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 39 of 83 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 830

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

  1. #381
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,315
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    That second part is very important. A state can define what sort of benefits marriage entails (from the state), but really can't abridge people's access to it, especially not when there are federal benefits involved.
    Sure they can limit access, but they need to have a good reason to do so. How good depends on the level of scrutiny applied to each case.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #382
    Guru
    celticwar17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,889

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    1.) legal marriage is NEVER religious if people CHOOSE to do religious things with their LEGAL marriage thats on them
    2.) again simply not true
    3.) no we didnt i said things OUTSIDE or LEGAL marriage are subjective and culture but not LEGAL marriage and it didnt help your points at all because this is all about LEGAL marriage the rest is meaningless
    4.) DO "i" think, no i do not think that but im ok if people want to fight for that, it simply doesnt make sense because it would be something NEW for start to finish, not granting equal rights like now, you would be inventing something totally new and something totally different and putting it under the same laws and titles which is stupid and a waste of government money to me BUT again if people want to fight for that i would never stop them
    1) This has nothing to do with what I was saying, I am well aware of the differences between legal and religous marriage stuff
    2) HOW can you even say this when the very part of it we are discussing is gays not being included in marriage... although that is not only a Christian thing... Christian views were the main factor in making this take place. AND PLEASE BE REAL. The anti-poligamy laws are COMPLETELY derived off the mainstream Christian religion... these are not the only examples either. You sir are dishonest.
    3) government defines marriage, just because the government did define it doesn't make it separate from discussion. No one has the right to define it or at least define who can and cannot participate in it.
    4) something totally new and different. See you are revealing your bias towards the establishment of marriage... this is your cultural concept, of course its new a different is does not follow societal norms like marriage does, it doesn't discriminate like marriage does.

  3. #383
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jredbaron96 View Post
    One of the common arugements I've seen from social conservatives is that the creation of a civil union should answer the questions regarding gay marriage.

    Typically, the general idea is this:

    • The civil union will contain the same benefits as a heterosexual marriage
    • The term 'marriage' will only be recognized as between one man and one woman


    So, dear reader, my question to you is: Are civil unions an acceptable compromise with regards to the issue of Same-Sex marriage?

    I'll try to have the answers as applicable as possible.
    If I were the party seeking marital rights, I wouldn't accept any compromise, except that which was necessary for a short time as a stepping stone for future action towards full 'marriage'.

  4. #384
    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 Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    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.
    Yes you do, and yes you did.

  5. #385
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

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

    Quote Originally Posted by celticwar17 View Post
    Not really what Im saying... I agree to take the government out of marriage. Im saying that is the only honest solution. People who currently want to keep the same government run marriage system but simply allow gay people to be label as married are disingenuous. Marriage is not something that should be in government, it is a cultural tradition.
    So then you agree that marriage should be left to churches and they can decide whether to marry gays or not, right?
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  6. #386
    Guru
    celticwar17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,889

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

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    So then you agree that marriage should be left to churches and they can decide whether to marry gays or not, right?
    Yes, absolutely, if the following conditions are met... but marriage in the first place shouldn't be defined by government... any two or more consenting adults should be able to get "married", otherwise you would be discriminating, because it is not your job or the governments job to declare what a marital relationship is. At this point I don't think the term marriage describes this contract... only something like civil unions does.

  7. #387
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,795

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

    Quote Originally Posted by celticwar17 View Post
    1) This has nothing to do with what I was saying, I am well aware of the differences between legal and religous marriage stuff
    2) HOW can you even say this when the very part of it we are discussing is gays not being included in marriage... although that is not only a Christian thing... Christian views were the main factor in making this take place. AND PLEASE BE REAL. The anti-poligamy laws are COMPLETELY derived off the mainstream Christian religion... these are not the only examples either. You sir are dishonest.
    3) government defines marriage, just because the government did define it doesn't make it separate from discussion. No one has the right to define it or at least define who can and cannot participate in it.
    4) something totally new and different. See you are revealing your bias towards the establishment of marriage... this is your cultural concept, of course its new a different is does not follow societal norms like marriage does, it doesn't discriminate like marriage does.
    1.) actually it does because religious marriage is meaningless in the debate about equal rights and you seem to bring it up like it means something. If you aknowledge the fact they are different then please start a thread about the topic you wish to discuss.
    2.) easy because i acknowledge the facts sorry i like facts not opinions and assumptions, im not dishonest about anything and you just might want to check history and who practiced/practices polygamy LMAO
    SOrry I have facts you have opinion nothing dishonest about that at all. Let me know when that fact changes.
    3.) weird i didnt say any of this, another meaningless left field point. Government has a right to define LEGAL marriage and we are the government along with are rights freedoms and laws.
    4.) wrong again it would 100% be something new and different by definition, there is no biased in that, i notice how you ignore facts a lot

    DO you have anything at all relevant to the discussion at hand? anything that says we shouldn't grant equal rights to gays?
    anything?
    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

  8. #388
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,795

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

    Quote Originally Posted by celticwar17 View Post
    Yes, absolutely, if the following conditions are met... but marriage in the first place shouldn't be defined by government... any two or more consenting adults should be able to get "married", otherwise you would be discriminating, because it is not your job or the governments job to declare what a marital relationship is. At this point I don't think the term marriage describes this contract... only something like civil unions does.
    more stuff simply not true
    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. #389
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,795

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Yes you do, and yes you did.
    so tell me your suggestion again so i get it right this time
    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

  10. #390
    Guru
    celticwar17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,889

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    1.) actually it does because religious marriage is meaningless in the debate about equal rights and you seem to bring it up like it means something. If you aknowledge the fact they are different then please start a thread about the topic you wish to discuss.
    2.) easy because i acknowledge the facts sorry i like facts not opinions and assumptions, im not dishonest about anything and you just might want to check history and who practiced/practices polygamy LMAO
    SOrry I have facts you have opinion nothing dishonest about that at all. Let me know when that fact changes.
    3.) weird i didnt say any of this, another meaningless left field point. Government has a right to define LEGAL marriage and we are the government along with are rights freedoms and laws.
    4.) wrong again it would 100% be something new and different by definition, there is no biased in that, i notice how you ignore facts a lot

    DO you have anything at all relevant to the discussion at hand? anything that says we shouldn't grant equal rights to gays?
    anything?
    1) No it is not meaningless, the point was to establish that marriage is a subjective tradition.
    2) WHAT? I have checked history... tell me what history tells on the banishment of Polygamy? You tell me to look at who practiced polygamy, that is specifically why I said MAINSTREAM Christian religion. You are simply wrong about this America in it's early times was a predominately protestant country and it was modeled that a marriage could only be between one and one women. Polygamy was banned due to outcry of the protestants saying it was a barbaric practice. Okay maybe I was wrong, you arn't dishonest, your are just completely ignorant of the subject, which is okay I'd be glad to teach you.
    3) See, I don't think the government has the right to define LEGAL marriage when it excludes two consenting individuals.
    4) No, the concept of marriage in this country has been created on who and who cannot participate in it and what kind of benefits and perks is established from it. This establishment is a bias. The government should not be biased on what Legal marriage is, a LEGAL marriage can only be defined(meaning defining what kind of relationship is eligible) by the two or more consenting individuals, otherwise you and the government is being discriminatory.

    This is relevant, like I have mentioned before.

    Im starting to get the feeling you arn't really fit to debate this with me, because you can't even provide any supposed facts yourself.

Page 39 of 83 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... 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
  •