Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?[W:237]

AGENT J · Dec 11, 2012

ChrisL said:
1.)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.

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

See my answer to number 3 above.

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

3.)I don't see what your genealogy link has to do with this.

4.)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.

5.)And you are qualified to make these kind of guarantees how?

1.) what ever they want to be :shrug: they dont have to be bride and groom especially in a contract
2.) you said you cant answer unless you see the link, the link isnt needed.
3.) then try opening it lol
4.) well you would be wrong if those titles exclude people

if some form said MEN or WHITE MEN and it was changed to person that is most definitely not catering to ONE group.But leaving it like that would be catering to MEN or WHITE MEN

5.) its not a guarantee its just how it is, reality and facts make it so.
your traditions and costumes are YOUR i have no impact on them

ChrisL · Dec 11, 2012

Objective-J said:
1.) what ever they want to be :shrug: they dont have to be bride and groom especially in a contract
2.) you said you cant answer unless you see the link, the link isnt needed.
3.) then try opening it lol
4.) well you would be wrong if those titles exclude people

if some form said MEN or WHITE MEN and it was changed to person that is most definitely not catering to ONE group.But leaving it like that would be catering to MEN or WHITE MEN

5.) its not a guarantee its just how it is, reality and facts make it so.
your traditions and costumes are YOUR i have no impact on them

Damn I thought you were gone. :lol: Just kidding!

Nope, I don't feel like doing "research" tonight. Hope you understand. Maybe tomorrow I'll take a look at the link. I don't see how it will change my opinion, but whatever.

AGENT J · Dec 11, 2012

ChrisL said:
Damn I thought you were gone. :lol: Just kidding!

Nope, I don't feel like doing "research" tonight. Hope you understand. Maybe tomorrow I'll take a look at the link. I don't see how it will change my opinion, but whatever.

its not research its simply a picture of a old washington marriage certificate that says "contracting parties" no bride, no groom and many states use this format or something similar.

and i would hope it does have an impact on your opinion otherwise your be very hypocritical.

ChrisL · Dec 11, 2012

Objective-J said:
its not research its simply a picture of a old washington marriage certificate that says "contracting parties" no bride, no groom and many states use this format or something similar.

and i would hope it does have an impact on your opinion otherwise your be very hypocritical.

Well that's fine by me, so is gay marriage, as long as things can remain as they are for everyone else.

cpwill · Dec 11, 2012

Redress said:
Close, but US law is based around British common law, not religious law. The origins predate Christianity.

Some origins do indeed come from Roman Law, but the major underlying tenets come from an explicitly Christian outlook. The notion of individual sovereignty, for example (the idea that you have rights that the government cannot correctly abuse) flowed directly from the Christian belief that the individual had access to God.

Further, nowehere does it say we make murder and theft illegal in our country due to the bible.

Yup. Neither does it say in law that we shouldn't alter the definition of marriage due to the Bible. Whether that is peoples' intent or not is irrelevant, just as it is with murder and theft. In a nation where the people are sovereign, decisions can be made by them for any reason they choose.

It is argued logically. No one's family is effected by SSM, except gay couples.

There I would have to disagree - if you will see my discussion with jredbarron, I think that we do indeed effect family in our society.

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.

How much is significant.?

cpwill · Dec 11, 2012

Redress said:
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.

No, it hasn't, because my argument is not contingent upon them not having families.

AGENT J · Dec 11, 2012

ChrisL said:
Well that's fine by me, so is gay marriage, as long as things can remain as they are for everyone else.

you keep saying this do you have an example of something that as changed or a reason why you think gay marriage has any reason to change other marriage more so that interracial marriage or the people that only want whites to marry etc.

im just saying your concerns should if they are real should exsit RIGHT NOW and not be inpacted by gay marriage, its meaningless to your concerns.

ChrisL · Dec 11, 2012

Objective-J said:
you keep saying this do you have an example of something that as changed or a reason why you think gay marriage has any reason to change other marriage more so that interracial marriage or the people that only want whites to marry etc.

im just saying your concerns should if they are real should exsit RIGHT NOW and not be inpacted by gay marriage, its meaningless to your concerns.

It's a concern I have, that's all. Just because you say something is meaningless doesn't make it so.

shiang · Dec 11, 2012

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.

I think better would be to call both same sex and heterosexual unions civil unions and have the exact same legal status.

Leave what is marriage up to individuals, their social groups, and their churches.

Rather than legally call one marriage and the other civil union. Most heterosexual couples would probably not mind their legal status be called a civil union.

cpwill · Dec 11, 2012

Jredbaron96 said:
That arguement could be used against all adoption-based families.

If we were altering our public definitions to make that the norm instead of the exception, I could see that - but given that public definition would remain centered around a pair of parents raising a child, I would imagine that any effect would be minimal.

Incorrect. You decrease the degree when you alter the connection. Two lesbians or two gay men can still have the same level of connection with their children as straight couples do.

Except that you are ignoring the critical step that we must take to get There from Here - which is to redefine marriage as simply "two (presumably) adults (presumably) who love each other"

Are you suggesting that the studies I have read are incorrect?

I am suggesting that studies which depend upon self-selection for their sample have self-selection bias. The one major study that we have seen that worked from the perspective of children raised by homosexual parents rather than homosexual parents who volunteered for a study showed very different results, and was accordingly bitterly and acerbically attacked from all sides.

The People of Washington would like to have a word with you.

Yes, I saw that. What is that supposed to evidence?

AGENT J · Dec 11, 2012

ChrisL said:
It's a concern I have, that's all. Just because you say something is meaningless doesn't make it so.

i agree but in this case its true, your concerns and what you fear have nothing more to do with gay marriage than anything else related.

roguenuke · Dec 12, 2012

shiang said:
I think better would be to call both same sex and heterosexual unions civil unions and have the exact same legal status.

Leave what is marriage up to individuals, their social groups, and their churches.

Rather than legally call one marriage and the other civil union. Most heterosexual couples would probably not mind their legal status be called a civil union.

I would care because such a change would be done for no real reason except to appease complainers, a small minority of complainers that is dwindling everyday. And it would cost taxpayer money to implement. It should be kept marriage. Religion does not own marriage and there would be just as much complaining if everyone had to change to civil unions legally as there would be just allowing both same sex couples and opposite sex couples to legally marry.

Redress · Dec 12, 2012

cpwill said:
Some origins do indeed come from Roman Law, but the major underlying tenets come from an explicitly Christian outlook. The notion of individual sovereignty, for example (the idea that you have rights that the government cannot correctly abuse) flowed directly from the Christian belief that the individual had access to God.

Yup. Neither does it say in law that we shouldn't alter the definition of marriage due to the Bible. Whether that is peoples' intent or not is irrelevant, just as it is with murder and theft. In a nation where the people are sovereign, decisions can be made by them for any reason they choose.

You are changing your argument in midstream. Marriage law arrived not from christinity, but from benefit to society. Origins vastly precede christianity.

There I would have to disagree - if you will see my discussion with jredbarron, I think that we do indeed effect family in our society.

No, your arguments where based on fear, ignorance and emotion. No logic.

How much is significant.?

Currently 1/3 of lesbians and 1/4 of gay men have children.

Redress · Dec 12, 2012

cpwill said:
No, it hasn't, because my argument is not contingent upon them not having families.

Your argument was 100 % contingent on that. You just fail to realize that.

cpwill · Dec 12, 2012

Redress said:
You are changing your argument in midstream. Marriage law arrived not from christinity, but from benefit to society. Origins vastly precede christianity.

Now you are changing your argument midstream. My argument is that the source of peoples' motivations for voting for one law or another is immaterial. If I vote for higher taxes, it does not matter if I do so because I think that the wealthy should pay more or if I do so because I think Jesus would want me to - my decision as a sovereign individual belongs to me and I can make it for whatever reason I wish.

No, your arguments where based on fear, ignorance and emotion. No logic.

Fear and emotion? No, simple judgement. You want them to be based on fear, ignorance, and emotion because it allows you to discount the opposition.

Currently 1/3 of lesbians and 1/4 of gay men have children.

Which isn't what I asked, but is interesting.

Redress · Dec 12, 2012

cpwill said:
Now you are changing your argument midstream. My argument is that the source of peoples' motivations for voting for one law or another is immaterial. If I vote for higher taxes, it does not matter if I do so because I think that the wealthy should pay more or if I do so because I think Jesus would want me to - my decision as a sovereign individual belongs to me and I can make it for whatever reason I wish.

No, your argument was that US law came from christianity, which is **** you made up because you wanted to believe it.

Fear and emotion? No, simple judgement. You want them to be based on fear, ignorance, and emotion because it allows you to discount the opposition.

If you ever formulated an argument that was not based on fear, ignorance or emotion, I might believe you. However, your arguments have had zero logic.

Which isn't what I asked, but is interesting.

What did you want to know then?

cpwill · Dec 12, 2012

Redress said:
Your argument was 100 % contingent on that.

That is incorrect. You appear not to understand my argument, which, given that you seek only to deride it your opposition as being driven by fear, ignorance, and emotion is not terribly surprising. My argument is contingent upon the notion that we are discussing an alteration in the public definition of marriage away from a connection with stable family formation and towards simply "two non-related adults who love each other" (though those "emotional, fear-driven hatreds" will no doubt fall in their own time).

cpwill · Dec 12, 2012

Redress said:
No, your argument was that US law came from christianity, which is **** you made up because you wanted to believe it.

That is incorrect - Firstly, my argument was that much of our law is put into place from motivation that comes from Christian belief. Secondly, that argument was accepted from the initiation of that discussion, explicitly by the claim that our current definition of marriage flowed from that Christian standard.

If you ever formulated an argument that was not based on fear, ignorance or emotion, I might believe you. However, your arguments have had zero logic.

:roll: sure. circular just-so logic may keep you warm at night and assured of your moral superiority, but it's not very convincing.

What did you want to know then?

Stable family formation.

Redress · Dec 12, 2012

cpwill said:
That is incorrect. You appear not to understand my argument, which, given that you seek only to deride it your opposition as being driven by fear, ignorance, and emotion is not terribly surprising. My argument is contingent upon the notion that we are discussing an alteration in the public definition of marriage away from a connection with stable family formation and towards simply "two non-related adults who love each other" (though those "emotional, fear-driven hatreds" will no doubt fall in their own time).

SSM is a stable family formation. You again seem to not realize that gay people have families.

Redress · Dec 12, 2012

cpwill said:
That is incorrect - Firstly, my argument was that much of our law is put into place from motivation that comes from Christian belief. Secondly, that argument was accepted from the initiation of that discussion, explicitly by the claim that our current definition of marriage flowed from that Christian standard.

A few laws had christian justifications, but not many and most of those are now gone. Accepted by whom?

:roll: sure. circular just-so logic may keep you warm at night and assured of your moral superiority, but it's not very convincing.

Here is a thought, present a logical argument. Or if you cannot do that, counter this logic: gays have families and children. Marriage is the most stable environment to raise children in. SSM allows gays to raise their children in that stable environment, and has zero effect on nonSSM. Therefore it benefits society to allow gays to marry.

Stable family formation.

There is no evidence that SSM is less stable than straight marriage.

cpwill · Dec 12, 2012

Redress said:
SSM is a stable family formation. You again seem to not realize that gay people have families.

I realize that gay people can have families. I think that they are statistically less likely to for stable pairs, but that's becoming a problem with the hetero's as well, and I recognize that they can. I don't have a problem with stable couples adopting - better two mommies than the State. That is not my issue - my issue is the redefinition of marriage away from a focus on stable two-parent family formation for the raising of children and towards "two people who love each other", which is what you seem to be either missing or avoiding.

cpwill · Dec 12, 2012

Redress said:
A few laws had christian justifications, but not many and most of those are now gone.

On the contrary, Christianity actively informs much of the basis of our legal system, and they are certainly not gone.

Accepted by whom?

you'll notice you came into that conversation halfway through?

Here is a thought, present a logical argument.

It's a nice little circular thing you do. Declare that there is no logical argument against homosexual marriage, declare any argument raised to be illogical, and then declare victory in your original claim.

Or if you cannot do that, counter this logic: gays have families and children.

Many more have children than stable two-parent families; as we saw when researchers started studying the children as opposed to the self-selecting parents.

Marriage is the most stable environment to raise children in

That is not correct. Married biological parents is the most stable environment to raise children in.

SSM allows gays to raise their children in that stable environment, and has zero effect on nonSSM. Therefore it benefits society to allow gays to marry.

Civil Unions allow those stable SS couples who wish to raise children in a stable environment to do so, without the damage to the public definition of marriage, which is socially beneficial. Therefore it is a wise compromise.

There is no evidence that SSM is less stable than straight marriage.

That is sadly not correct as pertains to child rearing. You may recall - CriticalThought was all up in arms about it for weeks.

Redress · Dec 12, 2012

cpwill said:
I realize that gay people can have families. I think that they are statistically less likely to for stable pairs, but that's becoming a problem with the hetero's as well, and I recognize that they can. I don't have a problem with stable couples adopting - better two mommies than the State. That is not my issue - my issue is the redefinition of marriage away from a focus on stable two-parent family formation for the raising of children and towards "two people who love each other", which is what you seem to be either missing or avoiding.

There is no data for stability of SSM compared to marriage in the US. Again, you can beleive what you want, but you have no evidence to back that up.

SSM does not, in any way, shape nor form make marriage any more or less about stable two parent homes, nor is SSM "any two people who love each other".

Redress · Dec 12, 2012

cpwill said:
On the contrary, Christianity actively informs much of the basis of our legal system, and they are certainly not gone.

False. Most ofthe basis of our legal system and laws predates christianity.

you'll notice you came into that conversation halfway through?

That is one way to avoid answering a question.

It's a nice little circular thing you do. Declare that there is no logical argument against homosexual marriage, declare any argument raised to be illogical, and then declare victory in your original claim.

It is far from my fault that your arguments are based on emotion.

Many more have children than stable two-parent families; as we saw when researchers started studying the children as opposed to the self-selecting parents.

Source?

That is not correct. Married biological parents is the most stable environment to raise children in.

Source?

Civil Unions allow those stable SS couples who wish to raise children in a stable environment to do so, without the damage to the public definition of marriage, which is socially beneficial. Therefore it is a wise compromise.

You still have not even begun to show that SSM wiull have any impact on any one elses marraige. Until you do that your claim of damage is false.

That is sadly not correct as pertains to child rearing. You may recall - CriticalThought was all up in arms about it for weeks.

Is my name CriticalThought? I do not even normally read his posts so I have no clue what you are talking about. Can you source your claim SSM is less stable?

Jredbaron96 · Dec 12, 2012

cpwill said:
If we were altering our public definitions to make that the norm instead of the exception, I could see that - but given that public definition would remain centered around a pair of parents raising a child, I would imagine that any effect would be minimal.

So, the public definition includes gays. Good to know.

Except that you are ignoring the critical step that we must take to get There from Here - which is to redefine marriage as simply "two (presumably) adults (presumably) who love each other"

And where in this critical step does the sudden degradation begin? What exactly is it? And how does it alter the connection? The bond between parents and offspring remain.

I am suggesting that studies which depend upon self-selection for their sample have self-selection bias. The one major study that we have seen that worked from the perspective of children raised by homosexual parents rather than homosexual parents who volunteered for a study showed very different results, and was accordingly bitterly and acerbically attacked from all sides.

I can suggest you several papers from credited institutes in three different First-World countries that back up my position.

Yes, I saw that. What is that supposed to evidence?

You said the public definition of marriage has not yet been changed. However, I'm assuming "Your Definition" underwent a slight altercation when Washington legalized SSM.

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.

No, they are not, because:

The government should not be involved with marriage, at all.

Other (Please Explain)

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Well-known member

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Gen 4:10