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 40 of 83 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 830

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

  1. #391
    Guru
    celticwar17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,886

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    more stuff simply not true
    More comments contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion

  2. #392
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,771

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

    Quote Originally Posted by celticwar17 View Post
    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.

    5.)This is relevant, like I have mentioned before.

    6.)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.
    1.) which doesnt matter to legal marriage, equal rights or the OP and its why you failed
    2.) LMAO oooooh so another backpedal and another but but but, sorry but i still have facts and you still dont. Now you are just trying to deflect. LOL seriously do you have anything relvant to add since you just been wrong and off topic the whole time? You have taught nothing but how to dance around the facts and make stuff up that you think means something to the discussion.
    3.) you are free to think that but again since we are the government and they have to protect and enfore rights and freedoms they do
    4.) again you changed nothing it would be something new from start to finish and its not discriminatory in a legal sense at all LOL
    5.) nope still isnt and you havent given one logical or factual reason why it is
    6.) Of course YOU think that lmao but its just a flat out lie, you have no factual, logical or intellectual path to take so you try to deflect and use failed inults but yet have provided NOTHING to support your meaningless, false and off topic claims.

    let me know when that changes.

    Ill be here waiting with facts and standing up for equal rights, let me know what you want to do lol
    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. #393
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,771

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

    Quote Originally Posted by celticwar17 View Post
    More comments contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion
    except exposing your post for what they factually are, no applause needed though you make it easy.

    if you disagree with what i said by all means provide anything factual that changes it
    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

  4. #394
    Guru
    celticwar17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,886

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    1.) which doesnt matter to legal marriage, equal rights or the OP and its why you failed
    2.) LMAO oooooh so another backpedal and another but but but, sorry but i still have facts and you still dont. Now you are just trying to deflect. LOL seriously do you have anything relvant to add since you just been wrong and off topic the whole time? You have taught nothing but how to dance around the facts and make stuff up that you think means something to the discussion.
    3.) you are free to think that but again since we are the government and they have to protect and enfore rights and freedoms they do
    4.) again you changed nothing it would be something new from start to finish and its not discriminatory in a legal sense at all LOL
    5.) nope still isnt and you havent given one logical or factual reason why it is
    6.) Of course YOU think that lmao but its just a flat out lie, you have no factual, logical or intellectual path to take so you try to deflect and use failed inults but yet have provided NOTHING to support your meaningless, false and off topic claims.

    let me know when that changes.

    Ill be here waiting with facts and standing up for equal rights, let me know what you want to do lol
    1) you fail to see the context in which this was placed into the arguement
    2) How am I backpedaling? My stance all along was that today's marriage laws have been influenced by Christianity. You are literally making things up now...
    3) what?
    4)yes, it is, it excludes some consenting adults.
    5) I did provide a logical reason
    6) I am not lieing about anything, please point out what I am lying about.

    How are you standing up for equal rights when you still exclude people from benefits just because it doesn't fit your preconception of what marriage is?

  5. #395
    Guru
    celticwar17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,886

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    except exposing your post for what they factually are, no applause needed though you make it easy.

    if you disagree with what i said by all means provide anything factual that changes it
    There is barely anything to really discuss with you because all your doing is being as generic as possible and pretending you actually are for equal rights.

  6. #396
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,771

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

    Quote Originally Posted by celticwar17 View Post
    1) you fail to see the context in which this was placed into the arguement
    2) How am I backpedaling? My stance all along was that today's marriage laws have been influenced by Christianity. You are literally making things up now...
    3) what?
    4)yes, it is, it excludes some consenting adults.
    5) I did provide a logical reason
    6) I am not lieing about anything, please point out what I am lying about.

    How are you standing up for equal rights when you still exclude people from benefits just because it doesn't fit your preconception of what marriage is?
    im dont talking meaningless off topic circles LMAO
    this is the bottome line

    Im for equal rights, civil unions would not be equal rights.

    is there anything you have that actually pertains to that in reality and not fantasy land?
    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

  7. #397
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,771

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

    Quote Originally Posted by celticwar17 View Post
    There is barely anything to really discuss with you because all your doing is being as generic as possible and pretending you actually are for equal rights.
    another lie , i am 100% for equal rights LMAO

    id love for you to prove otherwise, you cant
    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. #398
    Guru
    celticwar17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,886

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    another lie , i am 100% for equal rights LMAO

    id love for you to prove otherwise, you cant
    I WILL prove to you.

    Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude multiple individuals and be retricted to only two members.
    Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude adult siblings
    objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude Parent and adult child.
    Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude all adult close family up to the first cousin.

    Hence,

    Objective-J believes that not all consenting adults are eligible for the marriage contract.

    so,

    Objective-J does not believe that all two or more consenting adult groups should have equivalent rights that other two consenting adults do.

    Therefore,

    Objective-J is not always for equal rights, but only situationally when his definition of a martial relationship is met.




    I mean, the family/marriage contract concept is radical culturally, but Legally it is sound. This would define the marriage contract as simply two consenting adults that want to enjoy these benefits and responsibilities, no sexual connotations.
    Last edited by celticwar17; 12-11-12 at 04:08 AM.

  9. #399
    Guru
    celticwar17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,886

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

    ^ This would also include friends/business parneters, etc.
    but i did not put that in there because I didn't want to assume you had a problem with this... but the problem would come in on the attitude of courts and divorce court. Because you couldn't inherently assume that these two individuals are having a romantic/sexual relationship with rules and regulations, exept other than the benefit's and responsibilities in the contract.

  10. #400
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,771

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

    Quote Originally Posted by celticwar17 View Post
    I WILL prove to you.

    Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude multiple individuals and be retricted to only two members.
    Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude adult siblings
    objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude Parent and adult child.
    Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude all adult close family up to the first cousin.

    Hence,

    Objective-J believes that not all consenting adults are eligible for the marriage contract.

    so,

    Objective-J does not believe that all two or more consenting adult groups should have equivalent rights that other two consenting adults do.

    Therefore,

    Objective-J is not always for equal rights, but only situationally when his definition of a martial relationship is met.




    I mean, the family/marriage contract concept is radical culturally, but Legally it is sound. This would define the marriage contract as simply two consenting adults that want to enjoy these benefits and responsibilities, no sexual connotations.

    LMAO you just made a complete fool of yourself
    I know i asked you before but you didnt answer are you from america?
    1, i never said i believe ANY of that, so that is lie number one LMAO

    2.) do you understand what equal rights are?

    NOBODY has those rights you are talking about so that would not be an EQUAL rights issues LMAO

    it would be like i said something new and is MEANINGLESS to gay equal rights


    100% FAIL

    so again please stop lying
    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

Page 40 of 83 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... 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
  •