• 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?


  • Total voters
    99
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.

Thats wrong and thats the whole problem they dont feel its your RIGHT to change everything to fit the way you want it...you dont only want to marry you want to dominate how its done how its written and you dont want tradition or anyone elses desires even considered...at least thats the way you sound
 
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.

Thats wrong and thats the whole problem they dont feel its your RIGHT to change everything to fit the way you want it...you dont only want to marry you want to dominate how its done how its written and you dont want tradition or anyone elses desires even considered...at least thats the way you sound

no its right, why? because the FACT is that we arent changing any of their religious views nor does it dominate anything thats simply not true :shrug:

their traditions and desires are a complete non-factor because they fully get to keep them and they are NOT changing, stating otherwise sis simply wrong.

Id LOVE for you to proof otherwise.
 
Last edited:
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.

Thats wrong and thats the whole problem they dont feel its your RIGHT to change everything to fit the way you want it...you dont only want to marry you want to dominate how its done how its written and you dont want tradition or anyone elses desires even considered...at least thats the way you sound

I don't care how other people perform their weddings or what they do in their marriages. That is up to them, just as my marriage is up to me. But civil/legal marriage right now is purely a contract. There feelings are only being hurt because they are unable to separate legal marriage from personal marriage. Everyone seems to think that they should have a say in what goes on in other people's marriages, but that is wrong. Their marriages and what they do in their personal marriages is their business.

If others want to add/have dozens of traditions in their marriage, follow hundreds of rules, that is their choice but it is not part of legal marriage and should not be. If they want to only consider marrying someone who is of the same race or of the same religion or of the opposite sex, that is completely their choice, but others should not be forced to abide by that rule for their own legal marriage. Because legal marriage is just a contract.

The only consideration when it comes to the contract of legal marriage that should be made is how the specific laws work (this is not talking about restrictions put on marriage but rather how marriage legally functions) and whether anyone has a good chance of getting hurt because of the type of the relationship involved.
 
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.

Thats wrong and thats the whole problem they dont feel its your RIGHT to change everything to fit the way you want it...you dont only want to marry you want to dominate how its done how its written and you dont want tradition or anyone elses desires even considered...at least thats the way you sound

Its hard persecuting someone else isn't it? I mean here you are trying to violate a persons rights and they have to get all in your face about it. They don't even respect your desire to see them ostracized by the power of the government. Everyone knows how much it hurts your feelings when the law is applied equally, why can't they simply accept being second class citizens?
 
no its right, why? because the FACT is that we arent changing any of their religious views nor does it dominate anything thats simply not true :shrug:

their traditions and desires are a complete non-factor because they fully get to keep them and they are NOT changing, stating otherwise sis simply wrong.

Id LOVE for you to proof otherwise.

No its not and YOU prove its so...you are really a silly person man...seriously...you think you soar above the clouds or something
 
I don't care how other people perform their weddings or what they do in their marriages. That is up to them, just as my marriage is up to me. But civil/legal marriage right now is purely a contract. There feelings are only being hurt because they are unable to separate legal marriage from personal marriage. Everyone seems to think that they should have a say in what goes on in other people's marriages, but that is wrong. Their marriages and what they do in their personal marriages is their business.

If others want to add/have dozens of traditions in their marriage, follow hundreds of rules, that is their choice but it is not part of legal marriage and should not be. If they want to only consider marrying someone who is of the same race or of the same religion or of the opposite sex, that is completely their choice, but others should not be forced to abide by that rule for their own legal marriage. Because legal marriage is just a contract.

The only consideration when it comes to the contract of legal marriage that should be made is how the specific laws work (this is not talking about restrictions put on marriage but rather how marriage legally functions) and whether anyone has a good chance of getting hurt because of the type of the relationship involved.

Nope you just want it that way because you want it the way you want it...you dont like marriage laws because you want something else..but I bet you like alot of other laws...being two faced just makes you more wrong...
 
Its hard persecuting someone else isn't it? I mean here you are trying to violate a persons rights and they have to get all in your face about it. They don't even respect your desire to see them ostracized by the power of the government. Everyone knows how much it hurts your feelings when the law is applied equally, why can't they simply accept being second class citizens?

ROFLMAO...now im PERSECUTING all of you..WOW..I cant wait till you all get to the real good name calling then...sniff your going to hurt my wittle feewings again...man you people are a trip
 
No its not and YOU prove its so...you are really a silly person man...seriously...you think you soar above the clouds or something

so basically you have no proof, thanks we knew that :shrug:
your other deflections are meaningless to your illogical false rants, let me know when you can proof your false post
 
Nope you just want it that way because you want it the way you want it...you dont like marriage laws because you want something else..but I bet you like alot of other laws...being two faced just makes you more wrong...

What a stupid argument.

I like marriage laws just fine. What I don't like is restrictions on who can get married based solely on the sex/gender of those who wish to marriage with no real justification for those people to not be able to marry that is based in reason or law. The most anti-ssm people have is "well marriage has always been between opposite sex couples" or "well most people want to keep their traditions and might get their feelings hurt if marriage includes same sex couples".

If you actually have a reason to restrict marriage to just opposite sex couples that is truly related to harm caused or a reason that deals with some form of gender requirement within marriage, go ahead, present it. But I know you don't because if the relationships did cause harm, the relationships would still be illegal and there are no gender specific legal points of marriage. In fact, people can legally change their gender after they get married and remain married.
 
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.

Those same churches would willingly marry people they knew could not have kids. Further, gay couples can have children and in fact 1/3 of lesbians and 1/4 of gay men have children. Any argument about pro-creation is entirely false.

Further, since religious marriage and legal marriage are two entirely separate things, any argument based on religion fails automatically.

And blaming gays is hilarious.
 
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.

Thats wrong and thats the whole problem they dont feel its your RIGHT to change everything to fit the way you want it...you dont only want to marry you want to dominate how its done how its written and you dont want tradition or anyone elses desires even considered...at least thats the way you sound

Bummer. You do not have a right not to be offended. It is not gay people's fault you are acting on irrational emotions. You should accept responsibility for your own emotional reactions.
 
As far as the government is concerned, why does there need to be either?

Seriously. The only way marriage/unions affect the government in any significant way is taxes. Pass a true flat tax, and marriage/unions become irrelevant. Get the government out of the issue entirely. People can marry or "unionize" to their individual heart's content, and in their own way.
 
As far as the government is concerned, why does there need to be either?

Seriously. The only way marriage/unions affect the government in any significant way is taxes. Pass a true flat tax, and marriage/unions become irrelevant. Get the government out of the issue entirely. People can marry or "unionize" to their individual heart's content, and in their own way.

What about census/legal reasons?
 
Civil unions are the way to go with the whole gay marriage issue. I am not against gay marriage, and I do have a lot of problems with religion. So I think I have a fair perspective on the issue. As an atheist, I dont care to have religions belife forced on me either socially or by the government. That being said, I would not find it fair to force the religious to accept gay marriage. I dont believe any church should be forced to marry two people who are not in line with the church. Those who are gay, should have an alternative path, which is civil unions. Civil unions should grant all the same benefits as a marriage from a church.
 
Civil unions are the way to go with the whole gay marriage issue. I am not against gay marriage, and I do have a lot of problems with religion. So I think I have a fair perspective on the issue. As an atheist, I dont care to have religions belife forced on me either socially or by the government. That being said, I would not find it fair to force the religious to accept gay marriage. I dont believe any church should be forced to marry two people who are not in line with the church. Those who are gay, should have an alternative path, which is civil unions. Civil unions should grant all the same benefits as a marriage from a church.

For like the hundredth time, no church can ever be forced to marry two people for any reason. Churches now do not have to marry black couples, white couples, Asian couples, mixed couples, couples of basically any or even no religion, or basically they can refuse to marry any couple for absolutely any reason they want to. The religious rite/ceremony of marriage is completely left up to the church to decide if they want to perform it. The only reason churches sign the marriage license is because it is convenient. There are plenty of people in every state that can sign the marriage license.

The name of the contract is marriage. A civil union under the law is something different. Different laws, different protections, different rights, and different benefits.

Religion does not own the word marriage, no matter how much they want to claim it. My husband and I hired a Navy wife to perform our wedding. No religion involved at all. We are legally married. And it is unlikely that we could legitimately get married in any church since we aren't of any religion and most churches will not perform a wedding for any couple where at least one of them isn't of the religion of the church at the least.
 
For like the hundredth time, no church can ever be forced to marry two people for any reason. Churches now do not have to marry black couples, white couples, Asian couples, mixed couples, couples of basically any or even no religion, or basically they can refuse to marry any couple for absolutely any reason they want to. The religious rite/ceremony of marriage is completely left up to the church to decide if they want to perform it. The only reason churches sign the marriage license is because it is convenient. There are plenty of people in every state that can sign the marriage license.

The name of the contract is marriage. A civil union under the law is something different. Different laws, different protections, different rights, and different benefits.

Religion does not own the word marriage, no matter how much they want to claim it. My husband and I hired a Navy wife to perform our wedding. No religion involved at all. We are legally married. And it is unlikely that we could legitimately get married in any church since we aren't of any religion and most churches will not perform a wedding for any couple where at least one of them isn't of the religion of the church at the least.

Amen.
 
For like the hundredth time, no church can ever be forced to marry two people for any reason. Churches now do not have to marry black couples, white couples, Asian couples, mixed couples, couples of basically any or even no religion, or basically they can refuse to marry any couple for absolutely any reason they want to. The religious rite/ceremony of marriage is completely left up to the church to decide if they want to perform it. The only reason churches sign the marriage license is because it is convenient. There are plenty of people in every state that can sign the marriage license.

The name of the contract is marriage. A civil union under the law is something different. Different laws, different protections, different rights, and different benefits.

Religion does not own the word marriage, no matter how much they want to claim it. My husband and I hired a Navy wife to perform our wedding. No religion involved at all. We are legally married. And it is unlikely that we could legitimately get married in any church since we aren't of any religion and most churches will not perform a wedding for any couple where at least one of them isn't of the religion of the church at the least.

As long as they are not forced to marry people for fear of getting sued for discrimination, I am fine with it. However, Civil unions should have the same rights as marriges thru the church.
 
As long as they are not forced to marry people for fear of getting sued for discrimination, I am fine with it. However, Civil unions should have the same rights as marriges thru the church.

No, the majority of states have already established that they want civil unions to be different than marriages. Some people do not want to be as legally involved as marriage would make them in a relationship so they want a civil union instead. Has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with what legal marriage establishes between a couple.

And churches do not own marriages. That is just how it is. Legal marriage is a civil contract that has nothing to do with religion. People need to keep their religion, their church out of mine and other people's marriages.
 
Bummer. You do not have a right not to be offended. It is not gay people's fault you are acting on irrational emotions. You should accept responsibility for your own emotional reactions.

heh..well redress it should be obvious by now, that I dont much worry what anyone likes or does not like..I stand my ground on my own and I state how I feel. Its up to you to decide whether you like that or not...not me. I get to decide what I want to believe
Im going to ignore the I dont have a right..thats not really worth addressing...I have a right to want what I believe in just like you.

It would be much easier to avoid homosexual threads..since I know how overbearing and demanding and sarcastic and insulting you all get about it...then call anyone who disagrees with you names...Then blame them for causing it all...well, It should be apparent by now that doesnt make me miss a beat...and the reason I dont avoid these threads is because thats exactly what you all want, to intimidate anyone thats not for every single thing categorically that you want to stfu and im not going to do that anymore than you are...you cant intimidate me on this issue and thats what many attempt to do, hasnt worked and it will never work.
Im done making disclaimers and trying to explain myself...people on the other side of this issue arent interested in any other point of view and they arent interested in anything any one else that doesnt agree has to say...they just vilify you..they twist your words and your meaning to fit their agenda.
Im done explaining I dont hate anyone thats gay everyone can just believe whatever it is you want it really doesnt matter.
 
No, the majority of states have already established that they want civil unions to be different than marriages. Some people do not want to be as legally involved as marriage would make them in a relationship so they want a civil union instead. Has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with what legal marriage establishes between a couple.

And churches do not own marriages. That is just how it is. Legal marriage is a civil contract that has nothing to do with religion. People need to keep their religion, their church out of mine and other people's marriages.

Actually, I argue that the State has legitimate interest to control marriage. It has every good reason to encourage people to live in the same household to stabilize society, especially when children (adopted, artificially inseminated, or not) are involved. Children in two parent households statistically do better in many of life's activities while growing up (not to say that the many wonderful single parents out there are diminished in their contributions in any way), and on their own. It only makes sense to me to encourage national gay marriage. In addition to my sincerest liberal belief in their [homosexuals] minority rights and the unfairness of their historical persecution, I think Government has a lot to offer through the regulation of marriage in addition to the pact with God an individual may additionally participate in.

To me, it's more of a shame that religious dogmatism is preventing many from seeing the bigger social conservative possibilities in reestablishing primacy of the two-parent household in a demographic that has largely been denied that ability. Social conservatives have long noted the demise of the two-parent family, liberals talking about a massive amount of babies in wait for adoption, and now that they have the opportunity to amend those perceived wrongs, and they let the Bible get in the way! Such foolishness!
 
Last edited:
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.

Most social conservatives already made that decision given that most states that constitutionally ban same sex marriage also constitutionally ban civil unions. Civil unions only seem to be an acceptable compromise in states in which same sex marriage is a possibility. Also, given there is no federally recognized civil union there really isn't any comparison to be made to marriage so I'm not sure why anyone would consider it a compromise.
 
heh..well redress it should be obvious by now, that I dont much worry what anyone likes or does not like..I stand my ground on my own and I state how I feel. Its up to you to decide whether you like that or not...not me. I get to decide what I want to believe
Im going to ignore the I dont have a right..thats not really worth addressing...I have a right to want what I believe in just like you.

It would be much easier to avoid homosexual threads..since I know how overbearing and demanding and sarcastic and insulting you all get about it...then call anyone who disagrees with you names...Then blame them for causing it all...well, It should be apparent by now that doesnt make me miss a beat...and the reason I dont avoid these threads is because thats exactly what you all want, to intimidate anyone thats not for every single thing categorically that you want to stfu and im not going to do that anymore than you are...you cant intimidate me on this issue and thats what many attempt to do, hasnt worked and it will never work.
Im done making disclaimers and trying to explain myself...people on the other side of this issue arent interested in any other point of view and they arent interested in anything any one else that doesnt agree has to say...they just vilify you..they twist your words and your meaning to fit their agenda.
Im done explaining I dont hate anyone thats gay everyone can just believe whatever it is you want it really doesnt matter.

Welcome to the human condition. People on your side do exactly the same thing. I recognize that doesn't make it right, but that is simply how cognitive dissonance works.
 
Actually, I argue that the State has legitimate interest to control marriage. It has every good reason to encourage people to live in the same household to stabilize society, especially when children (adopted, artificially inseminated, or not) are involved. Children in two parent households statistically do better in many of life's activities while growing up (not to say that the many wonderful single parents out there are diminished in their contributions in any way), and on their own. It only makes sense to me to encourage national gay marriage. In addition to my sincerest liberal belief in their [homosexuals] minority rights and the unfairness of their historical persecution, I think Government has a lot to offer through the regulation of marriage in addition to the pact with God an individual may additionally participate in.

To me, it's more of a shame that religious dogmatism is preventing many from seeing the bigger social conservative possibilities in reestablishing primacy of the two-parent household in a demographic that has largely been denied that ability. Social conservatives have long noted the demise of the two-parent family, liberals talking about a massive amount of babies in wait for adoption, and now that they have the opportunity to amend those perceived wrongs, and they let the Bible get in the way! Such foolishness!

Okay, but what does this have to do with what I posted/you quoted from me? I was just showing there was a difference between what legal marriage is and what personal/religious marriage is. Nothing really about why government gets involved with marriage.

And civil unions are different than marriage already. It is meant for people who don't want quite the same level of involvement with each other as marriage involves.

Allowing people to get married who aren't planning on having or raising children at all isn't going to diminish the benefit of marriage for those who are raising children.
 
Welcome to the human condition. People on your side do exactly the same thing. I recognize that doesn't make it right, but that is simply how cognitive dissonance works.

You and OMGitsme are two of the most reasonable individuals on the opposite of the issue from me I pay attention to your posts because they are not full of demanding and flaming..I appreciate that more than you know..
Please dont say its my side..I dont have a side that infers that im part of a group thing and I am not..I am only one man with one opinion. Im fully aware of anti SSM people can be every bit as bad if not worse but they are not on this forum.. so when I speak here its about here. I dont mean to generalize for everywhere.
 
You and OMGitsme are two of the most reasonable individuals on the opposite of the issue from me I pay attention to your posts because they are not full of demanding and flaming..I appreciate that more than you know..
Please dont say its my side..I dont have a side that infers that im part of a group thing and I am not..I am only one man with one opinion. Im fully aware of anti SSM people can be every bit as bad if not worse but they are not on this forum.. so when I speak here its about here. I dont mean to generalize for everywhere.

I think people on this forum often forget that people can disagree with what they believe and still be good people. In the bigger picture this is really all rather absurd. It is often the case that if someone on this forum doesn't support every single gay rights issue they are treated like terrible oppressors even though there are gay people in other countries in the world who are being murdered or imprisoned by their governments. Posters on this forum often tend to ignore the points on which they agree and focus only on those where they disagree.
 
Back
Top Bottom