• 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 .
Pookie said:
Okay, so you're going to call a dinner between a bunch of friends "communion?"
I do not see an issue here as long as the rights are the same.
And BH is not you. It's BetterHalf, mmmkay?
Purrs,
Pookie
Click to expand...

Look, if you are going to make an analogy, it has to relate to the existing situation in some manner.
In that dinner thingy, nobody is being denied anything.
Result? Analogy Failed.

After I put the "rights" issue as bluntly as I did... you still think that the "rights" are the same?
 
What I was saying is that no matter what it's called, if the rights are exactly the same, then it's not discrimination.
Check your PM box.
Purrs,
Pookie
 
Pookie said:
What I was saying is that no matter what it's called, if the rights are exactly the same, then it's not discrimination.
Check your PM box.
Purrs,
Pookie
Click to expand...

But the rights aren't the same if they cant be called the same thing... hence, it is Discrimination.
 
Bodhisattva said:
But the rights aren't the same if they cant be called the same thing... hence, it is Discrimination.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that you're still capitalizing Discrimination. :2razz:
 
Pookie said:
How are rights not the same when they are the same?
Purrs,
Pookie
Click to expand...

How are the rights the same when they are not the same?

If the term "marriage" is not considered a right, to you...
Then why can't homosexuals get "Married"?
 
emdash said:
bff
Click to expand...

????



if he "discriminates" against people of all races including his own then it's meaningless to call him racist or to imply that his hatred is based on race at all.

if smoking becomes illegal for men and also for women, the government is not discriminating based on gender, though both genders are affected.

if two genders are being discriminated against instead of one, it does not necessarily negate all discrimination but it negates the idea of gender discrimination.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, but since same sex marriage deals with same gender issues, it is gender discrimination. That is the difference...

Perhaps I should use a different term then, like... Sexual Orientation Discrimination.


abuse is not Discrimination unless it is based on a characteristic shared by those being mistreated, such as gender, age or skin color. for example, it can be argued that females are discriminated against in the workplace and males are discriminated against in custody battles, because in both cases one gender is given deferential treatment. if in the case of gay marriage neither males nor females are receiving worse treatment than the other as a gender group, gender is not the common characteristic you are looking for.

it is more likely to be orientation: that is, a person's preference for either his own gender or the opposite. I think before we were having issues with the definition of orientation. you were using it to mean "the gender a person is attracted to" and I was using it to mean "a person's preference for his own gender or the opposite," so that practically our definitions would translate, respectively, to "his orientation is for males" or "his orientation is homosexual."
Click to expand...

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. :confused:

:lol:


in this way I could very well say that everyone affected by gay marriage laws has the same orientation (homosexual), but you would disagree, saying that half of them are attracted to men (gay) and half to women (lesbians).

with my definition, you could argue that orientation discrimination is taking place, in that the government is abusing homosexuals (and only homosexuals), while heterosexuals are shown deferential treatment.

I would then rebut, any adult may enter into a marriage contract if he meets the terms, and his orientation is never asked for or even taken into consideration. that would leave us right back where we started, arguing about the government's role and purpose in marriage, but blissfully free of all rhetoric like "discrimination," "bigotry," etc., which are distracting and unhelpful.
Click to expand...

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

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
 
Jerry said:
When it's propped open or taken off the hinge.

It's then a "pass way", according to code.
Click to expand...

when is it a jar, then? :confused: I've been lied to all my life.
 
Bodhisattva said:
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
Click to expand...

Gay men can marry gay women, though, so no D/discrimination.
 
Bodhisattva said:
????
Click to expand...

best friends forever. don't worry, I won't hold you to it.

Bodhisattva said:
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. :confused:

:lol:

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

understandable. ;)

Bodhisattva said:
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...
Click to expand...

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."

Bodhisattva said:
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
Click to expand...

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. :lol: 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. :applaud
 
emdash said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DGomez said:
You're nitpicking to save face with this one. And whether or not he used the words "issued" or "signed" is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

holy cow, are you kidding?

DGomez said:
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.
Click to expand...

menopausal women can't get married in the catholic church?
 
Jerry said:
Can you at least give credit for having a valid point before moving on?
Click to expand...

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.
 
emdash said:
holy cow, are you kidding?
Click to expand...

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.
 
DGomez said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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. :confused: 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:
emdash said:
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...?
Click to expand...

They don't view a marriage without children as invalid. They DO, however, insist that the couple be open to the procreation and raising of children.

emdash said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not being based on the ability to breed. It's having kids in general. He feels that the whole idea of children is a non issue in regards to marriage. I said that when it comes to a Catholic marriage, the idea of children IS an issue.
 
DGomez said:
He feels that the whole idea of children is a non issue in regards to marriage. I said that when it comes to a Catholic marriage, the idea of children IS an issue.
Click to expand...

if you feel comfortable simplifying it that far I will gladly concede the point, children are an issue for catholics
 
emdash said:
if you feel comfortable simplifying it that far I will gladly concede the point, children are an issue for catholics
Click to expand...

It was always that simple. Jerry, I'm sure, will agree with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom