ok if you were the first women CEO, President, or whatever and they said we cant call you the same name simply because you are a woman and how would that not be discrimination.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #296
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

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

    [QUOTE=Objective-J;1061231987][QUOTE=ChrisL;1061231590]

    No apologies need but thank you, hope you ate something good lol
    Not really. Chicken salad.

    making them different names is discriminatory no matter how much you think its not and history proves that so im sorry but you are simply wrong on that point.
    No it isn't discrimination if it is a choice that couples make.


    but if you like me to lead you to water i will
    I'm not a horse.


    here is a simply question about your solution, when i ask you WHY you are making them separate what would your answer be?
    Why would I make them separate? So that if gay people or even any other people (perhaps atheists) are offended by something to do with "marriage" then they can have another option without having to change anything for everyone else too.

    so based on this stuff above would you be ok if you were the first women CEO, President, or whatever and they said we cant call you the same name simply because you are a woman and how would that not be discrimination.
    That is completely different than what I proposed. And no.

  7. #297
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    I couldn't give a damn, personally. It only starts becoming a problem when people start viewing marriage as a "right".
    Marriage is a right.

    But more importantly equal protection under the law is a right. This is why a state can't tell someone with blue hair that they can't have a fishing license just because of their blue hair. This is why a state can't tell agnostics that they can't be plumbers. This is why a state can't tell Asian women that they cannot have a driver's license no matter how many people may want to make such a law. None of these things have ever been ruled as a right, but the 14th Amendment states that people have right to be treated equally by the law unless the state is able to show that a certain law that does treat people differently actually furthers a state interest.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #298
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,813

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post



    1.)Not really. Chicken salad.



    2.)No it isn't discrimination if it is a choice that couples make.




    3.)I'm not a horse.




    4.)Why would I make them separate? So that if gay people or even any other people (perhaps atheists) are offended by something to do with "marriage" then they can have another option without having to change anything for everyone else too.



    5.)That is completely different than what I proposed. And no.
    1.) nothing wrong with that lol
    2.) what choice? did i miss something? are you allowing the couples to pick if they enter into a legal marriage contract or a legal civil union contract? maybe i made some mistake?
    3.) i know but you do follow logic as opposed to others around here
    4.) THIS is exactly why its discrimination legal marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion nor are the vast majority of anybody trying to change anything.
    my next question is why should gays be forced to do something else? (if they arent allowed to marry)
    5.) again unless i missed something and my example wasnt about what YOU proposed it was about the OP because those are the SAME maybe i have to reread what you proposed maybe i missed something.

    but civil unions would be discrimination as in the OP, maybe you did somethig different to change that but i dont see how unless gays are ALSO allowed to get married if not its discrimination.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #299
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

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

    Government needs to get out of the marriage business. I see no good reason it should have been involved in it in the first place.

  10. #300
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLastIndependent View Post
    Murder would be illegal regardless of the Bible
    maybe. The fact remains that those who wrote our laws put that in their because their religious background informed them that it was wrong. You are attempting to declare motive and belief to be somehow illegitimate.

    How does stopping 2 people from marrying make marriage stronger?
    it wouldn't. however, shifting the institution of marriage further from it's basis as the center of the family unit and in the direction of "just a couple of people who love each other" would absolutely make it weaker. Not as bad in the case of SSM as, say, no-fault divorce has done - but that's not really a reason to make it worse.

Page 30 of 83 FirstFirst ... 2028293031324080 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •