• 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
What do you base this on? What evidence do you have that gays want to change ANYTHING? It sounds like an irrational fear that you have. Its called building a strawman and then attacking it because there is no legitimate argument that you can attack.

Are you trying to tell me how I should feel and what my opinions should be now too?
 
I've backed up my argument. If you don't like how I did it or what I said, that's not my problem. Just because I don't point to a specific example (because nothing gay marriage is relatively new so nothing has happened yet) doesn't make my argument invalid. Just because I try to look at the bigger picture and try to see unintended consequences doesn't make me a "bigot" either.

Edit: I screwed up the quotes and I can't fix it. :lol:
You haven't backed up your argument at all. All you have said is that you are against gay marriage IF they want to change anything. But haven't given a single solitary reason why you have a fear that the gays would change anything. Usually when people have fears, they are based on SOMETHING. Not just a possible "IF".
 
Are you trying to tell me how I should feel and what my opinions should be now too?

No. I am saying...if you are on a debate site, at least be willing and/or able to justify and/or explain your fears and/or arguments
 
The point is, there is no one concept of marriage. My neighbor may have a completely different concept of marriage than I do, but it has no effect on MY concept of marriage. Just like MY concept of marriage has no effect on YOUR concept of marriage.

I'm having a backyard wedding, with no religious stuff at all. Some may say that you have to get married in a church. I don't have to.
The government form has nothing to do with anyones personal concept of marriage. Other than having to sign the thing there are no requirements
.

I agree with this.

Okay, let me give one example. Let's say atheists suddenly wanted marriage to be a completely government run thing. They wanted God completely OUT of marriage because it offends them for some reason (not that this would ever happen). I would like to see marriage be protected from something like that. Therefore, if we give civil unions as an option that have all the same benefits as a marriage, then they can have their "sterilized" version of a wedding and not have to impose it upon everyone else.
 
You haven't backed up your argument at all. All you have said is that you are against gay marriage IF they want to change anything. But haven't given a single solitary reason why you have a fear that the gays would change anything. Usually when people have fears, they are based on SOMETHING. Not just a possible "IF".

I feel that I've argued my point quite well and gave the example using the terminology as just a small sampling of what could possibly happen. You don't like my opinion, and no one is asking you to, but that doesn't mean you can badger me and call me a bigot either.
 
I feel that I've argued my point quite well and gave the example using the terminology as just a small sampling of what could possibly happen. You don't like my opinion, and no one is asking you to, but that doesn't mean you can badger me and call me a bigot either.

I'm not "badgering" you. I'm just saying that if you make a claim, be able to back it up. All that you have given us is that you are afraid that gays MIGHT change marriage IF they want to, although you don't know IF they want to.
 
Nope, I said I support gay marriage as long as they don't want to change anything about marriage. Period. The examples about discrimination were no less discrimination than preventing gay people from being married. The point was not allowing them to change things about existing marriage customs is not being discriminatory IMO, especially if there is a civil union option available for those that might be unhappy about something with marriage.

There is no one marriage custom to change. That is the point. There are numerous marriage customs.
 
There is no one marriage custom to change. That is the point. There are numerous marriage customs.

You have to read my newer post.
 
I agree with this.

Okay, let me give one example. Let's say atheists suddenly wanted marriage to be a completely government run thing. They wanted God completely OUT of marriage because it offends them for some reason (not that this would ever happen). I would like to see marriage be protected from something like that. Therefore, if we give civil unions as an option that have all the same benefits as a marriage, then they can have their "sterilized" version of a wedding and not have to impose it upon everyone else.

Do you have ANY evidence that gays want to change ANYTHING about marriage?
 
I'm always greatly amused by the notion that allowing SSM will somehow undermine the "sanctity" or the "institution" of marriage, or "erode the family." Really? It seems heterosexual couples are doing a perfectly fine job of that already, considering divorce rates, cheating spouses, custody battles, etc. :doh A family friend just walked down the aisle for the *fourth* time not too long ago. In a church! Good for her, good luck, and well wishes, but somehow at that point, vowing yet again, to love-and-honor-til-death-do-you-part just seems ridiculous. There really is no reason SSM should not be allowed. People should be treated equally by the law, and same-sex couples deserve the same benefits given to heterosexual couples afforded by marriage. It certainly doesn't undermine my own marriage, nor does it affect the value or importance I place in marriage. The argument that SSM undermines the sanctity of anything is a complete joke.
 
I'm not "badgering" you. I'm just saying that if you make a claim, be able to back it up. All that you have given us is that you are afraid that gays MIGHT change marriage IF they want to, although you don't know IF they want to.

I disagree. You are making me feel as if I'm being badgered. I already said that I wanted to protect marriage and offer a civil union option for those who are not happy with the marriage as it is. I don't see how much more clear I can be.
 
I agree with this.

Okay, let me give one example. Let's say atheists suddenly wanted marriage to be a completely government run thing. They wanted God completely OUT of marriage because it offends them for some reason (not that this would ever happen). I would like to see marriage be protected from something like that. Therefore, if we give civil unions as an option that have all the same benefits as a marriage, then they can have their "sterilized" version of a wedding and not have to impose it upon everyone else.

Marriage is already only a government thing. You only have to have a government license to be legally married. The church/religion part is optional.
The church/God doesn't grant you legal marriage.

No one can tell anyone how to have a wedding.
 
I'm always greatly amused by the notion that allowing SSM will somehow undermine the "sanctity" or the "institution" of marriage, or "erode the family." Really? It seems heterosexual couples are doing a perfectly fine job of that already, considering divorce rates, cheating spouses, custody battles, etc. :doh A family friend just walked down the aisle for the *fourth* time not too long ago. In a church! Good for her, good luck, and well wishes, but somehow at that point, vowing yet again, to love-and-honor-til-death-do-you-part just seems ridiculous. There really is no reason SSM should not be allowed. People should be treated equally by the law, and same-sex couples deserve the same benefits given to heterosexual couples afforded by marriage. It certainly doesn't undermine my own marriage, nor does it affect the value or importance I place in marriage. The argument that SSM undermines the sanctity of anything is a complete joke.

That's not the point I was making at all. It's the idea that some customs and things about marriage DO mean something to some people, and those people are not any less important than any other group of people, so they should also have some protections. The option of civil union for those who are unhappy with any aspect of marriage as it exists could use that option.
 
I disagree. You are making me feel as if I'm being badgered. I already said that I wanted to protect marriage and offer a civil union option for those who are not happy with the marriage as it is. I don't see how much more clear I can be.

Let me ask you this....do you have the same fears that Blond haired people might change marriage IF they wanted to, even though you don't really have any reason to believe that they want to.....or is this irrational fear that they might change something IF they wanted to change something only applies to gays?
 
Marriage is already only a government thing. You only have to have a government license to be legally married. The church/religion part is optional.
The church/God doesn't grant you legal marriage.

No one can tell anyone how to have a wedding.

As it stands now, yes, and I want to protect those rights so that no one can ever have any kind of terms eliminated or other such scenarios.
 
That's not the point I was making at all. It's the idea that some customs and things about marriage DO mean something to some people, and those people are not any less important than any other group of people, so they should also have some protections. The option of civil union for those who are unhappy with any aspect of marriage as it exists could use that option.

What do those people need to be protected from? What are the gays coming after?
 
Marriage is already only a government thing. You only have to have a government license to be legally married. The church/religion part is optional.
The church/God doesn't grant you legal marriage.

No one can tell anyone how to have a wedding.

you don't even have to have a wedding. get the license and hit the JOP. does it really matter what you call it as long as all the benefits are the same? "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet....."
 
As it stands now, yes, and I want to protect those rights so that no one can ever have any kind of terms eliminated or other such scenarios.

What other such scenarios are you referencing?
 
Let me ask you this....do you have the same fears that Blond haired people might change marriage IF they wanted to, even though you don't really have any reason to believe that they want to.....or is this irrational fear that they might change something IF they wanted to change something only applies to gays?

Well, I don't normally see strictly groups of blonde people out protesting or making a big deal out of "blonde rights" so no. And I wouldn't call it a fear. It was just something that crossed my mind when I read the OP question and after I read the other thread about the terminology changes on marriage certificates.
 
Don't worry.....I think that only about .00000001% of gays own assless chaps.
 
That's not the point I was making at all. It's the idea that some customs and things about marriage DO mean something to some people, and those people are not any less important than any other group of people, so they should also have some protections. The option of civil union for those who are unhappy with any aspect of marriage as it exists could use that option.

The ONLY required marriage custom is filling out a form with the government. Vows, ceremony, etc are dependent of the couple.
The only custom that could have any effect on everyone else is changing the government form, which actually has no real effect on your marriage customs.
 
As it stands now, yes, and I want to protect those rights so that no one can ever have any kind of terms eliminated or other such scenarios.

1st amendment protects those customs. See problem is already solved.
 
1st amendment protects those customs. See problem is already solved.

Civil unions should still be offered for those who don't want all that comes with a typical marriage. Don't you think? And civil unions should offer all the same benefits that a marriage would.
 
Really I'm at a loss as to why people are so upset that I want to offer a choice instead of one or the other. :confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom