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 7 of 83 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 830

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

  1. #61
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Does this make sense? I'm really trying hard to make my point here. Don't know how successful I'm being though.
    Honestly it's somewhat hard to make sense of what you're thinking because I can't seem to figure out what you're really arguing about because you seem to be agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.

    Maybe I'll try to make my point clearer and in one post to you, so you at least know what I'M saying so maybe its easier for you to figure out what you want to respond with.

    Currently, I think that disallowing same-sex couples a means of being married is unconstitutional based on gender discrimination

    Now, if you want to make marriage a situation where any two people can be "married", then I'm fine with that personally. And I think in that instance that the terms "husband/wife" terms, in a legal sense, should remain and simply correspond with whichever the individual would like to have themselves listed as.

    I think the best COMPROMISE position would be to remove marriage from a legal term and simply use "civil union". Thus "Marriage" truly simply becomes a societal and religious term rather than the dual meaning it has today. In such a situation, I'd see no reason why two more generalized terms shouldn't be used for the legal definition of the two people.

    I think having Marriage strictly for opposite sex couples and Civil Unions as a seperate but equal coupling for others is unconstitutional due to the notion of "seperate but equal" being problematic constitutionally.

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL
    Really. For some reason, that doesn't sound as satisfying or romantic IMO.
    But it's the same, right?

    We're really to blame. I mean, if a guy is in a monogamous relationship on DP and he talks about his girlfriend as his "partner", if you don't know for fact that it's a girlfriend, you assume he's gay. It's only natural.

    Eliminate that stigma, and you'll see less differentiation between the two.

  3. #63
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    They're equal when little girls daydream about the day some boy gets down on his knee and asks her, "Will you civilly unite with me?".
    Why would they do that? Is marriage not actually important religiously, or important traditionally, or important socially, that without the government officially using the word it would magically vanish from the vernacular?

    People talk about needing to preserve the important "tradition" of marriage. The "sanctity" of it. Some even argue about the "holiness" of it. If those things actually are so wrapped up in the word marriage, why would the government simply ceasing to use it....not banning it, not forbidding it's existance, not wiping it form history, but simply not using it...be the deciding factor to make it go away?

    You're right, little girls would still "day dream" about the day some boy gets down on his knee and asks her to "Marry" him. And they'll likely still go to their church and get "married" under the eyes of god and family and friends. And then they'll go to the county clerk and sign a certificate of civil union for their new legal standing for tax benefits and other government perks.

  4. #64
    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
    Honestly it's somewhat hard to make sense of what you're thinking because I can't seem to figure out what you're really arguing about because you seem to be agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.

    Maybe I'll try to make my point clearer and in one post to you, so you at least know what I'M saying so maybe its easier for you to figure out what you want to respond with.

    Currently, I think that disallowing same-sex couples a means of being married is unconstitutional based on gender discrimination

    Now, if you want to make marriage a situation where any two people can be "married", then I'm fine with that personally. And I think in that instance that the terms "husband/wife" terms, in a legal sense, should remain and simply correspond with whichever the individual would like to have themselves listed as.

    I think the best COMPROMISE position would be to remove marriage from a legal term and simply use "civil union". Thus "Marriage" truly simply becomes a societal and religious term rather than the dual meaning it has today. In such a situation, I'd see no reason why two more generalized terms shouldn't be used for the legal definition of the two people.

    I think having Marriage strictly for opposite sex couples and Civil Unions as a seperate but equal coupling for others is unconstitutional due to the notion of "seperate but equal" being problematic constitutionally.
    I completely understand what you are trying to say.

    Now, let ME try again.

    I think that both marriage and civil union should be options. If a gay couple feels that marriage does not meet their definition of their union, then the option of a civil union is there. Instead of trying to change the concept of marriage (i.e., the terminology, religious connotations, etc.), they can choose to be civilly united instead. In this way, the "sanctity" (I hate that word - LOL) is spared for those who feel it is important, and gay people (and straight people) can choose which union is better suited for them.

    IOW, I think both should be offered, and let the couple choose, but if they choose "marriage" then they are choosing all that goes along with it, the terminologies, etc.

  5. #65
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    But it's the same, right?
    No, it's not the same, that's kind of the point.

    Thanks for highlighting it.

    "Civil Union" is not the same as "marriage", because despite them having "equal" legal rights they have unquestionably "seperate" stigmas and notions attached to them.

    You're aboslutely right, they're NOT the same. Which is why there shouldn't be two seperate LEGAL designations.

    Thanks for highlighting that so well gipper.

  6. #66
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    I completely understand what you are trying to say.

    Now, let ME try again.

    I think that both marriage and civil union should be options. If a gay couple feels that marriage does not meet their definition of their union, then the option of a civil union is there. Instead of trying to change the concept of marriage (i.e., the terminology, religious connotations, etc.), they can choose to be civilly united instead. In this way, the "sanctity" (I hate that word - LOL) is spared for those who feel it is important, and gay people (and straight people) can choose which union is better suited for them.

    IOW, I think both should be offered, and let the couple choose, but if they choose "marriage" then they are choosing all that goes along with it, the terminologies, etc.
    So if I get you, you're saying it should be...

    Marriage = Any two consenting adults can enter into this, but the legal document noting their coupling would require the use of one of the two traditional terms of "husband" or "wife"?

    Civil Union = Any two consenting adults can enter into this, and hte legal document would use generic and/or a longer list of potential terms for the two?

    If that's what you're saying...I see nothing wrong with that, other than it being a rather inefficient and overly beuracratic system. But nothing constitutioanlly wrong with it

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin
    No, it's not the same, that's kind of the point.

    Thanks for highlighting it.

    "Civil Union" is not the same as "marriage", because despite them having "equal" legal rights they have unquestionably "seperate" stigmas and notions attached to them.

    You're aboslutely right, they're NOT the same. Which is why there shouldn't be two seperate LEGAL designations.

    Thanks for highlighting that so well gipper.
    I was wondering if your sarcasm detector was on the fritz for a minute.

  8. #68
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    They're equal when little girls daydream about the day some boy gets down on his knee and asks her, "Will you civilly unite with me?".
    By that same logic, if the boy asks "will you be my wife?" she should say "NO!" and leave, because he had not asked her to be his "bride" - and "bride," not "wife," is the government word - and it is therefore illegal to be a wife anyway, only a bride because that's what the marriage license says.

    The government dictating words restrictively is rather bizarre. Straights can ONLY have "marriages," but not "civil unions." And gays can only have "civil unions," but not "marriages." By government edicts.

  9. #69
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    I completely understand what you are trying to say.

    Now, let ME try again.

    I think that both marriage and civil union should be options. If a gay couple feels that marriage does not meet their definition of their union, then the option of a civil union is there. Instead of trying to change the concept of marriage (i.e., the terminology, religious connotations, etc.), they can choose to be civilly united instead. In this way, the "sanctity" (I hate that word - LOL) is spared for those who feel it is important, and gay people (and straight people) can choose which union is better suited for them.

    IOW, I think both should be offered, and let the couple choose, but if they choose "marriage" then they are choosing all that goes along with it, the terminologies, etc.
    So basically your saying the being gay means accepting terminology of being atheists, and being hetero means accepting the terminology that you are religious?

    Seriously, be truthful. If you were in a group and one of the women said about another of the women, "this is my husband, we're married" you would REALLY be deeply offended/troubled because what "you feel is important" to you has been violated?

  10. #70
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Gays have as much a right to a religious ceremony as anyone else. Thus, no, "civil" union is not the same.
    I disagree, in order to have this, our government must become involved, which would be unconstitutional (separation of Church and state).
    Far to many churches are against this "gay" marriage and for good reason....So this is hands off , government-wise.
    And a good point is made.........how about the atheist, who may not wish to have a "church" wedding/marriage ?
    Civil unions for them, CUs for all people....and an "atheist" Church for the honest non-believer.....
    So, I do NOT believe that anyone should have the right to a religious ceremony....

Page 7 of 83 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... 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
  •