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 54 of 83 FirstFirst ... 444525354555664 ... LastLast
Results 531 to 540 of 830

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

  1. #531
    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 ChrisL View Post
    Good, then no one should ever make a stink about changing the existing terminology on marriage licenses.
    The only one making a stink about this is you and a few other complainers. If Washington state wants to change their paperwork, that is their decision. If the people feel their legislators did this wrongly, then they will vote in people who will change it to something more suitable or they will vote to change it back by popular vote, but it is still something unrelated to having two different contracts for the same thing just with different names and/or for different people.
    "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.

  2. #532
    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 ChrisL View Post
    Exactly. So if it does state bride/groom, then that shouldn't be a issue either then, using your logic.
    Have I ever said it was an issue to me, personally, what the license said? No, I am pretty sure I haven't.

    I have an issue with people complaining about it and blaming this on same sex marriage being legal, and subsequently same sex couples just because the change was made. If you don't like the change, work to change it back instead of making "suggestions" about having two different contracts because of this one stupid issue. The two issues are not connected. Same sex couples should not have to settle for something less or different just because of the potential for a change in verbiage to the existing marriage licenses.
    "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.

  3. #533
    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 roguenuke View Post
    The only one making a stink about this is you and a few other complainers. If Washington state wants to change their paperwork, that is their decision. If the people feel their legislators did this wrongly, then they will vote in people who will change it to something more suitable or they will vote to change it back by popular vote, but it is still something unrelated to having two different contracts for the same thing just with different names and/or for different people.
    I'm not making a stink. I'm stating my opinions which the OP asked for. I voted for other, and I am explaining why. Like I've stated a few times at least, I have no problem with gay marriage, but if they want to start making changes (and I used WA as purely an example), then they should go for a civil union, and civil union should include every benefit that marriage does. What's the problem?

  4. #534
    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 roguenuke View Post
    Have I ever said it was an issue to me, personally, what the license said? No, I am pretty sure I haven't.

    I have an issue with people complaining about it and blaming this on same sex marriage being legal, and subsequently same sex couples just because the change was made. If you don't like the change, work to change it back instead of making "suggestions" about having two different contracts because of this one stupid issue. The two issues are not connected. Same sex couples should not have to settle for something less or different just because of the potential for a change in verbiage to the existing marriage licenses.
    Again, whether the state was behind the proposed changes or not, I don't know. I know that the OP made it sound as if changes were going to be made to appease certain groups of people. Whatever, that was just an example of what COULD come in the future.

    I am certainly not asking for same sex couples to settle for anything less or more than anyone else gets.

  5. #535
    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 ChrisL View Post
    I'm not making a stink. I'm stating my opinions which the OP asked for. I voted for other, and I am explaining why. Like I've stated a few times at least, I have no problem with gay marriage, but if they want to start making changes (and I used WA as purely an example), then they should go for a civil union, and civil union should include every benefit that marriage does. What's the problem?
    The problem is that you are connecting two things that should not be connected and then using that as an excuse to put into place two contracts to do the same thing just because of a potential change in verbiage to paperwork that has no real impact on marriages at all. And such a thing would cost all of us more money. The federal government would have to recognize both marriages and civil unions, which it currently doesn't. Every state would have to agree to recognize civil unions at the same levels as they do marriages, which means changes to every state law in some way. And then those states that still want a lower level of recognition for couples, which is what civil unions currently do in many states now, would have to change the wording of laws about current civil unions in those states to something else to separately identify them as such. It is a huge waste of money. And it would mainly be taxpayer money. All because of the potential that a state legislature or even the voters of a state may choose to change the verbiage on the marriage license to something generic, not even offensive (from a reasonable person standard).
    "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.

  6. #536
    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]

    What makes people think that my answering the OP question and explaining my opinions as requested is making a stink? Am I only allowed to state my opinions on this matter if they are in 100% agreement with SSM no matter what?

    Mmmmm. I don't think so.

  7. #537
    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 roguenuke View Post
    The problem is that you are connecting two things that should not be connected and then using that as an excuse to put into place two contracts to do the same thing just because of a potential change in verbiage to paperwork that has no real impact on marriages at all. And such a thing would cost all of us more money. The federal government would have to recognize both marriages and civil unions, which it currently doesn't. Every state would have to agree to recognize civil unions at the same levels as they do marriages, which means changes to every state law in some way. And then those states that still want a lower level of recognition for couples, which is what civil unions currently do in many states now, would have to change the wording of laws about current civil unions in those states to something else to separately identify them as such. It is a huge waste of money. And it would mainly be taxpayer money. All because of the potential that a state legislature or even the voters of a state may choose to change the verbiage on the marriage license to something generic, not even offensive (from a reasonable person standard).
    You are still not getting that this is my point. I don't have a problem with SSM as long as they don't try to change the way things are. It's really very simple.

  8. #538
    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]

    That OP about WA changing terms on marriage licenses is another thread too. I keep getting these two mixed up.

  9. #539
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    What makes people think that my answering the OP question and explaining my opinions as requested is making a stink? Am I only allowed to state my opinions on this matter if they are in 100% agreement with SSM no matter what?
    That is correct. Diversity In Everything. Except Thought.

  10. #540
    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 ChrisL View Post
    You are still not getting that this is my point. I don't have a problem with SSM as long as they don't try to change the way things are. It's really very simple.
    No I understand your point. I think it is petty. It is just fiscally irresponsible for such a petty issue as verbiage on paperwork. Change happens all the time. Sometimes it is good, sometimes bad. But you don't cost the rest of society money and/or treat people differently because you have an issue with potential change. That is wrong, particularly in a time when we have a bad economy and are working to improve it. Trying to prevent slight changes with much bigger, more expensive ones is not going to help the economy.

    And you say "I don't have a problem with SSM as long as they don't try to change the way things are." Yet what you suggest as an alternative would in fact change things from the way they are anyway because "civil union" is already a certain legal contract right now. Making it equal to marriage would change things from the way they are. Then having to make another, differently named contract to take the place of the civil unions so that those who want it have a contract at the level of recognition/protection that they did have with civil unions would change things from the way they are.
    "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.

Page 54 of 83 FirstFirst ... 444525354555664 ... 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
  •