• 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 .
Jerry said:
  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.
Click to expand...

This is impossible to show for the simple fact that gays are not allowed to marry. At least in this country. Would you accept an example from another country that does allow gay marriage? Might take me a while to dredge up such numbers though.
 
Blackdog said:
Historically in the USA that is what it has meant, and so far still means. So much so the government tried to go before congress (a waist of time for certain) to have it legally and permanently mean exactly that.

Sorry man, you are indeed wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes it did...and failed. Can you tell me why it failed?
 
Blackdog said:
Historically in the USA that is what it has meant, and so far still means. So much so the government tried to go before congress (a waist of time for certain) to have it legally and permanently mean exactly that.

Sorry man, you are indeed wrong.
Click to expand...

I know that is what it means, I also never indicated otherwise so I aint wrong about ****, dog. ;)

What you are not getting is that marriage is a word/term. It is only a word/term. Marriage has many meanings, and until people (you, for example) realize this, they are only going to succeed in making illogical and bigoted arguments that offer nothing regarding solutions and everything about unnecessary division.

See, I can, and have, offered proof of this. You have offered proof of nothing that would contradict it either. Sorry... *shrugs*
 
Bodhisattva said:
I know that is what it means, I also never indicated otherwise so I aint wrong about ****, dog. ;)
Click to expand...

Not in relation to what I am talking about, or so it seems.

Bodhisattva said:
What you are not getting is that marriage is a word/term. It is only a word/term. Marriage has many meanings, and until people (you, for example) realize this, they are only going to succeed in making illogical and bigoted arguments that offer nothing regarding solutions and everything about unnecessary division.
Click to expand...

Fact: The majority of US Citizens see it exactly how I do. It is a religious institution and recognized as such and has been for the history of this nation. It is part of our traditions and heritage. To deny this as you are trying to do is nothing but a fallacy.

What this has to do with my argument being illogical and bigoted is absolutely ridicules. I assume you never read my initial position in this thread?

All you have shown thus far is that while understanding my premise to a degree, you do not understand my statement and it's limited meaning in the context of my responce.

Bodhisattva said:
See, I can, and have, offered proof of this. You have offered proof of nothing that would contradict it either. Sorry... *shrugs*
Click to expand...

You have offered nothing but an opinion on my post to someone else. You have no evidence at all to disprove marriage in this country is not a religious institution. You offered a definition that has absolutely nothing to do with my historical statement, period.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Yes it did...and failed. Can you tell me why it failed?
Click to expand...

Because congress made the right choice not waisting our federal tax dollars and time on what is a state level issue.

We need less Federal government not more.
 
Blackdog said:
Fact: The majority of US Citizens see it exactly how I do. It is a religious institution and recognized as such and has been for the history of this nation. It is part of our traditions and heritage. To deny this as you are trying to do is nothing but a fallacy.
Click to expand...

Then you can and will provide your evidence, right? Because almost everbody I know, family, friends, etc. were married when they had a non-religious ceremony or when they went down to the local courthouse, like my wife and I did *as well as others that I know) and were "married". It had nothing to do with religion. A very large percentage of those that I know are not religious in any way, and others that are did not have a religious ceremony.

Without evidence, all you are doing is being guilty of casting about "opinions" just like you accuse me of.


What this has to do with my argument being illogical and bigoted is absolutely ridicules. I assume you never read my initial position in this thread?
Click to expand...

Well, it is certainly an illogical argument that you have, though I would not call it bigoted since I don't know if you want to deny homosexuals the right to marry for a reason other than a bigoted one. You are probably a really nice guy...



All you have shown thus far is that while understanding my premise to a degree, you do not understand my statement and it's limited meaning in the context of my responce.
Click to expand...

I think that I completely understand what you are saying... I simply don't agree.
If you could display how I am misunderstanding you, that would help.



You have offered nothing but an opinion on my post to someone else. You have no evidence at all to disprove marriage in this country is not a religious institution. You offered a definition that has absolutely nothing to do with my historical statement, period.[/QUOTE]
 
Bodhisattva said:
Then you can and will provide your evidence, right? Because almost everbody I know, family, friends, etc. were married when they had a non-religious ceremony or when they went down to the local courthouse, like my wife and I did *as well as others that I know) and were "married". It had nothing to do with religion. A very large percentage of those that I know are not religious in any way, and others that are did not have a religious ceremony.

Without evidence, all you are doing is being guilty of casting about "opinions" just like you accuse me of.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding?

"Same-sex marriage opponents in California placed a state constitutional amendment known as Proposition 8 on the November ballot for the purpose of restoring an opposite-sex definition of marriage; Florida and Arizona also placed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage on the November 2008 ballot." What message does this send? All 3 passed.

The map below should show you the grim picture of same sex marriage in this country.

File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By far the largest lobby against gay marriage is from religious groups.

Do I really need to post anymore than that? It is or so I thought common knowledge.

Your anecdotal evidence means little.

Bodhisattva said:
Well, it is certainly an illogical argument that you have, though I would not call it bigoted since I don't know if you want to deny homosexuals the right to marry for a reason other than a bigoted one. You are probably a really nice guy...
Click to expand...

Well at least you admit you have no clue as to what I am talking about or what it was in reference to. If you understood the conversation from the beginning, we would not even be having this silly debate. Where your assumptions and anecdotal evidence mean nothing.

My only contention is that in this country from the beginning marriage (good or bad) is and is still seen as a religious institution by the majority. You and the other guy read way more into it without doing any reading on the full discussion in context. Shame on you.

Here is my first post in this thread...

"Being a Christian I feel marriage is between a man and a woman. Call me old fashioned, but that is the way I see it.

I also think homosexual couples in this country are being discriminated against because of government involvement in marriage.

I try very hard not to let my religious morals interfere with this a secular government and it's laws. So I think civil unions for gay couples with the full rights of married straight couples would rectify that. Barring of course government getting the hell out of marriage all together. Which is the best solution." - Blackdog

Bodhisattva said:
I think that I completely understand what you are saying... I simply don't agree.
If you could display how I am misunderstanding you, that would help.
Click to expand...

Pretty much shown above.

God bless and I am off to bed.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
You have got to be kidding?

"Same-sex marriage opponents in California placed a state constitutional amendment known as Proposition 8 on the November ballot for the purpose of restoring an opposite-sex definition of marriage; Florida and Arizona also placed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage on the November 2008 ballot." What message does this send? All 3 passed.

The map below should show you the grim picture of same sex marriage in this country.

File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By far the largest lobby against gay marriage is from religious groups.

Do I really need to post anymore than that? It is or so I thought common knowledge.

Your anecdotal evidence means little.



Well at least you admit you have no clue as to what I am talking about or what it was in reference to. If you understood the conversation from the beginning, we would not even be having this silly debate. Where your assumptions and anecdotal evidence mean nothing.

My only contention is that in this country from the beginning marriage (good or bad) is and is still seen as a religious institution by the majority. You and the other guy read way more into it without doing any reading on the full discussion in context. Shame on you.

Here is my first post in this thread...

"Being a Christian I feel marriage is between a man and a woman. Call me old fashioned, but that is the way I see it.

I also think homosexual couples in this country are being discriminated against because of government involvement in marriage.

I try very hard not to let my religious morals interfere with this a secular government and it's laws. So I think civil unions for gay couples with the full rights of married straight couples would rectify that. Barring of course government getting the hell out of marriage all together. Which is the best solution." - Blackdog



Pretty much shown above.
Click to expand...

So why not just make the religious argument in support of gay marriage?
 
Jerry said:
So why not just make the religious argument in support of gay marriage?
Click to expand...

Because according to scripture God hates the sin, if not the sinner. So although I can agree in a secular government for equal treatment under the law, as a Christian I cannot and will not condone the sin.

Jesus never got involved in the politics of Rome. I try and do much the same politically with my religious morals.

Religion and politics make evil bed fellows.

God bless and goodnight to you also. I will respond in the morning if you put forward something else.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
You have got to be kidding?

"Same-sex marriage opponents in California placed a state constitutional amendment known as Proposition 8 on the November ballot for the purpose of restoring an opposite-sex definition of marriage; Florida and Arizona also placed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage on the November 2008 ballot." What message does this send? All 3 passed.

The map below should show you the grim picture of same sex marriage in this country.

File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By far the largest lobby against gay marriage is from religious groups.

Do I really need to post anymore than that? It is or so I thought common knowledge.

Your anecdotal evidence means little.



Well at least you admit you have no clue as to what I am talking about or what it was in reference to. If you understood the conversation from the beginning, we would not even be having this silly debate. Where your assumptions and anecdotal evidence mean nothing.

My only contention is that in this country from the beginning marriage (good or bad) is and is still seen as a religious institution by the majority. You and the other guy read way more into it without doing any reading on the full discussion in context. Shame on you.

Here is my first post in this thread...

"Being a Christian I feel marriage is between a man and a woman. Call me old fashioned, but that is the way I see it.

I also think homosexual couples in this country are being discriminated against because of government involvement in marriage.

I try very hard not to let my religious morals interfere with this a secular government and it's laws. So I think civil unions for gay couples with the full rights of married straight couples would rectify that. Barring of course government getting the hell out of marriage all together. Which is the best solution." - Blackdog



Pretty much shown above.

God bless and I am off to bed.
Click to expand...

All good. So it is just about the word marriage then.
I think that it should not matter and you do. Disagreement.
Ultimately though, since you and I agree on the rest,
and most importantly you don't want to deny any right
other than using the word marriage, which you probably
don't think of as a right and that is fine, then it is all good.

Nothing bigoted at all... and you sir, are an open person IMO. :2razz:
 
Blackdog said:
Because congress made the right choice not waisting our federal tax dollars and time on what is a state level issue.

We need less Federal government not more.
Click to expand...

Marriage cannot just be a state level issue because it is recognized by the federal government and across all states. If it wasn't then you would have a case.

When something affects all of the states then the federal government must make sure that it is applied equally across all states. That is their job.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Marriage cannot just be a state level issue because it is recognized by the federal government and across all states. If it wasn't then you would have a case.

When something affects all of the states then the federal government must make sure that it is applied equally across all states. That is their job.
Click to expand...
The Federal government has addressed this issue.
 
Not disputing the above comments,

but look at what this site says (credentials? I don't know if this is true)

"On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits."

source: Legal and economic benefits of marriage

That is a big difference. No wonder why they are fighting for it, yeah?
 
Goobieman said:
The Federal government has addressed this issue.
Click to expand...

And the DOMA is being challenged:

Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the group that won the right for same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts in 2003, has filed suit in federal district court on behalf of eight couples and three surviving spouses who have been denied federal benefits such as Social Security spousal payments and the right to file joint tax returns with the IRS.

<snip>

GLAD is only going after the section of DOMA that denies federal recognition of legal same-sex marriages, arguing that the federal government recognizes all other marriages licensed by the states even though the laws governing which different-sex couples can marry varies widely from state to state. The group noted that the federal government does not itself license any marriages, "only states do."

GayCityNews - Major Challenge to DOMA From Massachusetts
Click to expand...
 
Kal'Stang said:
Marriage cannot just be a state level issue because it is recognized by the federal government and across all states. If it wasn't then you would have a case.
Click to expand...

Wrong. States retain certain rights that the federal government has no jurisdiction over...certain state taxes, usage of revenues, repair of roads and infrastructures (mind you that they get much of their funds from the federal level, but it is still up to the state to implement these things). So, if a certain state, such as Texas, wants to ban gay marriage, another state like California might not want to do so, and it is a state's right issue to be voted on by residents of that state.

Kal'Stang said:
When something affects all of the states then the federal government must make sure that it is applied equally across all states. That is their job.
Click to expand...

Not according to the Constitution. The powers of the federal government as a whole are limited by the Constitution, which, per the Tenth Amendment, gives all power not directed to the National government, to the State level, or to the people, period.

"The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. - Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So changes and the powers of the state to recognize marriage will remain as they are.

Give it up man. You have been off topic on every point and keep using fallacy arguments and changing the subject.
 
Last edited:
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and joins a nuptial contract with a goose,

call it a marriage, because it's not the state's job to brand the consensenting interactions with any moralistic labels.

Leave the moralizing to the people that care, and make sure those people don't have the power to interfere in the lifestyle choices of anyone else.

I don't care what two adults do in their bedrooms, or if they do it on their couches. I don't care if they get married, or not. None of my business. No one else's business, either, as far as I can tell.

For those of you who oppose using the simple word "marriage" to describe the simple process, how are you, personally, being hurt by what those two people are doing?
 
Blackdog said:
Wrong. States retain certain rights that the federal government has no jurisdiction over...certain state taxes, usage of revenues, repair of roads and infrastructures (mind you that they get much of their funds from the federal level, but it is still up to the state to implement these things). So, if a certain state, such as Texas, wants to ban gay marriage, another state like California might not want to do so, and it is a state's right issue to be voted on by residents of that state.



Not according to the Constitution. The powers of the federal government as a whole are limited by the Constitution, which, per the Tenth Amendment, gives all power not directed to the National government, to the State level, or to the people, period.

Give it up man. You have been off topic on every point and keep using fallacy arguments and changing the subject.
Click to expand...



According to the Constitution:

"Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

Marriage is a "Public record" and if one state allows marriage of same sex couples, that marriage has to be recognized by all others.

"Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Note carefully....the Fourteenth Amendment says "any person", not "any man" or "any woman", or "any heterosexual combination of man and woman".

Nope, there's no hiding place for bigots in the Constitution.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and joins a nuptial contract with a goose,

call it a marriage, because it's not the state's job to brand the consensenting interactions with any moralistic labels.

Leave the moralizing to the people that care, and make sure those people don't have the power to interfere in the lifestyle choices of anyone else.

I don't care what two adults do in their bedrooms, or if they do it on their couches. I don't care if they get married, or not. None of my business. No one else's business, either, as far as I can tell.

For those of you who oppose using the simple word "marriage" to describe the simple process, how are you, personally, being hurt by what those two people are doing?
Click to expand...

Well instead of having everyone who disagrees with you post all over again. Why don't you take some initiative and actually read the thread as your question has been addressed ad nauseum.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
According to the Constitution:

"Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

Marriage is a "Public record" and if one state allows marriage of same sex couples, that marriage has to be recognized by all others.
Click to expand...

Not in the case of the DOMA, it basically says "no" although hopefully the law suit will change that.

So Article IV no longer applies, and so far the DOMA has been upheld.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
"Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Note carefully....the Fourteenth Amendment says "any person", not "any man" or "any woman", or "any heterosexual combination of man and woman".

Nope, there's no hiding place for bigots in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

This does not apply to "marriage" as no ones rights are being infringed according to the Federal Government.

Please explain how I am a "bigot" by pointing out the law as it stands?
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
So changes and the powers of the state to recognize marriage will remain as they are.

Give it up man. You have been off topic on every point and keep using fallacy arguments and changing the subject.
Click to expand...

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
According to the Constitution:

"Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

Marriage is a "Public record" and if one state allows marriage of same sex couples, that marriage has to be recognized by all others.

"Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Note carefully....the Fourteenth Amendment says "any person", not "any man" or "any woman", or "any heterosexual combination of man and woman".

Nope, there's no hiding place for bigots in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Thanks Scarecrow. This is exactly what I was thinking of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom