• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, and this could also be a problem. There could come a time when people say that because "marriage" is more of a contract and a government entity that God and/or religious symbolism should be forbidden. That is NOT so far-fetched.
 
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then take that up with the 40 states that don't allow them. To pass on government granted benefits, the government has to be involved. If you want to share your benefits, you are inviting the government in.
 
ChrisL said:
Yes, and this could also be a problem. There could come a time when people say that because "marriage" is more of a contract and a government entity that God and/or religious symbolism should be forbidden. That is NOT so far-fetched.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

1st amendment. The problem is already solved. Nothing short of a constitutional amendment nullifying the first amendment would allow anyone to say what you can do with regards to your religious practices.
 
wolfsgirl said:
Seriously?

1st amendment. The problem is already solved. Nothing short of a constitutional amendment nullifying the first amendment would allow anyone to say what you can do with regards to your religious practices.
Click to expand...

NOT if marriage is considered a state or government institution instead of a religious one, and THAT could well be the road we are going down and is certainly NOT impossible.
 
ChrisL said:
NOT if marriage is considered a state or government institution instead of a religious one, and THAT could well be the road we are going down and is certainly NOT impossible.
Click to expand...

Marriage is ALREADY a state institution, and a religious one. You do not need a church to make a marriage legal. but you do need the government to make a religious ceremony legal.
 
wolfsgirl said:
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.
Click to expand...

that's because separate but equal has never been equal before
 
wolfsgirl said:
Marriage is ALREADY a state institution, and a religious one. You do not need a church to make a marriage legal. but you do need the government to make a religious ceremony legal.
Click to expand...

Yes and how does that argue against my post? It could come down to not mixing state and religion. It sure wouldn't be a surprise to me if some group or groups of people tried to push that agenda.
 
OscarB63 said:
how is this relegating anyone to second class status?

gay couples get A, B and C, called civil union
straight couples get A, B and C, called marriage

the ONLY difference is what you call it. so apparently the word "marriage" is what is most important.
Click to expand...

Actually, common sense would be what is important. Making two sets of laws so that two groups of people can do the exact same thing, but calling one one thing and the other something else, just so as not to piss off a few silly, emotional people is kinda stupid. That is why civil unions as the OP expresses them is a bad idea.
 
ChrisL said:
Yes and how does that argue against my post? It could come down to not mixing state and religion. It sure wouldn't be a surprise to me if some group or groups of people tried to push that agenda.
Click to expand...

There again, the first amendment, protects your religious ceremonies. Nothing short of repealing the first amendment would be able to ban your church ceremonies.
 
cpwill said:
umm.... no. Firstly, the other nations that have explicitly rejected religion thus far appear to largely build themselves upon theft and murder. But that is an aside, because Secondly, why someone else may make the same choice I do in no way means that I have adopted their motivations.
Click to expand...

Close, but US law is based around British common law, not religious law. The origins predate Christianity. Further, nowehere does it say we make murder and theft illegal in our country due to the bible. You are just making **** up.

I have seen that argued, just not yet convincingly.
Click to expand...

It is argued logically. No one's family is effected by SSM, except gay couples. Marriage is a more stable place to raise a family that outside of marriage. A significant portion of gay people have kids. This is actual logic.
 
cpwill said:
No, you are mistaking "what I think" for "what everyone must find logical".
Click to expand...

You have yet to present a logical argument in this thread. That is simply fact. Appeals to emotion and tradition are not logical.
 
cpwill said:
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).
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that allowing SSM would have any negative impact, and evidence that it would have a positive impact(see child raising). You can believe what you want, but just wishing something to be true won't make it so.
 
cpwill said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

Apparently this is complicated for you, so I will say it slowly:

Gay people have families too.

Now your whole argument has just fallen apart.
 
Redress said:
Actually, common sense would be what is important. Making two sets of laws so that two groups of people can do the exact same thing, but calling one one thing and the other something else, just so as not to piss off a few silly, emotional people is kinda stupid. That is why civil unions as the OP expresses them is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

common sense would be to have the govt recognize a legal civil union for everybody and then let the various churches decide which unions they are willing to grant the title of "marriage" upon

and FWIW, those "few silly emotional people" in all statistical probability outnumber the gays wanting to get married, considering that gays are a very small % of the population. you could just as well argue "why change the current laws against gay marriage just to appease a very few people"

personally, I could care ****all about gay marriage. if they are willing to take the responsibilities and bennies of marriage...more power to them. let em get married, let em serve in the military, let em adopt kids
 
OscarB63 said:
common sense would be to have the govt recognize a legal civil union for everybody and then let the various churches decide which unions they are willing to grant the title of "marriage" upon

and FWIW, those "few silly emotional people" in all statistical probability outnumber the gays wanting to get married, considering that gays are a very small % of the population. you could just as well argue "why change the current laws against gay marriage just to appease a very few people"

personally, I could care ****all about gay marriage. if they are willing to take the responsibilities and bennies of marriage...more power to them. let em get married, let em serve in the military, let em adopt kids
Click to expand...

Why would you entirely overhaul a mostly working system when you can make a small fix?

An appeal to popularity is not a good argument.
 
I don't have a dog in this fight, but if I did, I would probably see civil unions as unacceptable.
 
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

That would be against the 1st Amendment in more ways than one, just as if it was the opposite, religious wanted everyone else to completely give up marriage and use another name for their unions and couples could never call themselves married unless they had a religious ceremony. They would violate freedom or religion and freedom of speech laws by making such demands.
 
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Marriage means a lot of different things to a lot of different people and none of them is more or less correct in how they view marriage (unless it is used as a form of oppression or something of the sort). My marriage is about love and loyalty and respect and trying to equal out what each person does plus a whole lot of other things. My grandparents on the other hand slept in different rooms and really didn't talk to each other. By the time I came along, the first of their grandchildren, they had very little love for each other in them. Their marriage was nothing like my parents, I knew this from a very young age. But their marriage worked well for them. My other set of grandparents actually did talk once about getting remarried (they had been divorced for over 20 years) just to get my grandmother better benefits. It is all about what works best for each person in their marriage. But it is all about marriage if that is what they need.

Should those who have different customs or traditions for marriage have to settle for a civil union instead of marriage just because some may find their views on what customs and traditions go with marriage may be wrong? As was put out before, marriage customs and traditions are a personal thing, not relevant to legal marriage.
 
OscarB63 said:
common sense would be to have the govt recognize a legal civil union for everybody and then let the various churches decide which unions they are willing to grant the title of "marriage" upon

and FWIW, those "few silly emotional people" in all statistical probability outnumber the gays wanting to get married, considering that gays are a very small % of the population. you could just as well argue "why change the current laws against gay marriage just to appease a very few people"

personally, I could care ****all about gay marriage. if they are willing to take the responsibilities and bennies of marriage...more power to them. let em get married, let em serve in the military, let em adopt kids
Click to expand...

No.

First of all, religions do not own marriage. They do not get to hold sole ownership of marriage.

Second, it is fiscally stupid to change the name of the marriage contract just because some don't want to share the term with other couples who would consider themselves married even without the legal term but it would all cost the entire country more money to put into place.

And those silly people who are for keeping marriage a religious thing or between opposite sex couples may be outnumbered by same sex couples and even gays in general, but they are the ones outnumbered by those who support allowing same sex couples to marry. Because there are a lot of heterosexuals like myself who fully believe same sex couples deserve legal access to marriage and that marriage is owned by society, not religion.
 
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

No. Because it is a waste of money. What part of marriage is legally "typical"? As in is found as a part of every state's law pertaining to marriage. Cannot be separated or left out of the legal marriage. Every person getting married must abide by.
 
Partisan62 said:
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.
Click to expand...

25% of legally married couples where the woman is of childbearing age do not have children. A good portion of them cannot have children with each other (about 10%), and another portion do not want children and go through great pains to avoid having children.

Procreation is not a legal requirement of marriage. And in fact, in 5 states, first cousins can legally marry only if they can show that they are not able to procreate with each other. Those marriages are all recognized by the federal government.
 
ChrisL said:
1.)LOL! You'll have to do a little better than that. Explain why it wouldn't make everyone happy. I think that it would.



2.):lol:



3.)No it doesn't. Other is an option, and it is asked to explain if you pick other. So you are wrong.



4.)Good Lord. Let's not go off the deep end with the ridiculousness now.



5.)Well I can't comment on this until I see that this is what it actually ever said via links.



6.)I will look at this later. Thank you. :)




7.)Why is it "too bad" to be insensitive to one group but not to another? What in the hell would you be if not bride (female) or groom (male)? I already said perhaps they could put in an "O" for other, but that would be RARELY used since most people (transgendered, etc.) have at least CHOSEN a gender.



Well, I'd really like to take a nice long look into that crystal ball you apparently have at your disposal. ;)
Click to expand...

1.) because one the form isnt about making people happy nor should it be, the state made the change for accuracy and ease and still using terme bride and groom doesnt promise all will be happy simply because that not what everyone is.

2.) :)

3.) yes it does because thats not what i asked, i didnt ask you if you thought there was a better way i asked you between two options and you picked a 3rd

4.) hey blame you answer then not me, you picked a 3rd option you werent asked about ;)

5.) yes you can you can simply say "if" thats what it said i agree or disagree lol

6.) you're welcome but you havent answered

7.) because nobody is catering to "one" group thats way, making it be bride and groom would be catering to ONE group.

8.) im not talking about future im talking about now, nothing changed in the areas of customs and traditions and nothing will in the future because this form has no impact on them, thats what you seem to miss. My customs and tradition are MINE, you have no impact on them nor does this form.
 
fyrenza said:
don't break your arm, patting yourself on the back ~
"It MUAT be true, 'cuz I read it, online" only counts if YOU didn't write it
just sayin'
Click to expand...

i would never pat myself on the back for stating facts :shrug:
 
Objective-J;1061239744 [QUOTE said:
]1.) because one the form isnt about making people happy nor should it be, the state made the change for accuracy and ease and still using terme bride and groom doesnt promise all will be happy simply because that not what everyone is.
Click to expand...

It does if they get to choose any combination. They don't have to be bride and groom. They can be groom/groom or bride/bride. What else is a person? They are either a male or a female or, in the rare circumstance, a combination of the both, but really nothing outside of the male/female realm.


3.) yes it does because thats not what i asked, i didnt ask you if you thought there was a better way i asked you between two options and you picked a 3rd
Click to expand...

:lol: Well that might be the case, but I was addressing the OP questions.

4.) hey blame you answer then not me, you picked a 3rd option you werent asked about ;)
Click to expand...

See my answer to number 3 above.

5.) yes you can you can simply say "if" thats what it said i agree or disagree lol
Click to expand...

I really can't remember what this is about. :lol: Maybe you could refresh my memory.

6.) you're welcome but you havent answered
Click to expand...

I don't see what your genealogy link has to do with this. :confused:

7.) because nobody is catering to "one" group thats way, making it be bride and groom would be catering to ONE group.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think that changing things from the way they are and/or have been to appease a group is catering to that group. Leaving things alone is not.

8.) im not talking about future im talking about now, nothing changed in the areas of customs and traditions and nothing will in the future because this form has no impact on them, thats what you seem to miss. My customs and tradition are MINE, you have no impact on them nor does this form.
Click to expand...

And you are qualified to make these kind of guarantees how?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom