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 32 of 35 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 345

Thread: Civil Unions

  1. #311
    Old Soul

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    ND
    Last Seen
    10-18-13 @ 09:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,915

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    When it's propped open or taken off the hinge.

    It's then a "pass way", according to code.
    when is it a jar, then? I've been lied to all my life.

  2. #312
    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 Bodhisattva View Post
    As for your rebut, I would counter with... marriage contracts and the specifications required to get one must change so that orientation does not matter, and it must state so, for as it is now... it is a clever way to hide State Sponsored Discrimination
    Gay men can marry gay women, though, so no D/discrimination.

  3. #313
    Old Soul

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    ND
    Last Seen
    10-18-13 @ 09:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,915

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    ????
    best friends forever. don't worry, I won't hold you to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Just got to this part and it looks like we agree...
    I don't know why I switched to gender when I have always argued orientation.



    Yeah... sorry I did miss this, what with all the pookie/BH stuff going on.
    understandable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Now, dealing with orientation, it adds perfectly to the bigotry, IMO. Not for any that disagree with me, but certainly for those that argue against homsexuals for the fact that they are homosexuals. I am not including you, my dear, for you are debating a "devils advocate" on terminology...
    I find that those that argue against the issue merely because they don't like gay people are rather uneducated, but more rare than people may assume. I make a distinction between the uneducated and the deeply religious, who oppose the practice of homosexuality no more vehemently than they oppose other types of sexual deviance. for those types, I have some sympathy because I was raised among truly spiritual people and I know that nothing exceeds their compassion for homosexuals. perhaps that is why I tend to resent the word "bigots" being thoughtlessly applied to anyone who "imposes his morals on others."

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    As for your rebut, I would counter with... marriage contracts and the specifications required to get one must change so that orientation does not matter, and it must state so, for as it is now... it is a clever way to hide State Sponsored Discrimination
    it bothers me to no end when people care only about the terminology. that is so far from rational that I want to puke on them. if we are going to have gay marriage, let us call a spade a spade.

    part of me thinks we don't need gay marriage, that it is just an attempt to legitimize the lifestyle culturally/socially and needlessly expand government. gay people can have wedding ceremonies and commitments and things, but the intended purpose of state sponsored marriage precludes homosexual couples being given them.

    the other part of me recognizes the present-day need for homosexual couples to have hospital visitation rights and other things that come in handy in emergencies, or for legal matters like buying a house, dying w/o a will, etc. there should probably be some sort of way to recognize that two such people are joined that would be useful to them legally. that doesn't mean they need all 1400 benefits (or whatever it is) that heterosexual couples have. there is a very good reason to encourage heterosexual unions.

    sadly government has gotten so intrusive that it's sometimes necessary to be able to prove your legal connection to a loved one in order to exercise the most basic rights. smaller government would do away with the issue altogether.

    lastly I'd like to say that "separate but equal" has gotten such a bum rap. a common misconception is that gays have to have every single thing straights have, otherwise it's Discrimination. that's not really true. it can be the little d kind and not at all heinous. this issue though is so emotionally charged that pro-gms are not often willing to settle for anything less than the whole enchilada, and anti-gms are simply unwilling to surrender unconditionally and immediately.

    this is a beautiful composition and quite true to myself.

  4. #314
    Advisor DGomez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    09-20-11 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    380

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by emdash View Post
    right. but he definitely said "issued." not "signed." the state alone issues them to couples that fit the necessary criteria. even if they aren't signed yet by a priest or judge, they are not "useless" because they are in fact difficult to get, in that you have to apply, pay and qualify.

    the state won't issue a marriage license to a couple that doesn't fit the criteria. the catholic church won't issue any marriage licenses at all, and does NOT have the capacity to issue one or refuse to issue one based on the ability to breed. that WAS the point you were attempting to answer, but your answer was not relevant.
    You're nitpicking to save face with this one. And whether or not he used the words "issued" or "signed" is completely irrelevant.

    Cephus and I were talking about gay marriage. In context, he was arguing that denying marriage on the basis of procreation (or lack thereof) is not legitimate in his opinion.

    The POINT was that there ARE institutions out there that have procreation as a make or break point for marriage.

  5. #315
    Old Soul

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    ND
    Last Seen
    10-18-13 @ 09:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,915

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by DGomez View Post
    You're nitpicking to save face with this one. And whether or not he used the words "issued" or "signed" is completely irrelevant.
    holy cow, are you kidding?

    Quote Originally Posted by DGomez View Post
    Cephus and I were talking about gay marriage. In context, he was arguing that denying marriage on the basis of procreation (or lack thereof) is not legitimate in his opinion.

    The POINT was that there ARE institutions out there that have procreation as a make or break point for marriage.
    menopausal women can't get married in the catholic church?

  6. #316
    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 emdash View Post
    menopausal women can't get married in the catholic church?
    Can you at least give credit for having a valid point before moving on?

  7. #317
    Old Soul

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    ND
    Last Seen
    10-18-13 @ 09:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,915

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Can you at least give credit for having a valid point before moving on?
    I was following along with the discussion between her and Cephus and I was surprised and disappointed to see her "catholic" response.

    I will go back and try again but at this point the answer is no.

  8. #318
    Advisor DGomez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    09-20-11 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    380

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by emdash View Post
    holy cow, are you kidding?
    No. You have completely missed the larger point behind my Catholic reference. Go back and reread it if you must. I have said all I can say on the subject.

  9. #319
    Old Soul

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    ND
    Last Seen
    10-18-13 @ 09:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,915

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by DGomez View Post
    No. You have completely missed the larger point behind my Catholic reference. Go back and reread it if you must. I have said all I can say on the subject.
    but there are tons of places where gay marriage isn't cool including most of the states and most churches probably, so if cephus meant that he had never heard of this, never heard that the catholic church does not marry homosexuals, etc, what would we have to assume about his honesty or mental capacity? did he not mean rather that a couple's biological inability to breed has never aside from the case of homosexuality barred the individuals from matrimony, so why should it for homosexuals? obviously we both know the answer to this anyway, but if that was in fact what he was asking then how would your answer that catholics won't marry gays be appropriate? do you understand why I have a mental block about this and cannot sincerely acknowledge your point as valid?

  10. #320
    Old Soul

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    ND
    Last Seen
    10-18-13 @ 09:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,915

    Re: Civil Unions

    well your answer was that not having children is grounds for annulment in the catholic church. (actually I thought if you consummated this wasn't true but you are probably right.) it does not require annulment, but permits it. this implies that catholics at least view a marriage without children to be potentially invalid, even if the couple is hetero. I think I can handle this better, especially in the historical context before marriage was licensed by the state instead. I feel like my IQ right now is about 108 and I have been thinking about this all day. I don't know why I can't make it make sense as everyone else seems to get it. previously I had assumed I was pretty clever. I feel a little like crying. however you can't claim that catholics believe all marriages without children are invalid because they still have no problem marrying old people. so they wouldn't deny an infertile couple for the same reason the state wouldn't, because they are the exception tolerated...? so when cephus says he doesn't know of any license being denied based on ability to breed, the correct answer is, that's because they aren't.
    Last edited by emdash; 03-19-09 at 02:25 AM.

Page 32 of 35 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... 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
  •