• 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
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....."

Yes, it matters. Separate but equal has never worked before. Besides, why spend the money to rewrite every law that mentions marriage, change every govt form that mentions marriage, etc. Just to create a replica of something that is already exists in the law.
 
That is your right. You will be proven wrong in the long run . . . but you have a right to feel the way you do. As long as women are willing, gay men can have babies. As long as men are willing, gay women can have babies. You gotta love science . . . God gave it to us. In fact he gave us the brains to create a science called "Biology". Which you now seem to be trying to cite to stop 2-people who love each other from marrying. No one wants to marry a horse and the slippery slope you perceive does not exist in the mainstream . . . gays do though. They have been here since the beginning of civilization. they're here, they're queer . . . it would be ever so nice if you could get use to it.

Neither gays nor lesbians can have babies inside the union that they are fighting us for. What an excellent point that you have just made for the opponents of gay "marriage". And another fine example of the inferiority of the concept of "gay" marriage.

As far as the "slippery slope"...not so long ago the sentiment that "no one wants to marry someone of the same gender" would have been as absurd as your "marry a horse" comment, yet here we are.

I admit that I appear to be on the losing side of this issue, but keep in mind that this alone does not make a thing any less wrong or destructive to the society.
 
I'm fine with gay marriage as long as the groom doesn't insist on wearing assless pants during the ceremony

If you're not invited to the ceremony, would you ever know? :mrgreen:
 
Yes, it matters. Separate but equal has never worked before. Besides, why spend the money to rewrite every law that mentions marriage, change every govt form that mentions marriage, etc. Just to create a replica of something that is already exists in the law.

Separate option for those who are not happy with some terms of marriage so they don't have to protest and make things difficult for everyone else if it ever came to that. Offering a civil union would take care of those people too. :)

Edit: Oops! I must be getting tired. I said public option instead of civil union. :lamo
 
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.

No, civil unions already exist as a different union. My grandmother had a civil union after her first husband died to protect her assets. Civil unions have different ruled for a reason.
 
No, civil unions already exist as a different union. My grandmother had a civil union after her first husband died to protect her assets. Civil unions have different ruled for a reason.

That is what prenups are for.
 
Neither gays nor lesbians can have babies inside the union that they are fighting us for. What an excellent point that you have just made for the opponents of gay "marriage". And another fine example of the inferiority of the concept of "gay" marriage.

As far as the "slippery slope"...not so long ago the sentiment that "no one wants to marry someone of the same gender" would have been as absurd as your "marry a horse" comment, yet here we are.

I admit that I appear to be on the losing side of this issue, but keep in mind that this alone does not make a thing any less wrong or destructive to the society.

Infertile couples and the elderly can not have babies inside the union, but they are allowed marriage. Reproduction is not a requirement for marriage in any state.
 
Separate option for those who are not happy with some terms of marriage so they don't have to protest and make things difficult for everyone else if it ever came to that. Offering a civil union would take care of those people too. :)

Edit: Oops! I must be getting tired. I said public option instead of civil union. :lamo

There are no universal terms of marriage. Each state already has different wording on their licenses.
 
There are no universal terms of marriage. Each state already has different wording on their licenses.

I'm talking about any possible objection they could have. The terminology example was just that, an example. And like I said, the terminology is not necessarily an important issue to me, nor are any of the issues (I'm not married), I'm just trying to think in terms of at least attempting to make everybody happy.

I still don't understand the objection that if someone is NOT happy with marriage the way it is that they can choose a civil union. YOU guys still haven't come up with any good reason for your objections other than to say a public option already exists and is defined. I could also say that about marriage. Take it or leave it. :shrug:
 
A prenup doesn't prevent loss of SS or survivors benefits from being reduced. A civil union can.

That's great. I am talking about INCREASING the benefits one will have with a civil union, not taking any away.
 
Neither gays nor lesbians can have babies inside the union that they are fighting us for. What an excellent point that you have just made for the opponents of gay "marriage". And another fine example of the inferiority of the concept of "gay" marriage.

As far as the "slippery slope"...not so long ago the sentiment that "no one wants to marry someone of the same gender" would have been as absurd as your "marry a horse" comment, yet here we are.

"Inside the union" is moot since science has made it capable for heterosexual couples with reproductive issues to have babies . . . Period. What's good for the goose is good for the Gander so to speak. Also, my marrying the horse comment would not have originated had you not said the following . . .

Once that Pandora's box is opened, defining marriage as "two consenting adults" is just as discriminatory to man and dog/animal, brother and sister, man and multiple partners or man and inanimate object.

In my experience . . . many folks act as if they have no idea what another person is talking about, or they act as if I brought the subject up . . . as if it is a real threat. Personally, I take this as a insult to my intelligence . . . whatever that may be. I'm sorry, that's how I see it.
 
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.

My comment wasn't directed at you. It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, really. I literally just joined DP earlier today, and was simply sharing my thoughts on the subject.

I'm happy to respond, though. There are things about marriage that matter to me. But I honestly don't see what I need protection from. Allowing SSM doesn't change or affect my own marriage, anymore than the thousands of heterosexual divorces do.
 
My comment wasn't directed at you. It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, really. I literally just joined DP earlier today, and was simply sharing my thoughts on the subject.

I'm happy to respond, though. There are things about marriage that matter to me. But I honestly don't see what I need protection from. Allowing SSM doesn't change or affect my own marriage, anymore than the thousands of heterosexual divorces do.

In that case, Welcome! :) I don't see anything particular that needs protection either. It just wouldn't surprise me if a few years or so down the road from now we find that perhaps there are some things that need protecting. Of course, I can't say for sure and that is why this is just hypothetical and purely my own opinion. Not meant at all to offend anyone or, as someone else claimed earlier, to sound bigoted in any way.
 
As for the, "if we allow SSM, before you know it, Joe will want to marry a horse, or a dog, or his hairdryer..." argument -- Will someone puh-leeeeze take me down that road??? :lamo It sounds an awful lot like the same road where someone experiments with pot, and the next thing you know, they are selling their behind in the NYC subways for "a fix." Another topic entirely... I'm just sayin'!
 
I'm talking about any possible objection they could have. The terminology example was just that, an example. And like I said, the terminology is not necessarily an important issue to me, nor are any of the issues (I'm not married), I'm just trying to think in terms of at least attempting to make everybody happy.

I still don't understand the objection that if someone is NOT happy with marriage the way it is that they can choose a civil union. YOU guys still haven't come up with any good reason for your objections other than to say a public option already exists and is defined. I could also say that about marriage. Take it or leave it. :shrug:

The government form is the ONLY thing that could change. The ceremony is up to the couple, no one has any say over that. The vows are up to the couple no one has any say over those.

Civil unions are already filling a need as a separate legal union. Most people who have civil unions have legal reasons to do so. They don't want marriage.
 
As for the, "if we allow SSM, before you know it, Joe will want to marry a horse, or a dog, or his hairdryer..." argument -- Will someone puh-leeeeze take me down that road??? :lamo It sounds an awful lot like the same road where someone experiments with pot, and the next thing you know, they are selling their behind in the NYC subways for "a fix." Another topic entirely... I'm just sayin'!

Well I am doubtful that THAT would ever happen. Animals can't consent, so hopefully lines can still be drawn on who can marry what. :lol:
 
The government form is the ONLY thing that could change. The ceremony is up to the couple, no one has any say over that. The vows are up to the couple no one has any say over those.

Civil unions are already filling a need as a separate legal union. Most people who have civil unions have legal reasons to do so. They don't want marriage.

This is just not the case, as marriage gives benefits that civil unions do not a lot of people who MIGHT have chosen a civil union would surely choose a marriage instead, even if they don't like all that marriage stands for.
 
That's great. I am talking about INCREASING the benefits one will have with a civil union, not taking any away.

Most people who have civil unions can already have the same benefits as marriage by getting married. They choose to have a civil union as it now is for one reason or another. If you make civil unions equal to marriage, you would have to make a new union to fill the role that civil unions currently fill. Plus it costs more money to have redundancy in any system, and that is exactly what having two separate unions with the same exact benefits would be. Redundant.
 
Most people who have civil unions can already have the same benefits as marriage by getting married. They choose to have a civil union as it now is for one reason or another. If you make civil unions equal to marriage, you would have to make a new union to fill the role that civil unions currently fill. Plus it costs more money to have redundancy in any system, and that is exactly what having two separate unions with the same exact benefits would be. Redundant.

How about common law marriage? Some states still have this I believe as well.
 
This is just not the case, as marriage gives benefits that civil unions do not a lot of people who MIGHT have chosen a civil union would surely choose a marriage instead, even if they don't like all that marriage stands for.

No. With a civil union it is possible to keep assets completely separate. Civil unions also don't show you as "married" which is important in some business, and financial matters. Of course civil unions differ from state to state.

And if people would choose to have more benefits, then there would be no hetero couple that currently has a civil union, because they can currently choose to get married. However there ARE hetero couples that choose civil unions over marriage for a multitude of reasons.
 
No. With a civil union it is possible to keep assets completely separate. Civil unions also don't show you as "married" which is important in some business, and financial matters. Of course civil unions differ from state to state.

And if people would choose to have more benefits, then there would be no hetero couple that currently has a civil union, because they can currently choose to get married. However there ARE hetero couples that choose civil unions over marriage for a multitude of reasons.

Some people don't like the religious connections with marriage and would probably prefer a more sterile version of a marriage such as a civil union. Of course, neither of us can say what anyone would really want, as we really don't know, but I still don't see a really good objection to offering both as an option to anyone, and increasing the benefits. I also don't see any reason why one couldn't waive some benefits if they don't wish to have them.
 
How about common law marriage? Some states still have this I believe as well.

Common law marriage laws vary from state to state. Many states do not recognize common law marriages from other states, some states don't allow them at all, and the federal government doesn't recognize them at all I believe.

Currently 40 states do not allow common law marriages to be contracted.
 
Some people don't like the religious connections with marriage and would probably prefer a more sterile version of a marriage such as a civil union. Of course, neither of us can say what anyone would really want, as we really don't know, but I still don't see a really good objection to offering both as an option to anyone, and increasing the benefits. I also don't see any reason why one couldn't waive some benefits if they don't wish to have them.

There is no religious connection with a government marriage if the couple does not want there to be. It is a legally binding contract. No church/religion/God needed by the government for it to be legal.
 
Common law marriage laws vary from state to state. Many states do not recognize common law marriages from other states, some states don't allow them at all, and the federal government doesn't recognize them at all I believe.

Currently 40 states do not allow common law marriages to be contracted.

I don't see why not. If you want to share your benefits with someone you've lived with for a number of years, you should be able to do that. If people want to join together to share benefits and the like, I don't see why the government should be able to stick it's big ugly nose into it.
 
Back
Top Bottom