• 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 .
Layla_Z

Layla_Z

DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
1,440
Reaction score
1,012
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
My question is: Is there room for compromise in the gay marriage debate? Would it be acceptable to label all marriage (man and woman, or two men, or two women) a civil union for legal purposes. If I'm not mistaken now a couple is married once they sign the marriage certificate, the ceremony is secondary from a legal standpoint. So make all marriages a civil union in the eyes of the government with all the legal rights that go with it. Marriage would be a religious issue.
 
Gay couples should have the same rights as hetero couples. This moral board that's up societies ass is starting to smell a bit gamey. Discrimination is discrimination.
 
Layla_Z said:
My question is: Is there room for compromise in the gay marriage debate? Would it be acceptable to label all marriage (man and woman, or two men, or two women) a civil union for legal purposes. If I'm not mistaken now a couple is married once they sign the marriage certificate, the ceremony is secondary from a legal standpoint. So make all marriages a civil union in the eyes of the government with all the legal rights that go with it. Marriage would be a religious issue.
Click to expand...

There wasn't an option for government having nothing to do with any marriage.

If I had my way the gov would not be in the business of issuing marriage licenses.
 
I chose "Gay couples should not be able to have the rights of marriage at all." sincei t comes closest to my views.

I think marriage no matter what the **** name you slap on it is union between one man and one woman. Politicians who say "I think marriage is a union between a man and woman,but I support domestic partnerships,civil unions and etc(any other paper coated term for marriage)" are cowardice weasels who think voters are retarded enough to think that somehow calling the same thing by a different name somehow makes it different.

If I crapped on the floor and call it a T-Bone steak, would you want to eat it? Hell no you wouldn't want to eat it. Because changing the name of it doesn't change what it, which it is **** on the floor. Why are people stupid enough to think some how changing the name of marriage or expanding the definition of marriage and calling it by a different name somehow makes it different? You either for gay marriage or you don't,using paper coated terms for marriage while claiming you support traditional marriage doesn't mean you support traditional marriage, it just means you are a sucker(if you are a politicians then you are a weasel exploiting suckers) who who buys into this nonsense that changing the name makes it different.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
I chose "Gay couples should not be able to have the rights of marriage at all." sincei t comes closest to my views.

I think marriage no matter what the **** name you slap on it is union between one man and one woman. Politicians who say "I think marriage is a union between a man and woman,but I support domestic partnerships,civil unions and etc(any other paper coated term for marriage)" are cowardice weasels who think voters are retarded enough to think that somehow calling the same thing by a different name somehow makes it different.

If I crapped on the floor and call it a T-Bone steak, would you want to eat it? Hell no you wouldn't want to eat it. Because changing the name of it doesn't change what it, which it is **** on the floor. Why are people stupid enough to think some how changing the name of marriage or expanding the definition of marriage and calling it by a different name somehow makes it different?
Click to expand...

Even though we have opposing views on the overall issue, I absolutely agree. Screw the semantics, it's marriage regardless of what you call it. There is no need for stupid word games. I just happen to believe that gays should be treated equally and have the same rights as straights.

But then again I'm ****ing evil to the core because I'm a democrat and will dance my victory dance when Obama gets the launch codes and turns this country into a radiating ash heap.

:mrgreen:
 
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.
 
I don't believe any of the options are satisfactory. There will always be heterosexual people who believe they and they alone are entitled to the institutions of love, and there will always be activists who are never satisfied with the rights that gays have. I believe the moderates on both sides were willing to compromise on this issue a long, long time ago... it's the extremists that are dragging it on and complicating matters.

You could:
1) Allow homo/hetero people to all use the term "marriage" legally while giving individual Churches the right to refuse to wed couples if they so choose.
2) Create the term "civil union" for all people in the legal sense, leaving marriage to religious denominations that choose to use the term in the personal sense. The government shouldn't be controlling the term "marriage" if we are truly living in a secular setup.

Moderates have agreed to these options a long time ago. Extremists will never be satisfied. The right wing extremists will never relinquish their monopoly on this institution, and the left wing extremists will never be happy until gays are fully en par with traditionalist values in the law.

The solution is to simply moderate the LEGAL terminology, while leaving the traditionalist terminology to the Churches and individuals to use. The law need not mention it.
 
Layla_Z said:
My question is: Is there room for compromise in the gay marriage debate? Would it be acceptable to label all marriage (man and woman, or two men, or two women) a civil union for legal purposes. If I'm not mistaken now a couple is married once they sign the marriage certificate, the ceremony is secondary from a legal standpoint. So make all marriages a civil union in the eyes of the government with all the legal rights that go with it. Marriage would be a religious issue.
Click to expand...

This is precisely the position I hold and have posted on this forum for quite a while, now. ;)
 
I don't see why married people, straight or gay, should have any privileges that single people don't have.

The only people, straight or gay, who should have special privileges are people who take care of children.
 
Since when do the religious own the word marriage to the point where they and their books get to define what it means? Oh wait. They don't. Sorry. No compromise on this one.
 
Last edited:
Orius said:
You could:
1) Allow homo/hetero people to all use the term "marriage" legally while giving individual Churches the right to refuse to wed couples if they so choose.
2) Create the term "civil union" for all people in the legal sense, leaving marriage to religious denominations that choose to use the term in the personal sense. The government shouldn't be controlling the term "marriage" if we are truly living in a secular setup.

Moderates have agreed to these options a long time ago. Extremists will never be satisfied. The right wing extremists will never relinquish their monopoly on this institution, and the left wing extremists will never be happy until gays are fully en par with traditionalist values in the law.

The solution is to simply moderate the LEGAL terminology, while leaving the traditionalist terminology to the Churches and individuals to use. The law need not mention it.
Click to expand...

I think I'm really bad at writing polls. You option 2 is what I meant one of my options to be but I guess it didn't come out that way. As for option 1, don't churches have that right now? I agree that we should just call it all marriage for legal purposes and let the churches decide what they will do based on their beliefs.
 
Hatuey said:
Since when do the religious own the word marriage to the point where they and their books get to define what it means? Oh wait. They don't. Sorry. No compromise on this one.
Click to expand...

Maybe because since this country was founded and long before it is and has been a religious institution.

You can ignore our history as a nation if you like. But in the end it would just make it possible to repeat those same mistakes.
 
Orius said:
You could:
1) Allow homo/hetero people to all use the term "marriage" legally while giving individual Churches the right to refuse to wed couples if they so choose.
Click to expand...
You know that churches have that right already, right?

2) Create the term "civil union" for all people in the legal sense, leaving marriage to religious denominations that choose to use the term in the personal sense.
Click to expand...
Why should Atheists not be allowed to be married?

The government shouldn't be controlling the term "marriage" if we are truly living in a secular setup.
Click to expand...
Marriage is a creature of the state. Its impossible to have 'marriage' without involvement from the state, as the state defines the institution, its benefits, its penalties, and its interaction with the law.
 
The term marriage should be use equally for gay and straight couples.


All people are equal and should be treated as such.
 
Blackdog said:
Maybe because since this country was founded and long before it is and has been a religious institution.
Click to expand...

The moment an atheist got married marriage stopped being a religious institution. Please stop this?

You can ignore our history as a nation if you like. But in the end it would just make it possible to repeat those same mistakes.
Click to expand...

You can not ignore history that doesn't exist. Religious people getting married does not make marriage a religious institution.
 
I'm an atheist and I say marriage should be left to religions. I could still get married in a church. My wife is Catholic, and we got married in a church.

If anything, it probably just means that God recognizes her as being married, but not me.

EDIT: P.S. I think the government should only be involved in civil unions, regardless of gender, at best. And in the end, the majority of marriage benefits should only occur if someone has kids.
 
Last edited:
My position has always been that the term civil union should be used for all legal purposes and the marriage label left to one's religious beliefs.

Removing marriage from legal usage will eliminate the religious dictation of our laws on what is and is not a "marriage".
 
Last edited:
I chose:

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

But I actually feel that homos/heteros should all simply be able to be "Married".
It is ridiculous that it is not already this way and ther is no logical argument backing up the haters position...
 
Blackdog said:
Maybe because since this country was founded and long before it is and has been a religious institution.

You can ignore our history as a nation if you like. But in the end it would just make it possible to repeat those same mistakes.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about...

marriage   /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mar-ij] Show IPA
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.

Corporations can marry, or merge too. Give homosexual marriage legal sanction, and then it is the same. There is no rational, intelligent or logical argument that can be made regarding denying homosexuals the right to get a legal marriage. Laws can change, and as long as most people are homophobic bigots, then it probably wont... but that doesn't make their position the correct one.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If I had my way the gov would not be in the business of issuing marriage licenses.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

The best way to solve the gay marriage problem is to eliminate government marriage and replace it entirely with civil secular unions. Reminder: legal marriage is nothing more then a contract of rights and obligations between you, your spouse and the government.
 
Hatuey said:
Since when do the religious own the word marriage to the point where they and their books get to define what it means? Oh wait. They don't. Sorry. No compromise on this one.
Click to expand...

Actually religion did always have the patent on the word marriage. The key issue here is which religion. Marriage remember started off as a Pagan idea open to effectively anyone and any number of people. You could marry your best friend and his wife. Kind of weird but that's how it started. Marriage as a concept of between one man and one woman is comparatively a new thing compared to open, possibly polygamous, homosexual pagan marriage which predates it by thousands of years.
 
obvious Child said:
Actually religion did always have the patent on the word marriage.
Click to expand...

Am I supposed to take this literally? Do you know what a patent is? And if religion had a patent on marriage I'm pretty sure it would have expired after the first couple hundred years. :lol:

The key issue here is which religion. Marriage remember started off as a Pagan idea open to effectively anyone and any number of people. You could marry your best friend and his wife. Kind of weird but that's how it started. Marriage as a concept of between one man and one woman is comparatively a new thing compared to open, possibly polygamous, homosexual pagan marriage which predates it by thousands of years.
Click to expand...

Seriously. What are you going on about and do you have any evidence for what you're talking about? As far as I know marriage started as a way for tribes and clans or families to unite. How you can say that marriage between 'a man and a woman' is new is beyond me considering marriage between a man and a woman has been in practice since the days of Ancient Egypt and before that. I await a source for your post.
 
Laxest said:
Gay couples should have the same rights as hetero couples. This moral board that's up societies ass is starting to smell a bit gamey. Discrimination is discrimination.
Click to expand...

Discrimination is not necessarily a "bad" thing.
Marriage is a good thing, I for one do not wish to see it besmirched by the politically correct and their support of the homosexual.
It's a simple concept; but beyond the ken of so many, that a marriage is between a man and a woman.. nothing else...this is something that must never change.
Also, those who are not 100 % mentally and physically, do not , cannot have the same rights...
 
earthworm said:
Discrimination is not necessarily a "bad" thing.
Marriage is a good thing, I for one do not wish to see it besmirched by the politically correct and their support of the homosexual.
It's a simple concept; but beyond the ken of so many, that a marriage is between a man and a woman.. nothing else...this is something that must never change.
Also, those who are not 100 % mentally and physically, do not , cannot have the same rights...
Click to expand...

What are you talking about...

marriage   /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mar-ij] Show IPA
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.

Corporations can marry, or merge too. Give homosexual marriage legal sanction, and then it is the same. There is no rational, intelligent or logical argument that can be made regarding denying homosexuals the right to get a legal marriage. Laws can change, and as long as most people are homophobic bigots, then it probably wont... but that doesn't make their position the correct one.

Also, please explain how discriminating against homosexuals can be seen as a good thing, or even a neutral thing? THanks...
 
The term marriage should be a religious term used by religious people to describe whatever their particular religion means by marriage. For Unitarians, it can mean gay couples as well as straight couples, for example. For Catholics it is straight couples only. For others it might be polygamous marriage, even when there is no legal recognition by the state. Whatever, as long as everyone involved can consent to the arrangement. No religion or group of religions gets to tell other religions or groups of religions what marriage is, and they certainly don't get to dictate it through the legal framework of the states or the country.

All the benefits of marriage should transfer to people who should now be defined as being in civil unions... except that there should be no tax benefits to being in a civil union/marriage other than inheritance. For example, a person who is single should not be discriminated against and should have to pay more no more taxes than a person who is married. Each person should have to file taxes as an individual. Other than that, we ought to all be able to enter into an arrangement with any other individual who can consent to it to have the rights and assume the responsibilities of a civil union.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom