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 49 of 83 FirstFirst ... 39474849505159 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 830

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

  1. #481
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

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

    Quote Originally Posted by celticwar17 View Post
    You haven't stated a single relevant fact this entire thread.
    says YOU, but reality, history, facts, me and others disagree
    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. #482
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Why do it? So that things that are important to a lot of people about marriage don't have to be changed to please same-sex couples. Such as in the other thread about one state wanting to change the names "bride and groom."

    And don't even TELL me that it isn't because of same-sex couples, because obviously it is, otherwise no one would mind the terms bride/groom.
    I understand the point you are making but they arent being changed in reality

    the STATE wanted to change it to make the form easier not gays and that is meaningless to marriage, many states NEVER had bride and groom and in Washington (the state the post was about) didnt used to it was changed at one point. SO i think thats a waste of time and people that are bothered by that are the one with the problem because its meaningless to them. Washingtons form used to say participating parties and many states do the same and always have.

    if it was a real issues i would just simply say it should have never been changed
    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. #483
    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;1061236628]
    I understand the point you are making but they arent being changed in reality
    Says who?

    the STATE wanted to change it to make the form easier not gays and that is meaningless to marriage, many states NEVER had bride and groom and in Washington (the state the post was about) didnt used to it was changed at one point. SO i think thats a waste of time and people that are bothered by that are the one with the problem because its meaningless to them. Washingtons form used to say participating parties and many states do the same and always have.
    You guys keep saying it's meaningless. It is NOT meaningless to everyone, and if it is so "meaningless" then why bother to change it at all? I don't believe that the state would just preemptively decide to change terminology for no good reason. I believe there is a reason behind this move.

    if it was a real issues i would just simply say it should have never been changed
    So . . . you are personally guaranteeing that same-sex couples are not going to be making demands to make changes to marriage (traditional marriages) to make it more PC for them?

  4. #484
    Guru
    celticwar17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 04:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,908

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    says YOU, but reality, history, facts, me and others disagree
    what history have you mentioned? the only history I recall is you saying how women fought for the right to vote and how black people fought for racial equality. It has nothing to do with our discussion and they were just examples in your point that I disproved.
    What facts did you ever mention? apparently our definition of "equal rights" are different, but it shouldn't even have affected things in the long run.
    We have hopefully both been talking about reality... at least I assumed...
    just because one other poster or even a thousand others disagreed it still makes no difference in your argument, hence argumentum ad populum. ANOTHER argument of yours, shot down....

    Obviously this entire time you just wanted this discussion to turn into a piss match...

  5. #485
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

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

    [QUOTE=ChrisL;1061236632]
    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post

    1.)Says who?



    2.)You guys keep saying it's meaningless. It is NOT meaningless to everyone, and
    3.) if it is so "meaningless" then why bother to change it at all?
    4.) I don't believe that the state would just preemptively decide to change terminology for no good reason. I believe there is a reason behind this move.



    5.)So . . . you are personally guaranteeing that same-sex couples are not going to be making demands to make changes to marriage (traditional marriages) to make it more PC for them?
    1.) reality what is being changed?
    2.) but it is meaningless in reality what about the millions of people that dont have bride and groom on their licenses, certificate? they are STILL bride and groom that fact didnt change
    3.) because its inaccurate
    4.) yes, see above

    what was the reason to change it in the first place? are you concerned with that, at one time it said participating parties, which was totally accurate.
    Why change that?

    5.) what changes can they make? and what is "traditional" marriage thats a made up subjective term that can not be changed. I have tradition that i plan on practicing for my marriage, nothing can change them.

    theres nuts out there that still only want whites to be married, those people dont matter just like if theres nuts out there that only want gays to be married 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

  6. #486
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

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

    Quote Originally Posted by celticwar17 View Post
    1.)what history have you mentioned? the only history I recall is you saying how women fought for the right to vote and how black people fought for racial equality. It has nothing to do with our discussion and they were just examples in your point that I disproved.
    2.)What facts did you ever mention?
    3.)apparently our definition of "equal rights" are different, but it shouldn't even have affected things in the long run.
    4.)We have hopefully both been talking about reality... at least I assumed...
    5.)just because one other poster or even a thousand others disagreed it still makes no difference in your argument, hence argumentum ad populum. ANOTHER argument of yours, shot down....

    6.)Obviously this entire time you just wanted this discussion to turn into a piss match...
    1.) you never disporved them LMAO they were examples to explain to you what equal rights are but its a concept you still dont understand, no biggie
    2.) many as agreed upon by history and others
    3.) no they are not different, i dont have my own definition, facts define what it is and i choose the facts while you chose to make up your own. ANd it effects everything if you would stay on topic lol
    4.) well i have, you have been talking about fantasy
    5.) i agree it doesnt change that the reality that i talked about facts and you did not
    6.) wrong again, i tried to educate you on your falsehoods you resisted.

    cant have a pissing match when m presenting facts and you are arguing against them, thats not how pissing matches work lol

    let me know when you can prove your false statement
    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. #487
    Guru
    celticwar17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 04:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,908

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    says YOU, but reality, history, facts, me and others disagree
    And HISTORY, dont make me laugh...

    earlier you openly denied how the current marriage laws had Christian influence...

    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 establishing opposite-sex marriage being the only aloud form of marriage.


    Your history was wrong when we were talking about this earlier... YOU WERE FACTUALLY INCORRECT.
    The anti-poligamy laws are COMPLETELY derived off the Protestant Christian religion that was mainstream in America all the way to current days. Protestants banned polygamy saying it was a barbaric practice.


    And even given this history I was NOT arguing to have Gay marriage banned!
    Last edited by celticwar17; 12-11-12 at 09:06 AM.

  8. #488
    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;1061236642][QUOTE=ChrisL;1061236632]

    1.) reality what is being changed?
    The terminology, as noted above.

    2.) but it is meaningless in reality what about the millions of people that dont have bride and groom on their licenses, certificate? they are STILL bride and groom that fact didnt change
    But to some people apparently it isn't meaningless. It was important enough to some people to write an article about it.


    3.) because its inaccurate
    According to who? Two married people are going to be one of any combination of bride/groom.

    4.) yes, see above
    See above where and what?

    what was the reason to change it in the first place? are you concerned with that, at one time it said participating parties, which was totally accurate.
    Why change that?
    Why change anything at all?

    5.) what changes can they make? and what is "traditional" marriage thats a made up subjective term that can not be changed. I have tradition that i plan on practicing for my marriage, nothing can change them.
    My idea PROTECTS people who view marriage as a religious ceremony (hence the rings and vows - which DO have religious connotations). You can deny that marriage in America has religious connotations, but that does not mean you are right. There are most definitely deep religious meanings within the symbolism and terminology in a wedding ceremony.

    We have no idea what people will want to change in the future because "they don't like it."

    theres nuts out there that still only want whites to be married, those people dont matter just like if theres nuts out there that only want gays to be married lol
    I don't know what this has to do with my post? Obviously there are nuts out there.

  9. #489
    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]

    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.

  10. #490
    Guru
    celticwar17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 04:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,908

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    3.) no they are not different, i dont have my own definition, facts define what it is and i choose the facts while you chose to make up your own. ANd it effects everything if you would stay on topic lol
    Yes our definition of what qualifies as an equal right IS different. Because I defined in post #469 that this is an example of equal rights... my logic in it is sound. You never mentioned where you specifically disagreed. Because I think we disagree in the definition of it itself.

Page 49 of 83 FirstFirst ... 39474849505159 ... 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
  •