• 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

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
30,728
Reaction score
22,078
Location
US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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.
 
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.

Only if the government issues Civil Union licenses only (i.e. the Marriage License is done away with it total).
 
No, because it's still the government relegating homosexual persons to second-class status. Whether you use the word marriage or union isn't as important as using the same word for both straight and gay couples.
 
I think it is a good compromise. It allows homosexuals to have the legal benefits of marriage without redefining marriage for those who have moral issues with homosexual relationships qualifying as a marriage.
 
It isn't a good compromise because legally, no matter how much you say that a civil union is a marriage... it's a legally separate term with a legally separate definition. Unless you literally, explicitly, spelled out that "civil union" is equivalent to "marriage" for all Municipal, State, and Federal laws pertaining to marriage-- something I don't think any level of government has the authority to dictate to the others-- you would still be creating a lesser form of marriage that did not provide the same benefits.
 
I would be for it. Any two people that want to create a civil arrangement/union is fine by me. Unfortunately there are some that are more interested in co-opting the word marriage rather than having equal rights.

Words have meaning and some are only satisfied when a word gets a new meaning. Don't think so? The word 'gay' had a different meaning.
 
I think the best compromise is to remove the term "marriage" from the books, changing it to "civil unions", and allow it to be entered into by any two consenting adults.
 
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.

No they are not. A gay married couple being equal to a straight couple is the goal, not some "separate but equal" nonesense.
 
I'd like to see it as "separate but equal", but that phrase itself carries some stigma to it.

I'd also be more inclined to go with that if atheists were only allowed civil unions and not marriages.
 
No, they are not. If the rights of a married couple and a unionized couple are exactly the same, then the only possible reason for distinguishing between the two is the purpose of stigmatization.

This issue was effectively decided more than half a century ago in the Brown v. Board of Education case, where SCOTUS was asked whether, if black educational facilities were identical in every way to white ones, segregation would nonetheless be a violation of equal protection. The Court answered yes.

To separate [black children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.

Segregating homosexuals from society though similar policy is just as likely to negatively effect homosexuals of all ages. It reinforces the idea that homosexuals are "different" and "inferior" to straight people. How can parents righteously scold their children for anti-gay bullying when they themselves forbid homosexuals from sacred and honored institutions such as marriage? How can young homosexuals be encouraged to establish meaningful and lasting relationships if they look forward and see that society doesn't value those relationships the same as they do straight ones?

Not to mention, prohibiting gay marriage discriminates against churches that support gay marriage.
 
I think the best compromise is to remove the term "marriage" from the books, changing it to "civil unions", and allow it to be entered into by any two consenting adults.

So no more wife and husband...lol...ok
 
How about this...leave it marriage, leave marriage alone..leave HUSBAND and WIFE the hell alone and homosexuals want to be the same...then let them choose who is the wife and who isnt...I now pronounce you HUSBAND and WIFE is in marriage ceremonies whether justice of the peace of Priest or Minister...and that should not be changed becasue a few want it so...you want to be equal then conform to the rest of the world...and choose whose the wife and whos the husband only then can you be equal really anyway
 
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.
No, they are not because I neither believe that entitled religious people who believe they own the word marriage should be placated nor that "separate, but equal" is acceptable.
 
No, they are not because I neither believe that entitled religious people who believe they own the word marriage should be placated nor that "separate, but equal" is acceptable.

Marriage is societal and largely defined by the more mainstream beliefs within that society. Look at the diversity of marriage around the world, some places allow polygamy, others allow SSM and others only have hetero marriages. They also have different terms for divorce. Maybe entitled homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to tell the majority of individuals in a state that their moral views on marriage should be entertained and forced into law regardless of what the society they live in thinks or believes. You can look at it either way.
 
Last edited:
No, they are not because I neither believe that entitled religious people who believe they own the word marriage should be placated nor that "separate, but equal" is acceptable.

For the record, I am not against gay marriage. I AM against them trying to change marriage to feed politically correct bull crap. If they want to have a "marriage" then they can have a marriage, just like everyone else, bride/groom and/or husband/wife. They should NOT have the right to change things to fit them. If that is what they want, then they should be ALL for civil unions which could be worded and defined the way they wish. However, when gay people claim they want "marriage" but then try to change certain aspects of it, they are only trying to agitate IMO. Why rock the boat? For vengeance? Sounds like it.
 
No, they are not because I neither believe that entitled religious people who believe they own the word marriage should be placated nor that "separate, but equal" is acceptable.

This is the kind of vitriolic bs that promulgates anger and frustration...gays and their cheerleaders...dont want equality they want to change the entire world for the majority..this has gotten to be more an ego trip than anything else.
You want to denigrate religious people...you want to throw out the word marriage for the 94% you want to make it all generic...so 6% of the population can not only have equality they can have IT ALL THEIR WAY....know what..screw that..and that is said simply as fact not in any kind of anger whatsoever..
 
No, they are not because I neither believe that entitled religious people who believe they own the word marriage should be placated nor that "separate, but equal" is acceptable.

And your assertion that "entitled religious people" (FYI, it's not ONLY religious who oppose gay marriage), think they own the word marriage is absolutely stupid beyond belief. It isn't that anyone thinks they OWN something. It's that they don't want the concept of marriage drastically changed to PLACATE the few, and screw everyone else. You reasoning for opposing civil unions is bogus and really is not a reason at all.
 
The majority of Americans (53%) support same-sex marriage.

What matters is the makeup of each state since states issue marriage licenses and regulate it. 90% of people in New York could approve SSM but if 60% in Texas do not then we shouldn't expect the beliefs of New Yorkers to dictate how Texas handles marriage.
 
This is the kind of vitriolic bs that promulgates anger and frustration...gays and their cheerleaders...dont want equality they want to change the entire world for the majority..this has gotten to be more an ego trip than anything else.

You want to denigrate religious people...you want to throw out the word marriage for the 94% you want to make it all generic...so 6% of the population can not only have equality they can have IT ALL THEIR WAY....know what..screw that..and that is said simply as fact not in any kind of anger whatsoever..
I have no doubt that what I said angers some people against SSM. I'm not worried about that. As far as "denigrating" religious people, I don't seek to do that at all and many religious people have the same views as I do. I want same-sex marriage to be legal and I want gay/bisexual people to be treated equal. If anybody is upset by that and how I present my opinion, oh well.
 
Last edited:
The majority of Americans (53%) support same-sex marriage.

Yes, right now people support gay marriage because of equality issues (myself included), but keep pushing your politically correct innuendo, and you will soon see a major drop-off in that kind of support because it just sounds like you have bitterness issues.
 
What matters is the makeup of each state since states issue marriage licenses and regulate it. 90% of people in New York could approve SSM but if 60% in Texas do not then we shouldn't expect the beliefs of New Yorkers to dictate how Texas handles marriage.
It doesn't matter to me anymore than it would for interracial marriage. If the majority of people in a state are against same-sex marriage because they feel entitled to a word, then they are the problem. Equating entitlement to a word to wanting to be treated equally as you did is dishonest.
 
It doesn't matter to me anymore than it would for interracial marriage. If the majority of people in a state are against same-sex marriage because they feel entitled to a word, then they are the problem. Equating entitlement to a word to wanting to be treated equally as you did is dishonest.

Duh!!! Again, it has nothing to do with the word but the concept of marriage. Get it yet? Or should I post that a couple of more times?
 
That our government should NOT be involved in "marriage" sounds good, even great.. But man (most of us) has a brain and he must use it. The marriage is very much a legal contract between people, or a man and a woman ( as I prefer), and because of this, government MUST be involved.
So, lets break marriage into two parts , one the contract between two or more parties and two, the religious end of things...the vows and the ceremony. The homosexuals can be "united as one" by city hall (whatever that is , I am a country boy) and the more fortunate can have both ( one and two), automatically..... And the "gays" can also have both if they can find a "gay" church....
No religious institution should be forced into any part of this, but, our government is a different story ...They have a duty, a responsibility, to the people, ALL OF THE PEOPLE !
The vote was "other".
 
Back
Top Bottom