View Poll Results: Should civil unions replace marriage for legal purposes?

Voters
66. You may not vote on this poll
  • The term civil union should replace the term marriage for legal purposes

    15 22.73%
  • Both terms, civil union (for gay couples)and marriage (for straight), should be used

    25 37.88%
  • The term marriage should be use equally for gay and straight couples

    21 31.82%
  • Gay couples should not be able to have the rights of marriage at all.

    5 7.58%
Page 11 of 35 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 345

Thread: Civil Unions

  1. #101
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:13 AM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    66,686

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    California is the issueing authority of my marriage licinse.

    If California does away with marriage, they are doing away with my marriage.

    If California changes marriage to 'civil union', they are changing my 'marriage' to 'civil unuion'.

    This dyrectly affects me personaly.
    How would your relationship change?

    Would you love your partner less?

    Would you move out?

    Would you argue more often?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    The Amish are light-years ahead of the rest of the human race.



  2. #102
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I was going to say "Gay couples can't get married to each other the way hetero couples can and thus it discriminates on which types of couples can get married for arbitrary reasons."

    The argument about blood-related couples being discriminated against is not the same because the basis for that discrimination is not an arbitrary one.

    In other words, the state has a valid reason to prevent couplings likely to produce three-headed babies.
    The state doesn't prevent couples with other genetic diseases from marrying, so we should allow incest, by your logic.

    Most of these inherited genetic diseases manifest in full within the first generation of procreation.

    However, genetic diseases caused by inbreeding take many generations to develop.

    Why is it that the state prevents the union that causes eventual genetic daises, but not the union the causes immediate genetic disease?

    If there were a movement to ban people with inheritable genetic diseases from marrying, I would support that; just as I would support a movement to dissolve hetero marriages which do not raise children.

    =====

    I don't see where you think any of this is arbitrary. Clearly no part of it is.

    If you're not raising children, the state has no interest in your union. It's as simple as that.

  3. #103
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    How would your relationship change?

    Would you love your partner less?

    Would you move out?

    Would you argue more often?
    The reduction in stature would, to some extent, weaken my marriage, yes.

    All sides of the issue agree that the word " marriage" has great intrinsic value as a sociological institution in the minds and hearts of the people.

    All sides agree that "civil union" is less than "marriage", even when each have complete and total access to all of the civil rights as the other.

    Reducing my hetero union from "marriage" to "civil union" is to weaken my marriage, just as increasing a gay's "civil union" to "marriage" is to strengthen their union.

    This would be a damage to me, it would in fact weaken my familial bonds to some degree.

    This is the part where someone makes the argument personal by insinuating that any weakening of familial bonds are the result of my actions or shortcomings, in an attempt to reset the standard procedure of isolating the issue so as to re-polarize it.

  4. #104
    King Of The Dog Pound

    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,694

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I don't see where you think any of this is arbitrary. Clearly no part of it is.

    If you're not raising children, the state has no interest in your union. It's as simple as that.
    Good point even if I disagree.

    Just for shi** and giggles, don't you think that children or not the state should uphold the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness in this case? Since government already is involved in marriage anyway.

    Just wondering about your point of view. Nothing up for debate here.


    No Lives Matter

  5. #105
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Good point even if I disagree.

    Just for shi** and giggles, don't you think that children or not the state should uphold the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness in this case? Since government already is involved in marriage anyway.

    Just wondering about your point of view. Nothing up for debate here.
    I want to support gay marriage. Truly, I do. I'm looking for the mainstream gay marriage group who makes gay marriage a Conservative issue.

    Make it a Conservative issue and you have my full support.

    1. Show me that a significant demographic of gay couples are raising children.
    2. Show me that gay couples who are raising children would be in first-marriages if the legislation were to pass.
    3. Show me that gays couples in first marriages are not in step-parent homes.


    Those are the hetero marriages I support.

    I am eager to support the gay marriages which reflect the hetero marriages I support.

    I'm not going to support gay marriage per-se in the name of equality, because I don't even support hetero-marriage per-se in the name of equality.

    As a tangent, if we could boil away every objection to gay marriage other than religious belief, yes, I can, have, and would again, make a religious argument in support of gay marriage without misinterpreting or misrepresenting scripture in any way, with total transparency.
    Last edited by Jerry; 03-08-09 at 05:56 PM.

  6. #106
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    03-10-09 @ 07:08 AM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    44

    Re: Civil Unions

    This stuff is a very sticky situation, I can find myself on both sides of fence easily.

    For one, I support gay love, everybody in the world is entitled to love, gay or straight.
    I might support gay marriage but I do not support civil unions, period.

    As far as I am concerned it's an "equal but separate" law and term, and if Obama ever signed it into national law, he might as well sign it next to a "blacks only" water fountain because he'll be sending the country back 40 years if he did.

    At the same time, I think gays should be vehement about gay marriage and their rights and frankly, if it's not worth fighting for what you really want, then don't fight for it. If I were gay, I would want to be equal and get married personally. I think it's ridiculous to separate gays as something different. "When I grow up, I want to get a civil union, mommy!!!"...eh? They should just add another bullet in the dictionary.

    Marriage
    Definition 1: A union of eternal love between a man and a woman under god and/or state.
    Definition 2: A union of eternal love between a (wo)man and a (wo)man under state and possibly Church if the church authority approves it.

    The purpose, to me, of government recognizing heterosexual marriages is to give them tax cuts, incentives to have children. Our children are the future of the country and gays cannot, per say, provide that for us. But I think gay couples that adopt children/got children one way or another, absolutely deserve the same rights as married heterosexual couples but until then, I wouldn't give it to them to prevent any "Chuck and Larrys" trying to scam the government...
    Last edited by ladilala; 03-08-09 at 07:18 PM.

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by ladilala View Post
    This stuff is a very sticky situation, I can find myself on both sides of fence easily.

    For one, I support gay love, everybody in the world is entitled to love, gay or straight.
    I might support gay marriage but I do not support civil unions, period.

    As far as I am concerned it's an "equal but separate" law and term, and if Obama ever signed it into national law, he might as well sign it next to a "blacks only" water fountain because he'll be sending the country back 40 years if he did.

    At the same time, I think gays should be vehement about gay marriage and their rights and frankly, if it's not worth fighting for what you really want, then don't fight for it. If I were gay, I would want to be equal and get married personally. I think it's ridiculous to separate gays as something different. "When I grow up, I want to get a civil union, mommy!!!"...eh? They should just add another bullet in the dictionary.

    Marriage
    Definition 1: A union of eternal love between a man and a woman under god and/or state.
    Definition 2: A union of eternal love between a (wo)man and a (wo)man under state and possibly Church if the church authority approves it.

    The purpose, to me, of government recognizing heterosexual marriages is give them tax cuts, incentives to have children. Our children is the future of the country and gays cannot, per say, provide that for us. But I think gay couples that adopt children/got children one way or another, absolutely deserve the same rights as married heterosexual couples but until then, I wouldn't give it to them to prevent any "Chuck and Larrys" trying to scam the government...
    Welcome to Debate Politics

    Your argument here is a shining example of how gays are fighting for social equality.

    I would like to point out that the 14th amendment does not guarantee social equality, but legal equality.

    Using California as the example, gays have achieved legal equality even in the face of Prop8. There is nothing more the law can offer California gays that they do not already have.

    The fight is a sociological one, and as such can not be resolved by the courts.

    When the sociological fight is won, the legislation allowing gay "marriage" will follow. IMO the California Supreme Court must yield to the will of The People. It is not the court's place to impose social policy.
    Last edited by Jerry; 03-08-09 at 07:20 PM.

  8. #108
    Educator BulletWounD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    02-17-11 @ 08:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    984

    Re: Civil Unions

    I accidentally voted the wrong way. Sans one for "the terms marriage should be used for straight couples and the term civil union should be used for gay couples." Add one to "civil union should describe both" (in a legal context).

  9. #109
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:41 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,628

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    I am talking historically. I guess you missed that little detail?
    No. I didn't miss that little detail. The fact is that, "that little detail" is Irrelevant. It is a word and it has many different meanings. Unless you can show that the word "marriage" is a religious one only, that it means only a man and a woman in a religious union... well, then your historical point is simply illogical and irrelevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  10. #110
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:13 AM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    66,686

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    The reduction in stature would, to some extent, weaken my marriage, yes.

    All sides of the issue agree that the word " marriage" has great intrinsic value as a sociological institution in the minds and hearts of the people.

    All sides agree that "civil union" is less than "marriage", even when each have complete and total access to all of the civil rights as the other.

    Reducing my hetero union from "marriage" to "civil union" is to weaken my marriage, just as increasing a gay's "civil union" to "marriage" is to strengthen their union.

    This would be a damage to me, it would in fact weaken my familial bonds to some degree.

    This is the part where someone makes the argument personal by insinuating that any weakening of familial bonds are the result of my actions or shortcomings, in an attempt to reset the standard procedure of isolating the issue so as to re-polarize it.
    "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    The Amish are light-years ahead of the rest of the human race.



Page 11 of 35 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •