• 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!

For people who are against Same Sex Marriage.

Are you for Civil Unions?

  • Total voters
    10
jamesrage said:
I am not married and I would like those benefits too why should I have to go through more trouble than married people to get those benefits?
Click to expand...

Not the scope of the question since we are talking about couples, not singles. Try to stay on point.
 
American said:
Then we should call homosexuality and heterosexuality just sexuality, right?
Click to expand...

uhmmmm we do because it IS their sexuality LMAO

homo and hetro describe the SEXUALITY

so if you are trying to make a parallel, in this case, it would be MARRIAGE, same sex MARRIAGE or hetero MARRIAGE or homosexual MARRIAGE or gay MARRIAGE


but still MARRIAGE:D
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Are you saying the law bans you from marrying someone of the opposite gender?
Click to expand...

Sure she could. But that does not mean that she could marry the one that she loves and loves her. Heterosexual marriage however does allow one to marry the one that they love. See that is the difference. That is where it is unequal. You get to marry the one you love. She does not get to marry the one she loves.

jamesrage said:
Or that you can not leave a will, give power or attorney to the person of your choosing?
Click to expand...

Both of which can be challenged in a court of law. Marriage adds an extra protection to keep those from being overturned.
 
My question to those like me who oppose ssm, why would you also oppose civil unions?
 
I voted no. Reason being is that as someone already said...cow manure is still cow manure no matter what it is called. All things being equal a civil union is the same as marriage. Why change the name just to satisfy some persons misguided concept of what marriage is? It wasn't until near history that marriage even started being defined as between a man and a woman. And the reason for that definition is in response to homosexuals. No other reason.
 
Your Star said:
Homophobia I assume.
Click to expand...

I agree, either that or a bland hatred for homosexuals. I was hoping to argue with some of them and stand up for gay rights in this thread :mrgreen:
 
digsbe said:
I agree, either that or a bland hatred for homosexuals. I was hoping to argue with some of them and stand up for gay rights in this thread :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Welcome to the team lol ;)
 
American said:
Then we should call homosexuality and heterosexuality just sexuality, right?
Click to expand...

I actually call it "none of my damned business". I think it would behoove many people if they took a similar stance.
 
I'm in favor of civil unions for everyone. We should separate the legal and ceremonial (and often religious) aspects of marriage. That way gays get their civil rights, and churches aren't forced to marry anyone they aren't comfortable marrying.
 
molten_dragon said:
I'm in favor of civil unions for everyone. We should separate the legal and ceremonial (and often religious) aspects of marriage. That way gays get their civil rights, and churches aren't forced to marry anyone they aren't comfortable marrying.
Click to expand...

Essentially getting rid of the marriage license. That's fair. My question though comes from the fact that there will be Church's who will marry same sex couples. And since marriage would be left to the religious institutions, those same sex couples could then claim legitimate marriage. Will everyone else start bitching because a Church decides that it will wed same sex couples?
 
Why not. If they want to give homosexuals civil unions with all that stuff, go ahead. They can knock themselves out.
It's not marriage, though. That's the important thing.
 
molten_dragon said:
I'm in favor of civil unions for everyone. We should separate the legal and ceremonial (and often religious) aspects of marriage. That way gays get their civil rights, and churches aren't forced to marry anyone they aren't comfortable marrying.
Click to expand...

That cant and wont happen and if there is such a way it could gay marriage has no impact on it. It could happen RIGHT NOW if it was possible but its not. Churches dont have to marry anybody they deem unfit and reject straight couples now. and they are protected under the Constitution. Gay marriage doesnt change that.
 
Last edited:
Centrist77 said:
That cant and wont happen and if there is such a way it could gay marriage has no impact on it. It could appen RIGHT NOW if it was possible but its not. Churches dont have to marry anybody they deem unfit and reject straight couples now. and they are protected under the consitituon. Gay marriage doesnt change that.
Click to expand...

Yep, this. The funny thing is I can get married by a church tomorrow, but I can't get married in a courthouse. That's both funny, and sad.
 
molten_dragon said:
I'm in favor of civil unions for everyone. We should separate the legal and ceremonial (and often religious) aspects of marriage. That way gays get their civil rights, and churches aren't forced to marry anyone they aren't comfortable marrying.
Click to expand...

The other problem I have with this is whats the answer to the question "why was it changed" the answer is because of gay marriage. That to me is giving in to the bad guys and continuing discrimination in a backhanded way.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I voted no. Reason being is that as someone already said...cow manure is still cow manure no matter what it is called. All things being equal a civil union is the same as marriage. Why change the name just to satisfy some persons misguided concept of what marriage is? It wasn't until near history that marriage even started being defined as between a man and a woman. And the reason for that definition is in response to homosexuals. No other reason.
Click to expand...

:roll:

You should tell that to the two Roman emperors who married men. Historical ignorance is amusing.
 
molten_dragon said:
I'm in favor of civil unions for everyone. We should separate the legal and ceremonial (and often religious) aspects of marriage. That way gays get their civil rights, and churches aren't forced to marry anyone they aren't comfortable marrying.
Click to expand...

No church is forced to marry anyone that they don't want to now...what makes you think legalizing gay marriage would result in such a scenario? My wife and I wanted my wifes mothers church to perform our wedding. They denied us because we didn't follow thier religion.

Statements such as what you just said is nothing short of fear mongering lies.

Edit note: added word that I forgot to add.
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
Yep, this. The funny thing is I can get married by a church tomorrow, but I can't get married in a courthouse. That's both funny, and sad.
Click to expand...

Exactly and there arent people crying about the sanctity of the word then LOL thats why its a false cover IMO
 
Kal'Stang said:
No church is forced to marry anyone that they don't want to now...what makes you think legalizing gay marriage would result in such a scenario? My wife and I wanted my wifes church to perform our wedding. They denied us because we didn't follow thier religion.

Statements such as what you just said is nothing short of fear mongering lies.
Click to expand...

Thats EXACTLY what they are, pure fallacy. Most of the bogus biased reasons are nothing but fear mongering.
 
Ikari said:
Essentially getting rid of the marriage license. That's fair. My question though comes from the fact that there will be Church's who will marry same sex couples. And since marriage would be left to the religious institutions, those same sex couples could then claim legitimate marriage. Will everyone else start bitching because a Church decides that it will wed same sex couples?
Click to expand...

Well sure, they could claim that they were married, but it wouldn't mean anything legally. I'm proposing separating the legal and ceremonial parts of marriage completely. A marriage in a church would just be ceremonial (or it would be your marriage before god if you prefer the religious aspect). It would carry no legal status.

To get your legal rights (the rights that marriage currently confers) you would just go down to the courthouse and sign the paperwork and it would be official.
 
Centrist77 said:
That cant and wont happen and if there is such a way it could gay marriage has no impact on it. It could happen RIGHT NOW if it was possible but its not. Churches dont have to marry anybody they deem unfit and reject straight couples now. and they are protected under the Constitution. Gay marriage doesnt change that.
Click to expand...

A lot of anti-gay-marriage people argue that if gay marriage were legal it wouldn't be long before churches were being forced to marry gays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom