• 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
roguenuke said:
I'm not the one suggesting "gender neutral" terminology, but I do see the necessity for it, even if it is choosing "bride/groom, bride/groom" on the forms. But it is better to make those small changes than it is to have to make huge changes just to avoid changing one form to include gender neutral terminology. But what is on the forms, as long as it covers everyone, should be left up to the individual states, since it doesn't actually affect anyone's rights.
Click to expand...

Well, like I said, I am really only using this terminology thing as an example of some type of change that some might demand in the future. I am all for SSM as long as they are okay with the terms of marriage as they exist. Otherwise, I would think a civil union would be more suitable. That is ONLY reason why I would suggest both be equal as far as benefits go and I still don't understand why it would be such a big deal to make it so that they are equal and so that couples can choose.

Another point I would like to make is that it may not be just SS couples who choose a civil union option, anyone could hypothetically. There must be other couples who are not too keen on the way a marriage is defined and wish for other options.
 
disneydude said:
So you would be fine if inter-racial marriage were outlawed, but people of different races were able to civil union each other?
Afterall, they would still be able to enjoy all the benefits that same race married people do, while NOT having to change things for others. I mean.....either terminology and traditions matter or they don't right? So you would be fine with going back to our original terminology and traditions before "marriage" was bastardized by allowing different races to marry each other?
Click to expand...

Slow down dude, who said anything about outlawing anything? Certainly not me.
 
See what I mean about bugging out? :lol:
 
ChrisL said:
Well, like I said, I am really only using this terminology thing as an example of some type of change that some might demand in the future. I am all for SSM as long as they are okay with the terms of marriage as they exist. Otherwise, I would think a civil union would be more suitable. That is ONLY reason why I would suggest both be equal as far as benefits go and I still don't understand why it would be such a big deal to make it so that they are equal and so that couples can choose.

Another point I would like to make is that it may not be just SS couples who choose a civil union option, anyone could hypothetically. There must be other couples who are not too keen on the way a marriage is defined and wish for other options.
Click to expand...

Civil unions exist now because people want something legally different, not because they care two bits about the terminology being used on a form.

You still can't see that avoiding change to one or possibly a few forms (and that really is the only thing that would change) would cause much bigger changes to a bunch of other forms and laws and institutions. It is just ridiculous to suggest that we avoid changing small things about marriage, that really have nothing to do with how marriage functions, by changing huge things about other contracts and legal arrangements. Civil unions already exist and they are currently a way for people to get a different level of legal recognition from the government because this is what many people want.
 
roguenuke said:
Civil unions exist now because people want something legally different, not because they care two bits about the terminology being used on a form.

You still can't see that avoiding change to one or possibly a few forms (and that really is the only thing that would change) would cause much bigger changes to a bunch of other forms and laws and institutions. It is just ridiculous to suggest that we avoid changing small things about marriage, that really have nothing to do with how marriage functions, by changing huge things about other contracts and legal arrangements. Civil unions already exist and they are currently a way for people to get a different level of legal recognition from the government because this is what many people want.
Click to expand...

So what you are basically saying is that if gay people want their little "changes" then those should be honored, but to hell with anyone who would prefer that things remain as they are, and that we should spend money to appease that group that wishes to change things on legal contracts, and that is A-Ok?
 
Some of you want to have your cake and eat it too, at the expense of anyone who disagrees.
 
roguenuke said:
Civil unions exist now because people want something legally different, not because they care two bits about the terminology being used on a form.

You still can't see that avoiding change to one or possibly a few forms (and that really is the only thing that would change) would cause much bigger changes to a bunch of other forms and laws and institutions. It is just ridiculous to suggest that we avoid changing small things about marriage, that really have nothing to do with how marriage functions, by changing huge things about other contracts and legal arrangements. Civil unions already exist and they are currently a way for people to get a different level of legal recognition from the government because this is what many people want.
Click to expand...

What you suggest is not compromise. What you suggest appeases one person and does absolutely nothing but potentially take something away from the other. Things like this are what cause conflict, and that is why it is a good idea that if you are going to appease, then you try to appease everyone.
 
ChrisL said:
So what you are basically saying is that if gay people want their little "changes" then those should be honored, but to hell with anyone who would prefer that things remain as they are, and that we should spend money to appease that group that wishes to change things on legal contracts, and that is A-Ok?
Click to expand...

Where did gay people ask for the changes? Where did anyone put in an official request to change the marriage license just for gay people?

It is called change for practicality. Things must change a little bit to give same sex couples equal protection under the law. So the sensible move is to change as little as possible. Since changing verbiage on a legal document is much smaller change than changing whole other legal institutions to match one already in existence, then it is reasonable to go with changing the verbiage. This is particularly true when the vast majority of people could really care less about the verbiage being used to describe each party on the form. I didn't even look at what mine called me and my husband til this came up. It just wasn't a big deal and it still isn't.
 
roguenuke said:
Where did gay people ask for the changes? Where did anyone put in an official request to change the marriage license just for gay people?

It is called change for practicality. Things must change a little bit to give same sex couples equal protection under the law. So the sensible move is to change as little as possible. Since changing verbiage on a legal document is much smaller change than changing whole other legal institutions to match one already in existence, then it is reasonable to go with changing the verbiage. This is particularly true when the vast majority of people could really care less about the verbiage being used to describe each party on the form. I didn't even look at what mine called me and my husband til this came up. It just wasn't a big deal and it still isn't.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is all just a hypothetical argument because no one knows what will happen in the future. As to your statement about things must change a little bit to give same sex couples equal protection under the law, I have to scoff at that as you yourself stated that the terminology is stupid and petty and doesn't matter. You are contradicting your own argument.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Clarify.
Click to expand...

I have seen folks argue that expanding the functional qualification to fall within the definition of marriage to "two people who love each other" would not, in fact, degrade that institutions' social support.

I have, thus far, found the arguments tempting (it would be nice if it was true), but not convincing (I do not think that it is).
 
ChrisL said:
What you suggest is not compromise. What you suggest appeases one person and does absolutely nothing but potentially take something away from the other. Things like this are what cause conflict, and that is why it is a good idea that if you are going to appease, then you try to appease everyone.
Click to expand...

And you suggest something that takes something away from other people, whether you recognize it or not. Civil unions already exist at a level that those entering into them now want. They don't want that to change to appease those who are opposed to same sex couples possibly changing small things about marriage paperwork.

You cannot appease everyone on this issue. It isn't possible. There are people that don't want same sex couples to have any recognition now. There are people who don't want to waste money on making huge changes when small changes work better (me). There are people who don't want to change verbiage on documentation that may affect them. There are those who just want marriage completely off the books altogether. There is no way you are going to appease everyone. So the most reasonable solution is the least amount of change that also gives equal rights under the law to everyone.
 
roguenuke said:
And you suggest something that takes something away from other people, whether you recognize it or not. Civil unions already exist at a level that those entering into them now want. They don't want that to change to appease those who are opposed to same sex couples possibly changing small things about marriage paperwork.

You cannot appease everyone on this issue. It isn't possible. There are people that don't want same sex couples to have any recognition now. There are people who don't want to waste money on making huge changes when small changes work better (me). There are people who don't want to change verbiage on documentation that may affect them. There are those who just want marriage completely off the books altogether. There is no way you are going to appease everyone. So the most reasonable solution is the least amount of change that also gives equal rights under the law to everyone.
Click to expand...

As YOU stated, the terminology used is stupid and unimportant and basically irrelevant to the issue. NOW suddenly it becomes an important little change that we NEED in order to make SSM equal? :lol: I'm sorry, but THAT is hilarious. Do you not see the hypocrisy there?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
And why is that?
Click to expand...

I have seen no supporting evidence, and the last 50 - odd years have consistently demonstrated that when we do liberalize the function of the family, the results are disastrous, and concentrate their harm on those in our society who are most vulnerable.
 
You CAN appease everyone by changing the laws about civil unions but still leaving marriage open as an option as well. Nobody will care if civil unions offer MORE benefits instead of less. There are no traditions or terminologies associated with civil unions that anyone cares about. Get real.
 
ChrisL said:
Yes, this is all just a hypothetical argument because no one knows what will happen in the future. As to your statement about things must change a little bit to give same sex couples equal protection under the law, I have to scoff at that as you yourself stated that the terminology is stupid and petty and doesn't matter. You are contradicting your own argument.
Click to expand...

Do civil unions exist now? With what you are suggesting, would they have to change?

And how do you figure I contradicted myself? I said it is petty and stupid because that doesn't matter overall to a person's marriage. However, there is a need for change because it is not reasonable to accept that a man must be referred to as "bride" or a woman "husband" just to be in a legal contract with each other. That can reasonably be viewed as offensive. Just as it would be offensive if a state had different marriage licenses for couples of different races, and those entering into a mixed marriage were required to use a certain race's form because some didn't want to change the whole system.
 
cpwill said:
I have seen no supporting evidence, and the last 50 - odd years have consistently demonstrated that when we do liberalize the function of the family, the results are disastrous, and concentrate their harm on those in our society who are most vulnerable.
Click to expand...

Question: How does legalizing gay marriage alter the function? I still view marriage as having the primary role as a basis for starting a family, regardless of whether is is gay or straight.
 
ChrisL said:
You CAN appease everyone by changing the laws about civil unions but still leaving marriage open as an option as well. Nobody will care if civil unions offer MORE benefits instead of less. There are no traditions or terminologies associated with civil unions that anyone cares about. Get real.
Click to expand...

No you can't. You won't appease me and many others. You are not appeasing everyone.

And there are still going to be people who want civil unions to offer less things because it also means less government intervention if they split up or for certain situations.
 
roguenuke said:
Do civil unions exist now? With what you are suggesting, would they have to change?

And how do you figure I contradicted myself? I said it is petty and stupid because that doesn't matter overall to a person's marriage. However, there is a need for change because it is not reasonable to accept that a man must be referred to as "bride" or a woman "husband" just to be in a legal contract with each other. That can reasonably be viewed as offensive. Just as it would be offensive if a state had different marriage licenses for couples of different races, and those entering into a mixed marriage were required to use a certain race's form because some didn't want to change the whole system.
Click to expand...

Yes they would have to change. People tell me you don't get the same tax and other benefits that married couples get.

And I NEVER suggested that a man have to be called a bride. I also suggested that they be able to choose any combination of bride/groom.

You contradict yourself by saying that the terminology should be unimportant to one group of people, yet very important to another and at the same time you call it an irrelevant and stupid issue in so many words. One group of people is NOT more important than another. If they want to be "married" then they can, but accept it for what it does and does not include. Don't try to tailor it to fit the needs of ONE group while ignoring the other.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Question: How does legalizing gay marriage alter the function?
Click to expand...

It alters the basis of the unit, which in turn shifts it from focusing on that function. It is as if we were to take the Sacramento Police Force and tell them that instead of solving and preventing crimes in Sacramento, they were now tasked with "world peace". Naturally, Sacramento would suffer. Broadening the focus away from the mission reduces it's effectiveness.

I still view marriage as having the primary role as a basis for starting a family, regardless of whether is is gay or straight.
Click to expand...

Then you have a problem, because expanding the definition to include simply two people who love each other will further decay the connection between marriage and stable family formation.
 
disneydude said:
I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your faulty logic.
Click to expand...

Well, when you freak like that and say things that are totally untrue, you only make yourself look absurd. :)
 
roguenuke said:
No you can't. You won't appease me and many others. You are not appeasing everyone.

And there are still going to be people who want civil unions to offer less things because it also means less government intervention if they split up or for certain situations.
Click to expand...

Such as?
 
disneydude said:
I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your faulty logic.
Click to expand...

No you were not, you were snidely and passively-aggressively attacking by implicitly accusing her of the moral equivalency of racism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom