• 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:
How does it change for gays then..using your logic change it for the 94% because it doesnt make a difference...but change it for the 6 % because it does make a difference....lol...yeah ok...some will defend everything gay dishonestly no matter what...im not accusing you of that redress...but it is a fact
Click to expand...

It makes no change for "the 94 %".
 
ChuckBerry said:
...but that was physical separation between black and white students. Will there be separate lines at the justice of the peace for same sex and opposite sex marriages? Will they have to sit in two different waiting rooms? When same sex couples go to file for their taxes, are they going to have to mail their joint returns to a completely different address than opposite sex couples? At hospitals, in waiting rooms for surgeries, are their going to be state mandated separate same sex and opposite sex rooms? Separate Coke machines? Two different TV's, one tuned to ESPN and one to Bravo?

What ACTUAL segregation is going to take place?

The Brown v. Board of Education argument is nonsense.
Click to expand...
It's not about the actual segregation, it's about the social stigmatization and its effects on the mental, financial and emotional wellbeing of homosexuals and, more importantly, that stigmatization being reinforced and even implemented by government policy.

It's the idea that there needs to be segregation that is nonsense. There is literally no valid reason.
 
Objective-J said:
simple question what if the term president of the united states was changed to something else or a new term was used only for black presidents or in the future women presidents, or a different or new title for women CEOs, bosses etc.

SOrry mr Obama we cant call you POTUS, "traditionally" thats never been a man of color and we think a black man holding that title will harm the "sanctity" of it, so we are going to call you CEO of america, then if somebody else wins that is male and white we will go back to calling him POTUS, now mind you, you will still have all the power and responsibility but we just cant call you POTUS.

no thanks thats beyond dumb and to the honesty eye discrimination and insulting.
Click to expand...

CRICKETS!

and thats what i thought it would be
trying to change make separate but equal is not only stupid and illogical its insulting.
 
Krhazy said:
It's not about the actual segregation, it's about the social stigmatization and its effects on the mental, financial and emotional wellbeing of homosexuals and, more importantly, that stigmatization being reinforced and even implemented by government policy.

It's the idea that there needs to be segregation that is nonsense. There is literally no valid reason.
Click to expand...

exactly, there is ZERO valid reasons in reality.
 
lpast said:
Im better with it...not all for it if bride and groom remains...I know people get angry and dislike me for not slobbering all over gay marriage and tossing my YAY FOR EVERYTHING GAY pompoms...I stand by what I believe no matter what the topic and thats that...I cant apologize for that...they will just have to remain angry with me and Ill just go about doing what I always did all my life..and that is be happy
Click to expand...

im certainly not mad at you, i just point at times where you are simply wrong, dishonest or illogical with your believes but you are more than free to have them. :shrug:
 
Objective-J said:
im certainly not mad at you, i just point at times where you are simply wrong, dishonest or illogical with your believes but you are more than free to have them. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Im never dishonest...I can be wrong and Im sure I may sound illogical to you at times...or even all the time..but never dishonest intentionally. I get myself in alot of **** telling it like I see it.
 
ChrisL;1061224148[B said:
]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[/B] (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.
Click to expand...


the bolded parts are simply not true
 
lpast said:
Im never dishonest...I can be wrong and Im sure I may sound illogical to you at times...or even all the time..but never dishonest intentionally. I get myself in alot of **** telling it like I see it.
Click to expand...

actually you have been caught being dishonest, im not interested in digging for examples but its true none the less, maybe like you said it was an accident but seem doubtful and i never judge LOGIC by "sound" I judge it by ones ability to back up thier comments with facts, honesty and or rational. Sometimes on this subject you are very incapable of that.

You logic is based on emotion, fantasy and hyperbole at times. ANd how you see it is simply not true at others.

But the point was i dont get mad at you or anybody here cause its a message board :shrug:
 
ChrisL said:
Well then why did some people want to change the terminology?
Click to expand...

the sate wanted to, to make the form more accurate and easier to fill out.

also the fact is it was already changed at one time to have those terms it used to only say parties involved :shrug:
 
ChrisL said:
I don't know how anyone could say that traditional marriage has no religious connections, because it most certainly does. The rings, the vows and a lot of the other traditional marriage customs are most definitely tied into religion.
Click to expand...

easy because we are talking legal marriage and it has aboselutley positively nothing to do with religious marriage unless the people involved want it too. They are completely separate in reality neither needing eachother to exist.

Rings, vows etc arent needed for marriages at all and if people choose to use them again, that is thier choice and effect religion zero. Religion isnt even a factor for the topic in reality.
 
Objective-J said:
actually you have been caught being dishonest, im not interested in digging for examples but its true none the less, maybe like you said it was an accident but seem doubtful and i never judge LOGIC by "sound" I judge it by ones ability to back up thier comments with facts, honesty and or rational. Sometimes on this subject you are very incapable of that.

You logic is based on emotion, fantasy and hyperbole at times. ANd how you see it is simply not true at others.

But the point was i dont get mad at you or anybody here cause its a message board :shrug:
Click to expand...


If your going to call me dishonest in public...you had better be willing to go digging and show where I have intentionally lied...and dont try to throw your hyperbole to try and degrade me and make you sound righteous....your opinion of what I think is worthless when its based on your dishonesty and your baseless innuendos
The hyperbole comes from those just like you who frantically jump in every reference of GAY...homosexual...Same Sex marriage with a frantic attack aimed at anyone that dares defy and disagree....people like you claim everyone else is either lieing..illogical..overly emotional..living in a fantasy world a rotten person and you and everyone who agrees with you is perfect and float over water...lmao.
Dishonesty is when you make claims that are just your opinion and try to make them the word of your god...dishonesty is when you degrade another only because they dont agree with you and attempt to demean them to make yourself look righteous and on right...that crap doesnt work with me objective..has no affect on me what so ever...I am against SSM and you cant make that out to be anything but what it is...you cant make me a liar because im against it...you cant make me a hypocrit you cant make anything but against Same Sex Marriage...lol....
 
This is simply semantics. When folks had trouble with miscegenation the Supreme Court stepped in on the side of civil rights. It will do that again this time. Trying to call a same-sex marriage something else will not fly with either side, and we all know it. It's an all or nothing proposition. This argument that religion ought to have a say in who gets treated equally in this nation ought to be treated like the constitutional heresy that it is.
 
Just1Voice said:
This is simply semantics. When folks had trouble with miscegenation the Supreme Court stepped in on the side of civil rights. It will do that again this time. Trying to call a same-sex marriage something else will not fly with either side, and we all know it. It's an all or nothing proposition. This argument that religion ought to have a say in who gets treated equally in this nation ought to be treated like the constitutional heresy that it is.
Click to expand...

I believe your right...I believe the supreme court will side with SSM, I disagree that SSM will dictate what marriage is in the end and I believe the supreme court would never uphold the deletion of Bride and Groom and Wife and Husband.
I would also like to say that my opinion not being for SSM is not based on religion and religion is not a factor in my being against it.
When the supreme court agrees to SSM..I will not be upset, It will not bother me at all...wont affect me in any way.
I am not on a crusade or a campaign to stop SSM...Im not voting for people just because they are against SSM like some vote for only those that are for it...I dont donate to anti SSM groups nor do I belong to any. You are either for something or not..Im merely not for reasons I really dont want to go throug for the 30th time.
 
lpast said:
1.)If your going to call me dishonest in public...you had better be willing to go digging and show where I have intentionally lied..
2.).and dont try to throw your hyperbole to try and degrade me and make you sound righteous...
3.).your opinion of what I think is worthless when its based on your dishonesty and your baseless innuendos
4.) The hyperbole comes from those just like you who frantically jump in every reference of GAY...homosexual...Same Sex marriage with a frantic attack aimed at anyone that dares defy and disagree
5.)....people like you claim everyone else is either lieing..illogical..overly emotional..living in a fantasy world a rotten person and you and everyone who agrees with you is perfect and float over water...lmao.
6.) Dishonesty is when you make claims that are just your opinion and try to make them the word of your god...dishonesty is when you degrade another only because they dont agree with you and attempt to demean them to make yourself look righteous and on right...that crap doesnt work with me objective..has no affect on me what so ever..
7.).I am against SSM and you cant make that out to be anything but what it is...
8.) you cant make me a liar because im against it...
9.)you cant make me a hypocrit you cant make anything but against Same Sex Marriage...lol....
Click to expand...

1.) maybe i will but your concern about it is meaningless to me i read your posts and interacted with you many times i dont need others or you to aknowledge it but maybe i will lol
2.) sorry there is ZERO hyperbole in my post not am i trying to sound righteous, weird you seem upset about me "telling it like it is or i see it" when you claim you do the same
3.) dont care what you think like i said i use facts logic and reason :shrug:
4.) 100% wrong since i never do this
5.) again 100% wrong since i dont do this :)
6.) more stuff i dont do
7.) its fine you are against i believe you have that right and would protect you right to believe its wrong, try again :)
8.) again never made such a claim
9.) I agree i cant MAKE you one

seems you have a lot of issues just randomly making stuff up and ranting, this post did nothing but let you vent hyperbole thats not happening, feel free to try again though

by the way, still not mad at you lol
 
Objective-J said:
1.) maybe i will but your concern about it is meaningless to me i read your posts and interacted with you many times i dont need others or you to aknowledge it but maybe i will lol
2.) sorry there is ZERO hyperbole in my post not am i trying to sound righteous, weird you seem upset about me "telling it like it is or i see it" when you claim you do the same
3.) dont care what you think like i said i use facts logic and reason :shrug:
4.) 100% wrong since i never do this
5.) again 100% wrong since i dont do this :)
6.) more stuff i dont do
7.) its fine you are against i believe you have that right and would protect you right to believe its wrong, try again :)
8.) again never made such a claim
9.) I agree i cant MAKE you one

seems you have a lot of issues just randomly making stuff up and ranting, this post did nothing but let you vent hyperbole thats not happening, feel free to try again though

by the way, still not mad at you lol
Click to expand...

Ahh, my long winded admirer... whatever it is you think matters naught to me.. Im not going to call you any names like a liar and im not really going to respond to your post...its mostly all jibberish and contrived nonesense....if you want to get at me you need to find another approach, this will never work :) ciao
 
lpast said:
I believe your right...I believe the supreme court will side with SSM, I disagree that SSM will dictate what marriage is in the end and I believe the supreme court would never uphold the deletion of Bride and Groom and Wife and Husband.
I would also like to say that my opinion not being for SSM is not based on religion and religion is not a factor in my being against it.
When the supreme court agrees to SSM..I will not be upset, It will not bother me at all...wont affect me in any way.
I am not on a crusade or a campaign to stop SSM...Im not voting for people just because they are against SSM like some vote for only those that are for it...I dont donate to anti SSM groups nor do I belong to any. You are either for something or not..Im merely not for reasons I really dont want to go throug for the 30th time.
Click to expand...

Actually you could be neither for nor against something. You could be apathetic about the whole issue. You are not apathetic, obviously, but your opinion is not enough to make any difference in the overall outcome. Regardless of the reasons for your position, it is simply wrong. Moreover it is on the wrong side of history. 20 years form now you will be ashamed to have ever held this position.

Far more people are for marriage equality than against. Moreover, the Supreme Court will certainly be able to find reasons to rule DOMA unconstitutional without any difficulty. The appeal on the ruling of Prop 8 is a trickier proposition, but I think that the logic in the argument - that you cannot give equal rights to a group of people and then take it away after they begin to exercise them - is a sound one, and it will also be upheld in the end.
 
lpast said:
Ahh, my long winded admirer... whatever it is you think matters naught to me.. Im not going to call you any names like a liar and im not really going to respond to your post...its mostly all jibberish and contrived nonesense....if you want to get at me you need to find another approach, this will never work :) ciao
Click to expand...

long winded? my post was smaller than yours LMAO :shrug:
also nobody here (or at least not me) is trying to "get at you" thats dumb, not even sure what that means, get at you how?
 
Objective-J said:
long winded? my post was smaller than yours LMAO :shrug:
also nobody here (or at least not me) is trying to "get at you" thats dumb, not even sure what that means, get at you how?
Click to expand...

Do you know what ciao means ?
 
yep, very aware, why do i care though its your way of trying to dodge and deflect the mistakes you made

tell me why you are against gay marriage?
 
Just1Voice said:
Actually you could be neither for nor against something. You could be apathetic about the whole issue. You are not apathetic, obviously, but your opinion is not enough to make any difference in the overall outcome. Regardless of the reasons for your position, it is simply wrong. Moreover it is on the wrong side of history. 20 years form now you will be ashamed to have ever held this position.

Far more people are for marriage equality than against. Moreover, the Supreme Court will certainly be able to find reasons to rule DOMA unconstitutional without any difficulty. The appeal on the ruling of Prop 8 is a trickier proposition, but I think that the logic in the argument - that you cannot give equal rights to a group of people and then take it away after they begin to exercise them - is a sound one, and it will also be upheld in the end.
Click to expand...


Yours is the kind of post with a tone that just flames the issue...your post is the reason that I post the way I do on this issue, most posts supporting SSM or ANYTHING GAY drips of sarcasm and goes downhill from there...your post drips with self righteous indignation and demeans my opinion and makes assumptions about me based on nothing...you totally disregarded everything I said in my post to you to just spew drivel...
Lets break this down a little..


You could be apathetic...why because you want me to ? I thought I had a mind of my own and free will.
My opinion wont make a difference...I thought I had said that I believed the Supreme Court would rule in your favor
Regardless of the reasons for your opinion.."YOUR SIMPLY WRONG" Oh am I...lol
20 yrs I will be ashamed I had this position...doubtful young man or lady I will be dead.
Your last paragraph is just repetitive...

I could be apathetic...that means be against SSM and just STFU...umm no thank you.
Your opinion wont make a difference...neither does yours to me and half the country.
You are simply wrong...NO...YOU"RE WRONG...heh
If Im alive in 20 yrs..Ill do what im doing right now today and did 20 yrs prior, make my own decision based on how I read the information, not based on how you view it.

Ciao
 
Another way to look at this is in term of sensitivity. The term marriage has been used by religion for centuries to imply the onlyhuman biological union that can procreate. This term is sacred to many, and homosexuals are not sensitive to their feelings. The feelings of the religious are being considered second rate by the PC dual standard.

Their religious did not start this name calling, with gay marriage, violatin feelings as bad as an racial slur. The hurt feelings is why there is so much angry resistance. But since their feelings count for less they have to accept the abuse or be called bigots.

Maybe the religious should hi-jack gay terms and give them meanings that create hurt in the the gay community so the gays get a feeling for the abuse they are causing. They may not be sensitive to anyone but themselves and therfore are bunch of biggots.

I was playing the devils advocate to show the dual standard that exists, with PC abusing power. I believe in free speech and therefore we all should be able to insult or be considerate of each other equally. There should not be a dual standard.
 
Well said:
Another way to look at this is in term of sensitivity. The term marriage has been used by religion for centuries to imply the onlyhuman biological union that can procreate. This term is sacred to many, and homosexuals are not sensitive to their feelings. The feelings of the religious are being considered second rate by the PC dual standard.

Their religious did not start this name calling, with gay marriage, violatin feelings as bad as an racial slur. The hurt feelings is why there is so much angry resistance. But since their feelings count for less they have to accept the abuse or be called bigots.

Maybe the religious should hi-jack gay terms and give them meanings that create hurt in the the gay community so the gays get a feeling for the abuse they are causing. They may not be sensitive to anyone but themselves and therfore are bunch of biggots.

I was playing the devils advocate to show the dual standard that exists, with PC abusing power. I believe in free speech and therefore we all should be able to insult or be considerate of each other equally. There should not be a dual standard.
Click to expand...

guess its a good thing the way they(religious people) use the word marriage factually isnt affected or changing and never has too, there is no PC double standard as this has NOTHING to do with religion :shrug:
 
Well said:
Another way to look at this is in term of sensitivity. The term marriage has been used by religion for centuries to imply the onlyhuman biological union that can procreate. This term is sacred to many, and homosexuals are not sensitive to their feelings. The feelings of the religious are being considered second rate by the PC dual standard.

Their religious did not start this name calling, with gay marriage, violatin feelings as bad as an racial slur. The hurt feelings is why there is so much angry resistance. But since their feelings count for less they have to accept the abuse or be called bigots.

Maybe the religious should hi-jack gay terms and give them meanings that create hurt in the the gay community so the gays get a feeling for the abuse they are causing. They may not be sensitive to anyone but themselves and therfore are bunch of biggots.

I was playing the devils advocate to show the dual standard that exists, with PC abusing power. I believe in free speech and therefore we all should be able to insult or be considerate of each other equally. There should not be a dual standard.
Click to expand...


Great Post...but I would change one thing..its not only the religious that feel abused, its anyone that has an opposing view, religious or not.

I fully understand that passion involved with this issue..I understand more than I get credit for, because it never comes out on here...
We all have to understand that gays had a miserable existence for a long time..I KNOW THEY DID...they had to hide being gay out of fear of violence and ridicule...could any of us understand what in the closet really meant,I can only try...its like an Italian American having to dye his hair blonde and lose the guinney street slang, change his name from mario to Brian and tell everyone Im irish so they didnt kick his ass everyday or ...or spit on him and call him a Fin Italian scum worse tie him to a tree and beat him unmercifully or Kill him...thats what gays went through for generations, I KNOW THAT I saw it more than once.. Coming out was not only the right thing to do..they should have done it a long time ago...Now heres where I start to disagree. Even when your cause is genuinely just and being forceful when you have been kicked and treated like gays have is understandable and necessary to demand dignity and safety and rights no one can deny that..but there is a tipping point where being right in your demands, becomes trying to be dominant and dominate THOSE who dont share you view...then the role reverses and those that oppose feel they are the righteous and being besieged and they are defending themselves...the real problem is that straights dont understand all the passion and aggression behind the gay movement...and gays arent pausing and seeing how they are presenting their case now. There are so many factors that go into this it would take writing a book...
One thing I can say from the straight perspective...that calling someone a bigot and calling them haters and hateful..when they say they are against SSM just makes them more against it.
Yanno folks even when SSM becomes law..wouldnt it be nice if both sides got along after that happened.
People that are against SSM and dont hate gays..and thats almost ALL the people I talk to that dont support SSM will accept it once it happens and that includes me..so why make it so bad before it happens that less will accept it...
My last statment will be the most controversial...I truly believe that Gays and their supporters call others names..make wild insuations that they cant know are true about individuals they are far more sarcastic and abusive than the other side...and when people come off to me like that...I do the same in return when I really feel that way or not....
 
Well said:
Another way to look at this is in term of sensitivity. The term marriage has been used by religion for centuries to imply the onlyhuman biological union that can procreate. This term is sacred to many, and homosexuals are not sensitive to their feelings. The feelings of the religious are being considered second rate by the PC dual standard.

Their religious did not start this name calling, with gay marriage, violatin feelings as bad as an racial slur. The hurt feelings is why there is so much angry resistance. But since their feelings count for less they have to accept the abuse or be called bigots.

Maybe the religious should hi-jack gay terms and give them meanings that create hurt in the the gay community so the gays get a feeling for the abuse they are causing. They may not be sensitive to anyone but themselves and therfore are bunch of biggots.

I was playing the devils advocate to show the dual standard that exists, with PC abusing power. I believe in free speech and therefore we all should be able to insult or be considerate of each other equally. There should not be a dual standard.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with this argument. Whether the religious people or anyone else who feels marriage should only be used to describe a certain thing has their feelings hurt by others, who don't fit into their personal definition of marriage is not something that should be a consideration at all when it comes to people's rights.

Perhaps our forefathers should have used another word besides "marriage" when they started giving the recognition they did to couples as legal kin with certain legal rights and then benefits. But they didn't have the foresight to see the future. But right now the word marriage means many different things, and the meaning being fought over here has no religious or personal connotations to it. It is purely a legal contract. It comes with kinship recognition (which is not a gender specific thing) because here in the US we recognize blood/family relations with certain rights/benefits and a spouse is considered the closest person to another, benefits related to mainly the fact that you have two adults who are trying to entwine their lives around each other (again, not gender specific), protections for each of them should they decide (one or both) that the relationship needs to end (not gender specific), and responsibilities/rights for making decisions, basically combining many other contracts a person may draw up to cover themselves in future situations designating a specific person to have say for these decisions.

Now, as far as the hijacking gay words thing goes, I'm just wondering how you were planning on doing that exactly. It seems pretty pointless honestly. Very few gays would get offended or their feelings hurt if you put different meanings to words that are considered "gay" words. I'm not even quite sure what a "gay word" would be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom