• 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!

Civil Unions

Should civil unions replace marriage for legal purposes?

  • The term civil union should replace the term marriage for legal purposes

    Votes: 13 31.0%

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

    Votes: 10 23.8%

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

    Votes: 15 35.7%

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

    Votes: 4 9.5%
  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
The people should be free to live with whomever they choose, and should be free to get married (contact) with whomever they choose. The problem is separating the religious idea of marriage and the legal construct of marriage. Your church can define marriage and prohibit types of marriages performed but, cannot interfere with the legal construct of marriage in a free society. In the legal construct, everyone is free to marriage whomever they want and have that marriage supported by legal means, like hospital visits and medical decisions. Of course, I would like to have government get out of marriage and only enforce civil contracts. If you support liberty, then you must support liberty for all, not just liberty for yourself.
 
peepnklown said:
The people should be free to live with whomever they choose, and should be free to get married (contact) with whomever they choose.
Click to expand...

Problem is, marriage is not just between two people, but between those two people and society. There are thousands of laws which pertain to marriage, which is in essence a contract not between two people, but between two people and the State.

I am a firm proponent of this view. Marriage is not a contract, it is an institution, and every other institution of society should act to uphold it.

peepnklown said:
If you support liberty, then you must support liberty for all, not just liberty for yourself.
Click to expand...

Liberty, like morality, is in the eye of the beholder.
 
Kal'Stang said:
:spin:

But hey lets get past this. You do know that people can get married without ever ONCE visiting anyone thats religious? Without even having a ceremony? And it's been that way for a LONG time. Lets see if you know what it is....
Click to expand...

Yes they can, so what?. This makes marriage in the history of the US, no less a religious institution? No, not by a long shot.

So your comment has nothing to do with my argument or any claim I made.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
It only endangers your right to have the government recognize it. It will not and cannot endanger your right to actually marry.
Click to expand...

This thread and the related OP are talking about the state issued license and nothing else. If you are talking about marriage as anything other than the state issued license, you are off point.

Kal'Stang said:
Who do you want to marry Jerry? A woman? Or a man? Please don't sidestep this question. There are only two possible choices. There are no "what if's", there are no "but's". Nothing but "man" or "woman". Next question. If you were only allowed to marry men would you object to it? Yes or no.
Click to expand...

I don't want to mary anyone.

Kal'Stang said:
Heterosexuals get to marry who they want. Homosexuals do not. That is not equality.
Click to expand...

My sister and I are both heterosexual, we do in fact live together and actually raise children together.

Yet we can't marry.

Clearly, therefore, sexual orientation is not a criteria.

Kal'Stang said:
Wrong. It has every thing to do with equality and rights. You just don't want to see the inequality that is there.
Click to expand...

Saying "nu uuh" is hardly a counter argument.

Kal'Stang said:
Look back through the thread. Religion has been mentioned quite a few times.
Click to expand...

Not by me, and I only answer for my own posts.

People who make religious arguments are actually trying to make sociological arguments but lack the knowledge and skill to properly articulate what they're trying to say.

Kal'Stang said:
It's not a red herring. It's fact. It's truth. Its right. And if you had correctly red what I said you would know that it does nothing to destroy gay marriage arguement. If anything your response shows that it strengthens it.
Click to expand...

Read the OP and get back to me.

======
You bring nothing, Kal. Where's Gallenrox?
 
Lerxst said:
Have gays been allowed to be married and share in the same benefits as heterosexual couples?
Click to expand...

YES!

And Prop8 did not change this.

Gays in CA can currently today choose someone of the SAME GENDER and have free, complete and total access to each and every single civil right, without any exception at all whatsoever, that their hetero counterparts have.

Next-of Kin, hospital visitation, insurance, you name it. Gays have it all right now.

Gays will gain nothing with the abolishment of "marriage". Nothing. They already have the complete collection of civil rights.

So, why do they want to abolish my marriage? How does my marriage affect them in any way?
 
Gibberish said:
Heterosexuals can marry who ever they want. Homosexuals cannot. How hard is that to understand?
Click to expand...

We can not marry whomever we want.

How hard is that to understand?
 
Jerry said:
We can not marry whomever we want.

How hard is that to understand?
Click to expand...

Any two consenting heterosexual people of age can get married. What I wonder is that since a man can marry a woman why can not a woman marry a womaan? It seems like gender discrimination to me.
 
winston53660 said:
Any two consenting heterosexual people of age can get married. What I wonder is that since a man can marry a woman why can not a woman marry a womaan? It seems like gender discrimination to me.
Click to expand...

which gender is being discriminated against?
 
emdash said:
which gender is being discriminated against?
Click to expand...

Both. If a man can marry a woman why can not a woman......and if a woman can marry a man why can not a man marry a man? It is because of gender.
 
winston53660 said:
Both. If a man can marry a woman why can not a woman......and if a woman can marry a man why can not a man marry a man? It is because of gender.
Click to expand...

but they're being treated equally.
 
emdash said:
but they're being treated equally.
Click to expand...

No they aren't. A man can do woman can not do and vice versa. If they were being treated equally both being equally a woman could do what a man does and vice versa.
 
winston53660 said:
Any two consenting heterosexual people of age can get married.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Brother's can't marry sisters, or first cusins, or parents...etc, etc, ad nausium.

A hetero can not marry another hetero of the same gender.

Your premis is conclusivly false.

winston53660 said:
What I wonder is that since a man can marry a woman why can not a woman marry a womaan? It seems like gender discrimination to me.
Click to expand...

Your position is born out of grose ignorence.

The state has not interest in gay couples because those couples, typicly, will not be producing healthy little tax payers.

It's that simple.

Heteros do not have any such 'right to marry whomever they choose'.
 
winston53660 said:
No they aren't.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are.

Each is under the same restriction that the other is.

That's equality.

winston53660 said:
A man can do woman can not do and vice versa.
Click to expand...

He can marry someone of the opposite gender just as she can.

That's equality.

winston53660 said:
If they were being treated equally both being equally a woman could do what a man does and vice versa.
Click to expand...

They can each do what the other can do.

That's equality.
 
Jerry said:
Wrong.

Brother's can't marry sisters, or first cusins, or parents...etc, etc, ad nausium.
Click to expand...

That discrimination is based on a genetic relationship. Not a gender relationship,
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
That discrimination is based on a genetic relationship. Not a gender relationship,
Click to expand...

I disproved your claim, will you acknowledge that fact?

And yes, even though familial relation is a federally protected class, familial couples are still barred from marriage.

Something can be discrimination and ethical, therefore your arguments crying "that's gender discrimination" fall on deaf ears.

Let's say a gay marriage ban is gender discrimination: So what?
 
Jerry said:
Something can be discrimination and ethical, therefore your arguments crying "that's gender discrimination" fall on deaf ears.

Let's say a gay marriage ban is gender discrimination: So what?
Click to expand...

If you have "deaf ears" what is the point in even having discourse about the subject at hand?
 
It isn't "gender" discrimination, Winston. Jerry's right on that because both genders are treated equally as far as the discriminatory action goes, but it is still discrimination.

It is discrimination based on sexual-orientation.

And that is just as "wrong" as gender discrimination is.
 
winston53660 said:
If you have "deaf ears" what is the point in even having discourse about the subject at hand?
Click to expand...

My point exactly.

We anti-GM folks are not listening to discrimination arguments. Why you choose to keep making them when no one on this side cares, I don't know.

Maybe you just do it for personal entertainment? I can respect that.
 
Tucker Case said:
It is discrimination based on sexual-orientation.
Click to expand...

A gay can marry a gay, a gay can marry a hetero, a hetero can marry a hetero.

No discrimination there either.

Now quick, someone make this argument:
"A man can not marry a man, a man can marry a woman, a woman can not marry a woman: DISCRIMINATION".

Come on, you know you want to :cool:
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
YES!

And Prop8 did not change this.

Gays in CA can currently today choose someone of the SAME GENDER and have free, complete and total access to each and every single civil right, without any exception at all whatsoever, that their hetero counterparts have.

Next-of Kin, hospital visitation, insurance, you name it. Gays have it all right now.

Gays will gain nothing with the abolishment of "marriage". Nothing. They already have the complete collection of civil rights.

So, why do they want to abolish my marriage? How does my marriage affect them in any way?
Click to expand...

How is this your marriage? What gives you ownership over it?
 
Jerry said:
Now quick, someone make this argument:
"A man can not marry a man, a man can marry a woman, a woman can not marry a woman: DISCRIMINATION".

Come on, you know you want to :cool:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lerxst said:
How is this your marriage? What gives you ownership over it?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom