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 5 of 83 FirstFirst ... 345671555 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 830

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

  1. #41
    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 joko104 View Post
    ??? Be unselfish? I don't even understand that. Why don't straight couples be "unselfish" and everyone go for "civil unions" in relation to the government? I think that "selfishness" has little to do with it. "Civil" inherently means "not spiritual." The government shouldn't be in spiritual matters anyway.
    It's selfish in the fact that they want to change terms and concepts in order to suit themselves and to hell with what anyone else feels about marriage (which is VERY important to many people), when they can accept equality in the form of civil unions. That way, people who value marriage and the terms and concepts that go with that can be happy, and the gay people can reside with their partners legally and with all of the same benefits of a marriage but just without the term "marriage."

    Again, if they want to change the concept of marriage, then they really want a civil union and not a marriage at all.

  2. #42
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Equal protection under the law? Fine. Changing the wording and concepts of marriage? Nope. Then they can have a civil union because they obviously don't really want a "marriage."
    Yes, equal protection under the law. The Current law allows for Men to do something women can't do, and women to do something men can't do. Simple objection to changing the LEGAL DEFINITION is not a relevant reason for allowing an unconstitutional legal definition to remain on the books.

  3. #43
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Yes and no

    No more "Wife and Husband" in a LEGAL sense

    There's nothing stopping the words from being used in a soceital/cultural/private enterprise sense what so ever.

    Just like the word marriage wouldn't magically vanish simply because the government doesn't call it a marriage anymore. Those that want to call themselves "married" still could, those that want to get "married" in the eyes of their church still can, etc.

    Just like today a gay couple can still call themselves "Husband" or "wife" and "married" even if the state doesn't recognize it, they just can't say it in a legal fashion.
    I say horse**** to that sorry...The world does not have to change because a few insist...there is such a thing as equality and such a thing as bending and conforming to the NORM also...you not only want the majority to give you what you consider to be equality you want them to STFU and word it..change it..mold it...to exactly what you want...and to that I say pfffffffft.
    You dont want the rest of us to accept equality...you are not satifisfied now with merely getting married..marriage now has to be exactly they way you want it to be and written the way you want it to be...and they want to continue to denigrate what they hate the most...religion...65% of the country believes in god and religion and they dont want reference to that either ?
    There is an old saying...you shot your wad.

  4. #44
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    Yes, equal protection under the law. The Current law allows for Men to do something women can't do, and women to do something men can't do. Simple objection to changing the LEGAL DEFINITION is not a relevant reason for allowing an unconstitutional legal definition to remain on the books.
    How is it unconstitutional? If we allow gays to unite in a manner that would be the same as marriage except with a different name, there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

  5. #45
    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 lpast View Post
    I say horse**** to that sorry...The world does not have to change because a few insist...there is such a thing as equality and such a thing as bending and conforming to the NORM also...you not only want the majority to give you what you consider to be equality you want them to STFU and word it..change it..mold it...to exactly what you want...and to that I say pfffffffft.
    You dont want the rest of us to accept equality...you are not satifisfied now with merely getting married..marriage now has to be exactly they way you want it to be and written the way you want it to be...and they want to continue to denigrate what they hate the most...religion...65% of the country believes in god and religion and they dont want reference to that either ?
    There is an old saying...you shot your wad.
    I agree, this is about hatred for everything religious and "getting even" IMO. It is absolutely despicable IMO.

  6. #46
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    They can take any combination of the groom/bride, husband/wife that they choose. If they both want to be "wife" or both want to be "husband"? That's fine by me, but when you want to CHANGE marriage, then you don't really want a MARRIAGE. You want a civil union or your OWN definition of marriage.
    Oh, I agree with this entirely. IF the term marriage stays on the books, let it stay, and let them both either simply take "husband" or "wife". I don't see much point in changing it to "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2" like we're suddenly in a Doctor Seuss book. To me, there's no compelling constitutional reason why the "wife" and "husband" designations would need to change if marriage was allowable to any 2 adult individuals.

    My suggestion was based around the notion that people are stringent about no homosexuals being "married" under the eyes of Government, and thus removing "marriage" as a government term entirely (so they don't have to fear homosexuals being "married" while making sure it's not a seperate but equal issue) and simply using civil unions. In such a situation, I think more generic terms for each individual would be more appropriate.

    But absolutely...if we legalized "marriage" for any two individuals I see no reason why some new designation bsides "wife/bride" and "husband/groom" is needed. Have two wives or two husbands.

  7. #47
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    Oh, I agree with this entirely. IF the term marriage stays on the books, let it stay, and let them both either simply take "husband" or "wife". I don't see much point in changing it to "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2" like we're suddenly in a Doctor Seuss book. To me, there's no compelling constitutional reason why the "wife" and "husband" designations would need to change if marriage was allowable to any 2 adult individuals.

    My suggestion was based around the notion that people are stringent about no homosexuals being "married" under the eyes of Government, and thus removing "marriage" as a government term entirely (so they don't have to fear homosexuals being "married" while making sure it's not a seperate but equal issue) and simply using civil unions. In such a situation, I think more generic terms for each individual would be more appropriate.

    But absolutely...if we legalized "marriage" for any two individuals I see no reason why some new designation bsides "wife/bride" and "husband/groom" is needed. Have two wives or two husbands.
    Agreed. You know, I just feel like if they want "marriage" then "marriage" is what they will get. They don't get to change marriage to make themselves happy. If they want something else, then they should be more supportive of civil unions.

  8. #48
    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.
    No, they are not: Either give "Marriage" or nothing at all. No half measures.

  9. #49
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

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

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I don't see any legal basis as the Constitution is written now that demands that homosexual marriages be recognized to comply with Constitutional law
    Where did I say anything about "homosexual marriage" specifically? I've been talking about same sex marriage. Ones sexual preference is irrelevant to me in terms of constitutionality for this. While its true the vast majortiy of same sex people that want to be married are homosexual, that's not the basis for my argument.

    A man can marry a woman.

    A woman can not marry a woman.

    A man, thus, is given a privledge legally that a woman is denied.

    As such, that discrimination needs to be shown to be substantially related to serving an important state interest. I have not been presented any state interest that would rise to that level in my opinion.

  10. #50
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    How is it unconstitutional? If we allow gays to unite in a manner that would be the same as marriage except with a different name, there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
    Well, first, again my argument was not based on "gays" but on gender.

    Having two seperate laws that do the same thing, but calling them different things, for a male and a female is the government implementing "seperate but equal" standards within the law.

    If a man marries a woman he gets to be "married". If a woman marries a woman they get to be in a "civil union". They both do the same thing (equal) but are called different things (seperate).

    That's problematic.

Page 5 of 83 FirstFirst ... 345671555 ... 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
  •