• 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
wolfsgirl said:
Try the new edition of Blacks law dictionary. It includes SSM too.

Words change meaning over time. Besides, I'm not redefining YOUR marriage, you can still consider marriage as only between a man and his bought and paid for property if you choose. What you think of my marriage has no meaning to me.
Click to expand...

refer to my post 323. And I disagree, you should not redefine the word, because at the very least it is a cultural niche... and you should not play favorites on cultural norms... you should make everything civil unions.
 
celticwar17 said:
refer to my post 323. And I disagree, you should not redefine the word, because at the very least it is a cultural niche... and you should not play favorites on cultural norms... you should make everything civil unions.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with making all govt recognized marriages into civil unions, but that won't fly with most of the country. It would also be more costly, as every law that mentions marriage would have to be rewritten.
 
celticwar17 said:
And I ask you again, you are labeling this thing called marriage in our government... Why?

You are playing favorites, why can't anyone enjoy benefits between any two or more consenting adults? Who is the government and who are you to define what is a relationship that is viable to have these perks?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with government getting out of the marriage business altogether and leave gay marriage or straight marriage to churches.
 
wolfsgirl said:
I'm fine with making all govt recognized marriages into civil unions, but that won't fly with most of the country. It would also be more costly, as every law that mentions marriage would have to be rewritten.
Click to expand...
Not exactly, just make an act that civil Unions benefit from every law in which marriage is mentioned.
 
celticwar17 said:
Im not factually wrong the marriage laws in this country have been modeled after the christian definition of marriage. It should never of happened, but it did.
Click to expand...

your statement was factual wrong, if you would now like to add qualifiers and say something different thats fine, what you previously stated was factually wrong
 
celticwar17 said:
When the marriage laws were in place, the very definition of marriage was between a man and a women. That was the meaning of the word. Look it up in a dictionary right now and it will say the same thing. Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

All the perks in marriage of today is based on the Christian definition of marriage and family. The perks were engineered specifically for it.

Why, if you are redefining it do you choose all the same perks? Why can't more then one person? borthers and sisters? Why play favorites with only this kind of relationship?

The current form of marriage DID play favorites in every aspect of it. If you truly wanted it to be equal you should make these benefit's available to any two or more persons. And only the term civil union accurately describes this, because the term marriage is a very specific thing.
Click to expand...

again what you are trying to say now is not what you said nor does it change that your statements were factually wrong

also fyi even your link refers to same sex marriage.

please reread your original post because it is exactly as i labeled it, thanks
 
Last edited:
Objective-J said:
again what you are trying to say now is not what you said nor does it change that your statements were factually wrong

also fyi even your link refers to same sex marriage.

please reread your original post because it is exactly as i labeled it, thanks
Click to expand...
If religion did not exist nor the term marriage. This is why I called it a religious term. It is not factually wrong. In my post after this, I elaborated what I meant. At the very least marriage is a traditional culture term... our government has no place to pick favorites on particular cultural norm relationships.
 
disneydude said:
I have no problem with government getting out of the marriage business altogether and leave gay marriage or straight marriage to churches.
Click to expand...

Good. But where we disagree is that I think it is disingenuous To change the current definition of marriage to include gay couples. The only reasonable solution is to make everything civil unions.
 
celticwar17 said:
Good. But where we disagree is that I think it is disingenuous To change the current definition of marriage to include gay couples. The only reasonable solution is to make everything civil unions.
Click to expand...

Why? It is only the current definition. Definitions change all the time. Get the government out of marriage and let the churches decide who they want to marry. Why limit churches to only being able to marry heterosexuals?
 
celticwar17 said:
1.)If religion did not exist nor the term marriage. This is why I called it a religious term.
2.)It is not factually wrong.
3.)In my post after this, I elaborated what I meant.
4.) At the very least marriage is a traditional culture term...
5.)our government has no place to pick favorites on particular cultural norm relationships.
Click to expand...

1.) not true
2.)your OP was factually
3.) yes you mentioned religious marriage whuch has ZERO to do with legal marriage
4.) yes it has MANY traditions that are subjective and very from person to person and your traditions may be meaningless to mine
5.) good thing they arent doing that
 
celticwar17 said:
Good. But where we disagree is that I think it is disingenuous To change the current definition of marriage to include gay couples. The only reasonable solution is to make everything civil unions.
Click to expand...

nobody is changing the definition, the government is granting equal rights and civil unions is discrimination.
 
celticwar17 said:
Nowhere... and I didnt say it did. All the perks in marriage are based on the traditional thought of the happy christian family. It wasn't based on a polygomy, it wasn't based on two gay couples, it wasn't based on a open relationship, it wasn't based on a muslim marriage, it wasn't based on some random cults idea of marriage, nor a friendship, or family tie, it wasn't based on any other possible relationship BUT the traditional christian marriage. This is something you can't really deny. And why didn't you answer any of my questions?

Im not even christian myself, but this is something so obvious. All you guys seem to want to do is rub it in Christians faces.
Click to expand...

No they are not. Marriage pre-dates Christianity and as it is in the US comes from English common law. Nowhere is marriage in a legal sense christian based.
 
Objective-J said:
1.) not true
2.)your OP was factually
3.) yes you mentioned religious marriage whuch has ZERO to do with legal marriage
4.) yes it has MANY traditions that are subjective and very from person to person and your traditions may be meaningless to mine
5.) good thing they arent doing that
Click to expand...
1) If it makes you feel better... Ill call it a cultural norm and traditional term. ...all my arguments still hold.
2) No.
3)No, Marriage is all apart of the same thing. It has a cultural bias to what it is, all the laws structured around it give in to this bias.
4) Yes, but what matters is what is has been portrayed as in the US.
5) Yes, they are. When you don't change marriage and just let gay people become married you arn't fixing the real problem. Marriage is not a real thing, it is made up in our culture. The perks should be available to ANY two or more people, but instead you still choose to label it as marriage and keep picking favorites on this particular cultural norm.

The most important point in number 5... so don't be sneaky and skip it like most love to do.
 
disneydude said:
Why? It is only the current definition. Definitions change all the time. Get the government out of marriage and let the churches decide who they want to marry. Why limit churches to only being able to marry heterosexuals?
Click to expand...
Not really what Im saying... I agree to take the government out of marriage. Im saying that is the only honest solution. People who currently want to keep the same government run marriage system but simply allow gay people to be label as married are disingenuous. Marriage is not something that should be in government, it is a cultural tradition.
 
celticwar17 said:
1) If it makes you feel better... Ill call it a cultural norm and traditional term. ...all my arguments still hold.
2) No.
3)No, Marriage is all apart of the same thing. It has a cultural bias to what it is, all the laws structured around it give in to this bias.
4) Yes, but what matters is what is has been portrayed as in the US.
5) Yes, they are. When you don't change marriage and just let gay people become married you arn't fixing the real problem. Marriage is not a real thing, it is made up in our culture. The perks should be available to ANY two or more people, but instead you still choose to label it as marriage and keep picking favorites on this particular cultural norm.

The most important point in number 5... so don't be sneaky and skip it like most love to do.
Click to expand...

1.) has not effect on my feelings at all just stating a fact.
2.) yes it was that fact can easily be proven LOL
3.) 100% WRONG, i can get married tomorrow by a singing Elvis and religion will not have anythign to do with it unless i choose so, do you live in america?
4.) no that doesnt matter but in the US it has MANY traditions that are subjective and very from person to person and your traditions may be meaningless to mine just like i already said
5.) wrong again, no they are not, it is marriage :shrug: there is no problem
 
celticwar17 said:
Not really what Im saying... I agree to take the government out of marriage. Im saying that is the only honest solution. 1.)People who currently want to keep the same government run marriage system but simply allow gay people to be label as married are disingenuous. 2.) Marriage is not something that should be in government, 3.) it is a cultural tradition.
Click to expand...

1.) nothing more than an opinion that cant be backed up with anything factual or logical
2.) more opinion
3.) history and facts disagree with you
 
Redress said:
No they are not. Marriage pre-dates Christianity and as it is in the US comes from English common law. Nowhere is marriage in a legal sense christian based.
Click to expand...
If it makes you feel better... it is culturally based. I argue that the marriage laws in the U.S. have a innate Christian bias, but that's something I think is just common sense and I am not willing to get in a full debate about it.
If you truly wanted it to be equal you should make these benefit's available to any two or more persons, because it is not the governments or your job to determine what is a "marital" relationship.
 
celticwar17 said:
If it makes you feel better... it is culturally based. 1.)I argue that the marriage laws in the U.S. have a innate Christian bias, but that's something I think is just common sense and I am not willing to get in a full debate about it.
2.) If you truly wanted it to be equal you should make these benefit's available to any two or more persons, because it is not the governments or your job to determine what is a "marital" relationship.
Click to expand...

1.) but you havent been able to support that with any facts or logic.
2.) the majority dont have a problem with this as long as its consenting adults and yes the government does need to be involved since they control the benefits.
 
Objective-J said:
1.) has not effect on my feelings at all just stating a fact.
2.) yes it was that fact can easily be proven LOL
3.) 100% WRONG, i can get married tomorrow by a singing Elvis and religion will not have anythign to do with it unless i choose so, do you live in america?
4.) no that doesnt matter but in the US it has MANY traditions that are subjective and very from person to person and your traditions may be meaningless to mine just like i already said
5.) wrong again, no they are not, it is marriage :shrug: there is no problem
Click to expand...
1) Didn't address my allteration
2) No
3) No, you can get married by Elvis, but that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about the very definition of marriage and the laws that come with it.
4) You seem to be forgetting that the word marriage itself is a tradition in of itself. Why is it defined in our government? And why the benefits that come with it are defined as so? And why is anyone restricted, gays, ANYONE?
5) what is marriage? Please define it for me. Is it a cultural tradition? Is it? If so, why is the government defining it? Or does the individual/s define it? Why is anyone restricted from the benefits?
 
Objective-J said:
1.) but you havent been able to support that with any facts or logic.
2.) the majority dont have a problem with this as long as its consenting adults and yes the government does need to be involved since they control the benefits.
Click to expand...
So you agree ANY consenting adults should be able to get these benefits?
but why call it marriage? This is a problem for me... Tell me your definition of marriage.
 
celticwar17 said:
So you agree ANY consenting adults should be able to get these benefits?
but why call it marriage? This is a problem for me... Tell me your definition of marriage.
Click to expand...

Why not call it marriage?

That is the better question. If somebody can give me an answer that is not based on religious/traditionalist sentiment, then I would be happy to reconsider my position.
 
celticwar17 said:
If it makes you feel better... it is culturally based. I argue that the marriage laws in the U.S. have a innate Christian bias, but that's something I think is just common sense and I am not willing to get in a full debate about it.
If you truly wanted it to be equal you should make these benefit's available to any two or more persons, because it is not the governments or your job to determine what is a "marital" relationship.
Click to expand...

I understand you are not going to defend your position, since there are no facts to defend it with.
 
CriticalThought said:
Why not call it marriage?

That is the better question. If somebody can give me an answer that is not based on religious/traditionalists sentiment, then I would be happy to reconsider my position.
Click to expand...

what is your definition of marriage? I can't address it unless we all have the same definition. But is that part of the problem.

When it comes down to the government all it is, is that two or more individuals have an agreement to have certain responsibilities and benefits. Is this what marriage is? I don't think so. In my opinion a civil union describes this a lot better. Not only is it the right description, but it also doesn't define something that is cultural and is different to many different cultures. The government should not define such a thing.
 
celticwar17 said:
1) Didn't address my allteration
2) No
3) No, you can get married by Elvis, but that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about the very definition of marriage and the laws that come with it.
4) You seem to be forgetting that the word marriage itself is a tradition in of itself.
5.)Why is it defined in our government? And why the benefits that come with it are defined as so?
6.)And why is anyone restricted, gays, ANYONE?
7) what is marriage? Please define it for me.
8.)Is it a cultural tradition? Is it? If so, why is the government defining it? Or does the individual/s define it?
9.)Why is anyone restricted from the benefits?
Click to expand...

1.) your alteration is meaningless to your OP and the actually topic, your opinion isnt supported by facts and history.
2.) lmao keep saying no, fact wont change simply cause your OPINION disagrees :shrug:
3.) yes and the definitions of marriage and the benefits that come with it do not care about religion as i still get them with or without religion involved nor does the definition of marriage care about religion either :shrug: nott sure why you cant grasp this fact.

religious marriage is a separate entity and varies from religion to religion, legal marriage doesnt care about it.
4.) i dont forget tha at all what you forget is that "tradition" isnt defined, it varies from person to person.
5.) it needs SOME definition because its a legal contract, thats basic common sense and the government provides many of the benifits and protects them, again basic common sense.
6.) gays shouldnt be restricted, some others should because of the rights and benefits provided and other legal precedences like contracts with minors that cant be made.
7.) i cant define marriage because its subjective in anything else accept legal.
8.) yes in some ways legal marriage is in some ways its not at all. and that cultural tradition will not be effected by law, my family has traditions they do when weddings comes, those things wont be effect one bit we will still do them
9.) already answered above
 
Redress said:
I understand you are not going to defend your position, since there are no facts to defend it with.
Click to expand...

You love to distract from the main point... For your convenience I altered my stance to have marriage be culturally based instead. But you had to throw in the Gotchya didn't you...:roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom