• 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
Objective-J said:
thats the topic of the op LMAO and what the only and real issues is, if you cant see that yes you are hopeless about this topic

gays deserve equal rights, period
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the topic in the OP, I dont understand your point... what I am talking about is related, because I think it is disingenuous to call for just gay equal rights in marriage and not any other two consenting adults.

Everyone deserves rights, period.
 
celticwar17 said:
marriage is often religious, and what I was saying earlier is that the U.S. marriage laws kept Christian thoughts on marriage heavily in mind in the development of them in this country. BUT ANYWAY that was pages ago, we both already came to the conclusion that we both agreed that marriage is at least a cultural tradition that is subjective. That was the only thing that was important to my points.

Answer me this, do you think that ANY two or more consenting adults should be able to participate in the marriage contract? If you don't have an issue with this, then I have very little issue except that the term marriage does not describe this kind of contract.
Click to expand...

Religion is not part of marraige in terms of the legal contract or benefits.
 
Redress said:
It is up to the states to decide, within the confines of the constitution.
Click to expand...

That second part is very important. A state can define what sort of benefits marriage entails (from the state), but really can't abridge people's access to it, especially not when there are federal benefits involved.
 
celticwar17 said:
1.)marriage is often religious, and what I was saying earlier is that the 2.) U.S. marriage laws kept Christian thoughts on marriage heavily in mind in the development of them in this country. BUT ANYWAY that was pages ago, 3.) we both already came to the conclusion that we both agreed that marriage is at least a cultural tradition that is subjective. That was the only thing that was important to my points.

4.)Answer me this, do you think that ANY two or more consenting adults should be able to participate in the marriage contract? If you don't have an issue with this, then I have very little issue except that the term marriage does not describe this kind of contract.
Click to expand...

1.) legal marriage is NEVER religious if people CHOOSE to do religious things with their LEGAL marriage thats on them
2.) again simply not true
3.) no we didnt i said things OUTSIDE or LEGAL marriage are subjective and culture but not LEGAL marriage and it didnt help your points at all because this is all about LEGAL marriage the rest is meaningless
4.) DO "i" think, no i do not think that but im ok if people want to fight for that, it simply doesnt make sense because it would be something NEW for start to finish, not granting equal rights like now, you would be inventing something totally new and something totally different and putting it under the same laws and titles which is stupid and a waste of government money to me BUT again if people want to fight for that i would never stop them :shrug:
 
celticwar17 said:
Yes, that is the topic in the OP, I dont understand your point... what I am talking about is related, because I think it is disingenuous to call for just gay equal rights in marriage and not any other two consenting adults.

Everyone deserves rights, period.
Click to expand...

no its not because the facts are the other adults already have those rights, its not disingenuous at all because facts and logic support me and they dont support you.

those people ALREADY have those rights, PERIOD lol acting as if they dont is the ONLY disingenuous thing posted here. :)


they are not even close to realated or the same thing, equal gay rights is NOTHING like you wanting or thinking aunt and nephew should be able to get married lol
 
Paschendale said:
That second part is very important. A state can define what sort of benefits marriage entails (from the state), but really can't abridge people's access to it, especially not when there are federal benefits involved.
Click to expand...

Sure they can limit access, but they need to have a good reason to do so. How good depends on the level of scrutiny applied to each case.
 
Objective-J said:
1.) legal marriage is NEVER religious if people CHOOSE to do religious things with their LEGAL marriage thats on them
2.) again simply not true
3.) no we didnt i said things OUTSIDE or LEGAL marriage are subjective and culture but not LEGAL marriage and it didnt help your points at all because this is all about LEGAL marriage the rest is meaningless
4.) DO "i" think, no i do not think that but im ok if people want to fight for that, it simply doesnt make sense because it would be something NEW for start to finish, not granting equal rights like now, you would be inventing something totally new and something totally different and putting it under the same laws and titles which is stupid and a waste of government money to me BUT again if people want to fight for that i would never stop them :shrug:
Click to expand...
1) This has nothing to do with what I was saying, I am well aware of the differences between legal and religous marriage stuff
2) HOW can you even say this when the very part of it we are discussing is gays not being included in marriage... although that is not only a Christian thing... Christian views were the main factor in making this take place. AND PLEASE BE REAL. The anti-poligamy laws are COMPLETELY derived off the mainstream Christian religion... these are not the only examples either. You sir are dishonest.
3) government defines marriage, just because the government did define it doesn't make it separate from discussion. No one has the right to define it or at least define who can and cannot participate in it.
4) something totally new and different. See you are revealing your bias towards the establishment of marriage... this is your cultural concept, of course its new a different is does not follow societal norms like marriage does, it doesn't discriminate like marriage does.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
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.
Click to expand...
If I were the party seeking marital rights, I wouldn't accept any compromise, except that which was necessary for a short time as a stepping stone for future action towards full 'marriage'.
 
Objective-J said:
1.) nothing wrong with that lol
2.) what choice? did i miss something? are you allowing the couples to pick if they enter into a legal marriage contract or a legal civil union contract? maybe i made some mistake?
3.) i know but you do follow logic as opposed to others around here ;)
4.) THIS is exactly why its discrimination legal marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion nor are the vast majority of anybody trying to change anything.
my next question is why should gays be forced to do something else? (if they arent allowed to marry)
5.) again unless i missed something and my example wasnt about what YOU proposed it was about the OP because those are the SAME maybe i have to reread what you proposed maybe i missed something.

but civil unions would be discrimination as in the OP, maybe you did somethig different to change that but i dont see how unless gays are ALSO allowed to get married if not its discrimination.
Click to expand...

Yes you do, and yes you did. :)
 
celticwar17 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So then you agree that marriage should be left to churches and they can decide whether to marry gays or not, right?
 
disneydude said:
So then you agree that marriage should be left to churches and they can decide whether to marry gays or not, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely, if the following conditions are met... but marriage in the first place shouldn't be defined by government... any two or more consenting adults should be able to get "married", otherwise you would be discriminating, because it is not your job or the governments job to declare what a marital relationship is. At this point I don't think the term marriage describes this contract... only something like civil unions does.
 
celticwar17 said:
1) This has nothing to do with what I was saying, I am well aware of the differences between legal and religous marriage stuff
2) HOW can you even say this when the very part of it we are discussing is gays not being included in marriage... although that is not only a Christian thing... Christian views were the main factor in making this take place. AND PLEASE BE REAL. The anti-poligamy laws are COMPLETELY derived off the mainstream Christian religion... these are not the only examples either. You sir are dishonest.
3) government defines marriage, just because the government did define it doesn't make it separate from discussion. No one has the right to define it or at least define who can and cannot participate in it.
4) something totally new and different. See you are revealing your bias towards the establishment of marriage... this is your cultural concept, of course its new a different is does not follow societal norms like marriage does, it doesn't discriminate like marriage does.
Click to expand...

1.) actually it does because religious marriage is meaningless in the debate about equal rights and you seem to bring it up like it means something. If you aknowledge the fact they are different then please start a thread about the topic you wish to discuss.
2.) easy because i acknowledge the facts :shrug: sorry i like facts not opinions and assumptions, im not dishonest about anything and you just might want to check history and who practiced/practices polygamy LMAO
SOrry I have facts you have opinion nothing dishonest about that at all. Let me know when that fact changes.
3.) weird i didnt say any of this, another meaningless left field point. Government has a right to define LEGAL marriage and we are the government along with are rights freedoms and laws.
4.) wrong again it would 100% be something new and different by definition, there is no biased in that, i notice how you ignore facts a lot

DO you have anything at all relevant to the discussion at hand? anything that says we shouldn't grant equal rights to gays?
anything?
 
celticwar17 said:
Yes, absolutely, if the following conditions are met... but marriage in the first place shouldn't be defined by government... any two or more consenting adults should be able to get "married", otherwise you would be discriminating, because it is not your job or the governments job to declare what a marital relationship is. At this point I don't think the term marriage describes this contract... only something like civil unions does.
Click to expand...

more stuff simply not true :shrug:
 
Objective-J said:
1.) actually it does because religious marriage is meaningless in the debate about equal rights and you seem to bring it up like it means something. If you aknowledge the fact they are different then please start a thread about the topic you wish to discuss.
2.) easy because i acknowledge the facts :shrug: sorry i like facts not opinions and assumptions, im not dishonest about anything and you just might want to check history and who practiced/practices polygamy LMAO
SOrry I have facts you have opinion nothing dishonest about that at all. Let me know when that fact changes.
3.) weird i didnt say any of this, another meaningless left field point. Government has a right to define LEGAL marriage and we are the government along with are rights freedoms and laws.
4.) wrong again it would 100% be something new and different by definition, there is no biased in that, i notice how you ignore facts a lot

DO you have anything at all relevant to the discussion at hand? anything that says we shouldn't grant equal rights to gays?
anything?
Click to expand...
1) No it is not meaningless, the point was to establish that marriage is a subjective tradition.
2) WHAT? I have checked history... tell me what history tells on the banishment of Polygamy? You tell me to look at who practiced polygamy, that is specifically why I said MAINSTREAM Christian religion. You are simply wrong about this America in it's early times was a predominately protestant country and it was modeled that a marriage could only be between one and one women. Polygamy was banned due to outcry of the protestants saying it was a barbaric practice. Okay maybe I was wrong, you arn't dishonest, your are just completely ignorant of the subject, which is okay I'd be glad to teach you.
3) See, I don't think the government has the right to define LEGAL marriage when it excludes two consenting individuals.
4) No, the concept of marriage in this country has been created on who and who cannot participate in it and what kind of benefits and perks is established from it. This establishment is a bias. The government should not be biased on what Legal marriage is, a LEGAL marriage can only be defined(meaning defining what kind of relationship is eligible) by the two or more consenting individuals, otherwise you and the government is being discriminatory.

This is relevant, like I have mentioned before.

Im starting to get the feeling you arn't really fit to debate this with me, because you can't even provide any supposed facts yourself.
 
celticwar17 said:
1) No it is not meaningless, the point was to establish that marriage is a subjective tradition.
2) WHAT? I have checked history... tell me what history tells on the banishment of Polygamy? You tell me to look at who practiced polygamy, that is specifically why I said MAINSTREAM Christian religion. You are simply wrong about this America in it's early times was a predominately protestant country and it was modeled that a marriage could only be between one and one women. Polygamy was banned due to outcry of the protestants saying it was a barbaric practice. Okay maybe I was wrong, you arn't dishonest, your are just completely ignorant of the subject, which is okay I'd be glad to teach you.
3) See, I don't think the government has the right to define LEGAL marriage when it excludes two consenting individuals.
4) No, the concept of marriage in this country has been created on who and who cannot participate in it and what kind of benefits and perks is established from it. This establishment is a bias. The government should not be biased on what Legal marriage is, a LEGAL marriage can only be defined(meaning defining what kind of relationship is eligible) by the two or more consenting individuals, otherwise you and the government is being discriminatory.

5.)This is relevant, like I have mentioned before.

6.)Im starting to get the feeling you arn't really fit to debate this with me, because you can't even provide any supposed facts yourself.
Click to expand...

1.) which doesnt matter to legal marriage, equal rights or the OP and its why you failed
2.) LMAO oooooh so another backpedal and another but but but, sorry but i still have facts and you still dont. Now you are just trying to deflect. LOL seriously do you have anything relvant to add since you just been wrong and off topic the whole time? You have taught nothing but how to dance around the facts and make stuff up that you think means something to the discussion.
3.) you are free to think that but again since we are the government and they have to protect and enfore rights and freedoms they do :shrug:
4.) again you changed nothing it would be something new from start to finish and its not discriminatory in a legal sense at all LOL
5.) nope still isnt and you havent given one logical or factual reason why it is
6.) Of course YOU think that lmao but its just a flat out lie, you have no factual, logical or intellectual path to take so you try to deflect and use failed inults but yet have provided NOTHING to support your meaningless, false and off topic claims.

let me know when that changes.

Ill be here waiting with facts and standing up for equal rights, let me know what you want to do lol
 
celticwar17 said:
More comments contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion :applaud
Click to expand...

except exposing your post for what they factually are, no applause needed though you make it easy.

if you disagree with what i said by all means provide anything factual that changes it :D
 
Objective-J said:
1.) which doesnt matter to legal marriage, equal rights or the OP and its why you failed
2.) LMAO oooooh so another backpedal and another but but but, sorry but i still have facts and you still dont. Now you are just trying to deflect. LOL seriously do you have anything relvant to add since you just been wrong and off topic the whole time? You have taught nothing but how to dance around the facts and make stuff up that you think means something to the discussion.
3.) you are free to think that but again since we are the government and they have to protect and enfore rights and freedoms they do :shrug:
4.) again you changed nothing it would be something new from start to finish and its not discriminatory in a legal sense at all LOL
5.) nope still isnt and you havent given one logical or factual reason why it is
6.) Of course YOU think that lmao but its just a flat out lie, you have no factual, logical or intellectual path to take so you try to deflect and use failed inults but yet have provided NOTHING to support your meaningless, false and off topic claims.

let me know when that changes.

Ill be here waiting with facts and standing up for equal rights, let me know what you want to do lol
Click to expand...
1) you fail to see the context in which this was placed into the arguement
2) How am I backpedaling? My stance all along was that today's marriage laws have been influenced by Christianity. You are literally making things up now...
3) what?
4)yes, it is, it excludes some consenting adults.
5) I did provide a logical reason
6) I am not lieing about anything, please point out what I am lying about.

How are you standing up for equal rights when you still exclude people from benefits just because it doesn't fit your preconception of what marriage is?
 
Objective-J said:
except exposing your post for what they factually are, no applause needed though you make it easy.

if you disagree with what i said by all means provide anything factual that changes it :D
Click to expand...

There is barely anything to really discuss with you because all your doing is being as generic as possible and pretending you actually are for equal rights.
 
celticwar17 said:
1) you fail to see the context in which this was placed into the arguement
2) How am I backpedaling? My stance all along was that today's marriage laws have been influenced by Christianity. You are literally making things up now...
3) what?
4)yes, it is, it excludes some consenting adults.
5) I did provide a logical reason
6) I am not lieing about anything, please point out what I am lying about.

How are you standing up for equal rights when you still exclude people from benefits just because it doesn't fit your preconception of what marriage is?
Click to expand...

im dont talking meaningless off topic circles LMAO
this is the bottome line

Im for equal rights, civil unions would not be equal rights.

is there anything you have that actually pertains to that in reality and not fantasy land?
 
celticwar17 said:
There is barely anything to really discuss with you because all your doing is being as generic as possible and pretending you actually are for equal rights.
Click to expand...

another lie , i am 100% for equal rights LMAO

id love for you to prove otherwise, you cant :)
 
Objective-J said:
another lie , i am 100% for equal rights LMAO

id love for you to prove otherwise, you cant :)
Click to expand...

I WILL prove to you.

Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude multiple individuals and be retricted to only two members.
Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude adult siblings
objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude Parent and adult child.
Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude all adult close family up to the first cousin.

Hence,

Objective-J believes that not all consenting adults are eligible for the marriage contract.

so,

Objective-J does not believe that all two or more consenting adult groups should have equivalent rights that other two consenting adults do.

Therefore,

Objective-J is not always for equal rights, but only situationally when his definition of a martial relationship is met.




I mean, the family/marriage contract concept is radical culturally, but Legally it is sound. This would define the marriage contract as simply two consenting adults that want to enjoy these benefits and responsibilities, no sexual connotations.
 
Last edited:
^ This would also include friends/business parneters, etc.
but i did not put that in there because I didn't want to assume you had a problem with this... but the problem would come in on the attitude of courts and divorce court. Because you couldn't inherently assume that these two individuals are having a romantic/sexual relationship with rules and regulations, exept other than the benefit's and responsibilities in the contract.
 
celticwar17 said:
I WILL prove to you.

Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude multiple individuals and be retricted to only two members.
Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude adult siblings
objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude Parent and adult child.
Objective-J believes that the marriage contract should exclude all adult close family up to the first cousin.

Hence,

Objective-J believes that not all consenting adults are eligible for the marriage contract.

so,

Objective-J does not believe that all two or more consenting adult groups should have equivalent rights that other two consenting adults do.

Therefore,

Objective-J is not always for equal rights, but only situationally when his definition of a martial relationship is met.




I mean, the family/marriage contract concept is radical culturally, but Legally it is sound. This would define the marriage contract as simply two consenting adults that want to enjoy these benefits and responsibilities, no sexual connotations.
Click to expand...


LMAO you just made a complete fool of yourself
I know i asked you before but you didnt answer are you from america?
1, i never said i believe ANY of that, so that is lie number one LMAO

2.) do you understand what equal rights are?

NOBODY has those rights you are talking about so that would not be an EQUAL rights issues LMAO

it would be like i said something new and is MEANINGLESS to gay equal rights


100% FAIL

so again please stop lying :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom