• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?

  • Yes, civil unions are an acceptable compromise.

    Votes: 17 17.2%

  • No, they are not, because:

    Votes: 51 51.5%

  • The government should not be involved with marriage, at all.

    Votes: 23 23.2%

  • Other (Please Explain)

    Votes: 8 8.1%
  • Total voters
    99
lpast said:
The world does not have to change because a few insist.
Click to expand...
Well, bringing it back to the United States and not "the world," 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage. That's the majority - not a "few."
 
lpast said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't rightly give a **** what the "majority" want. I give a crap about the Constitution, and the law. If the majority of people wanted the government to ban hate speech I'd be against that too. "Majority" is an irrelevant appeal to me when speaking on constitutional matters unless said majority is strong enough to amend the constitution itself.

You dont want the rest of us to accept equality
Click to expand...

I don't give a **** about people "accepting" equality. People didn't exactly "accept" it immedietely when blacks were made equal under the law or women were made equal. You can't FORCE social equality, and I have no intent or desire to force such. I DO believe though that legal equality can be enforced, and per the constitution should be enforced when the inequality doens't reach the necessary levels to be constitutional.

65% of the country believes in god and religion and they dont want reference to that either ?
Click to expand...

And that 65% can use their religion as their basis for their VOTING. But 100% of their religion means jack and **** if it conflicts with the Constitution
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I really don't see it as being problematic. I support gay peoples' right to be "married." I don't support them meddling with the terms and concept to fit their definitions. If they do this, then they truly don't want to be married. They are wanting to change the definition of marriage to suit themselves. That is not right or fair.

If that that is what they want to do, then they don't actually want a marriage. Does this make sense? I'm really trying hard to make my point here. Don't know how successful I'm being though. :lol:
 
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree here. The arguments recently over adding something else to a marriage liscense other than the "Bride/Groom" or "Husband/Wife" is ridiculous and I don't support it. There's no constitutional basis for why it should change and I don't begrudge anyone that doesn't wish it to change. It's easy to get on board with ACTUAL discrimination and constitutional issues with the law...it's a lot harder to get on board with what is basically an aesthetic nitpick.
 
ChrisL said:
I really don't see it as being problematic.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's problematic from a personal perspective, I'm suggesting it's problematic from a legal one.

Change the context to another protected group.

Let's say that a white man can get "married" to another white lady

But that white man would have to get a "civil union" to join together with a black lady

The "Civil union" and "marriage" would have the exact same benefits under the law...but would have different terms based on the race of those involved.

Do you imagine that'd be legally problematic or perfectly okay?
 
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?".
 
The husband/wife thing is OK if two men are allowed to both be husband and two women are allowed to be wives. What was insulting in that other thread were comments suggesting that gays should be forced to decide who wears the panties, who is the bride, etc.
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm not saying it's problematic from a personal perspective, I'm suggesting it's problematic from a legal one.

Change the context to another protected group.

Let's say that a white man can get "married" to another white lady

But that white man would have to get a "civil union" to join together with a black lady

The "Civil union" and "marriage" would have the exact same benefits under the law...but would have different terms based on the race of those involved.

Do you imagine that'd be legally problematic or perfectly okay?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm thinking about it from a different perspective in that people should get to choose which one they want, civil union or marriage. If they are not happy with the concept of marriage, then they can choose a civil union and avoid the conflict of trying to change the concept of marriage, because it is very important and meaningful to a lot of people - much more than just a legally binding contract, and that doesn't necessarily have to have religious connotations either.
 
Gipper said:
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?".
Click to expand...

Really. For some reason, that doesn't sound as satisfying or romantic IMO. :lol:
 
RepublicanMcDuc said:
The husband/wife thing is OK if two men are allowed to both be husband and two women are allowed to be wives. What was insulting in that other thread were comments suggesting that gays should be forced to decide who wears the panties, who is the bride, etc.
Click to expand...

Totally. They shouldn't have to be forced to be either a husband or a wife but should get to choose any combination they desire. I have no problem with that.
 
ChrisL said:
Does this make sense? I'm really trying hard to make my point here. Don't know how successful I'm being though. :lol:
Click to expand...

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.
 
ChrisL said:
Really. For some reason, that doesn't sound as satisfying or romantic IMO.
Click to expand...

But it's the same, right? :D

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.
 
Gipper said:
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?".
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I completely understand what you are trying to say.

Now, let ME try again. :lol:

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.
 
Gipper said:
But it's the same, right? :D
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
I completely understand what you are trying to say.

Now, let ME try again. :lol:

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was wondering if your sarcasm detector was on the fritz for a minute.
 
Gipper said:
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?".
Click to expand...

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.
 
ChrisL said:
I completely understand what you are trying to say.

Now, let ME try again. :lol:

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
joko104 said:
Gays have as much a right to a religious ceremony as anyone else. Thus, no, "civil" union is not the same.
Click to expand...
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....
 
joko104 said:
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?
Click to expand...

You obviously have no clue what I'm talking about.
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who the hell said any of that? Quit trying to project into other peoples' posts.
 
joko104 said:
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?
Click to expand...

What I said was that gay people should be able to choose between groom/bride, groom/groom, bride/bride, basically any combination of the two. You claim that I said the EXACT opposite. That is just annoying.
 
I don't think the state should be involved in marriage.
 
If civil unions are exactly the same thing as marriage, then you have a difference without a distinction. It is simply silly. However, the case as it is now is not like that. Civil unions are massively different from marriage under the law, and this is not likely to change. It is oddly easier simply to get marriage rights to gay couples than it is to allow civil unions and make then identical to marriage. And even if you could make them identical, what exactly then is the point. Marriage in everything but name is marriage, so call it what it is.

On a couple points made by others:

digsbe said:
I think it is a good compromise. It allows homosexuals to have the legal benefits of marriage without redefining marriage for those who have moral issues with homosexual relationships qualifying as a marriage.
Click to expand...

SSM has zero effect on any other person's marriage.

lpast said:
So no more wife and husband...lol...ok
Click to expand...

Absolutely not the case. The state simply does not define those roles, nor should they. At least a couple stateshave already, long before the November election, removed any gender specific language from marriage documents because even in opposite sex marriages the lines where blurred.

lpast said:
This is the kind of vitriolic bs that promulgates anger and frustration...gays and their cheerleaders...dont want equality they want to change the entire world for the majority..this has gotten to be more an ego trip than anything else.
You want to denigrate religious people...you want to throw out the word marriage for the 94% you want to make it all generic...so 6% of the population can not only have equality they can have IT ALL THEIR WAY....know what..screw that..and that is said simply as fact not in any kind of anger whatsoever..
Click to expand...

SSM does not in any way change straight marriage.

digsbe said:
What matters is the makeup of each state since states issue marriage licenses and regulate it. 90% of people in New York could approve SSM but if 60% in Texas do not then we shouldn't expect the beliefs of New Yorkers to dictate how Texas handles marriage.
Click to expand...

And what happens when a same sex Texas couple go to New York and get married? Can states refuse to recognize legal contracts from other states? If not, then Texas is just going to have to deal with the fact of SSM couples.

ChrisL said:
I'm all for equality, but I am certainly NOT for specific groups getting "special privileges" such as being able to change the wording on marriage certificates because of . . . . ??? I don't even know why.
Click to expand...

How a marriage certificate is worded has no practical effect on a marraige.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom