• 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
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.

And that is nothing but fear mongering. That would never happen, nor would most supporters of SSM support that. I know I wouldn't.
 
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.

How is it discrimination when the law treats everyone equally? It doesn't matter why it's changed, it just matters that after the change everyone has equal rights. And while it might be 'giving in' to anti-gay-marriage folks, I'm alright with that. I don't mind throwing them a bone if it gets gays their equal rights.
 
And that is nothing but fear mongering. That would never happen, nor would most supporters of SSM support that. I know I wouldn't.

Down girl.

I'm not saying I believe it or support it, I just hear that argument a lot.
 
How is it discrimination when the law treats everyone equally? It doesn't matter why it's changed, it just matters that after the change everyone has equal rights. And while it might be 'giving in' to anti-gay-marriage folks, I'm alright with that. I don't mind throwing them a bone if it gets gays their equal rights.

The "why" matters. Why do you think the DoI was written? Why do you think millions of studies are always being done and then acted upon in our legislature? DaDT anyone? Laws against murder? Theft? Rape? Child abuse? And the list goes on and on and on ad nauseum on.
 
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.

They could argue that all they want but the constitution doesnt all the churches to be forced to do so and the point is since straight marriage is already denied by churches couples could try to force them now, gay marriage has no effect.

It has already proven a lot of antigay people are wrong about many things :D
 
Last edited:
The "why" matters. Why do you think the DoI was written? Why do you think millions of studies are always being done and then acted upon in our legislature? DaDT anyone? Laws against murder? Theft? Rape? Child abuse? And the list goes on and on and on ad nauseum on.

WTF does this have to do with anything I said?

Please explain to me how a law that treats everyone equally is discriminatory.
 
WTF does this have to do with anything I said?

Please explain to me how a law that treats everyone equally is discriminatory.

Note the part in bold:

How is it discrimination when the law treats everyone equally? It doesn't matter why it's changed, it just matters that after the change everyone has equal rights. And while it might be 'giving in' to anti-gay-marriage folks, I'm alright with that. I don't mind throwing them a bone if it gets gays their equal rights.

I am showing you that the "why" DOES matter. If you enact a law for discriminatory reasons then the law, by nature, will be discriminatory. Why must the word "marriage" be limited to just those of religious types? Why can gays not use the word "marriage"? It is like telling gays that they are not good enough to use the word...or the drinking fountain, or sit up front of the bus or court room.
 
Last edited:
How is it discrimination when the law treats everyone equally? It doesn't matter why it's changed, it just matters that after the change everyone has equal rights. And while it might be 'giving in' to anti-gay-marriage folks, I'm alright with that. I don't mind throwing them a bone if it gets gays their equal rights.

simple, because like i said the HONEST answer to the name change would be so the gays couldnt have it OR to hush up the antigay crowd.

A humorous example I like to give is what if when Obama won we decided we wont be calling him the president any more because that word is sacred and we need to protect its sanctity, from now one its the CEO of America because we dont want a black guy to ever be the president of the united states?

Congrats Mr. Obama/ Mrs Clinton! you won! uhm listen, see the thing is we aren’t going to call you the President, see well, uhm , you are half black/a woman and we just cant call you THE PRESIDENT, that’s a “sacred" word based on MY opinion, even though we have used it for all others we are going to change it NOW, we are going to call you aaaaaah . . . . uhm . . . The CEO if the United States of America, yeah thats it.


Now mind you, you'll still have the same "full rights/privileges" and powers and decisions to make has the president we just cant call you that or use that word anymore because of you.

I understand what you are saying, from here on out everybody would be called the same but I think its a huge slap in the face of gays because everyone would know why it was changed. And it would be so people could continue discriminating. No thanks.
 
Last edited:
Note the part in bold:

How exactly does the declaration of independence, studies done in congress, don't ask don't tell, and laws against murder, theft, rape, and child abuse show that the 'why' matters? You might have a point, but you're not expressing it very well, as I have no idea what the hell all of those things have to do with gay marriage.

I am showing you that the "why" DOES matter.

Not very well you aren't.

If you enact a law for discriminatory reasons then the law, by nature, will be discriminatory.

How is it being enacted for discriminatory reasons? It would be enacted to stop discrimination.

Why must the word "marriage" be limited to just those of religious types? Why can gays not use the word "marriage"?

Who said it would be limited only to the religious, and who said gays couldn't use it? Anyone could have a marriage ceremony and say they were married. It just wouldn't have any legal status. For anyone.

It is like telling gays that they are not good enough to use the word...or the drinking fountain, or sit up front of the bus or court room.

No, it's not like that at all. It's just redefining what marriage is.

Again, please show me how a law that treats everyone equally is discriminatory. You've so far done nothing to do so.
 
I think that's a very good point about how changing the wording from marriage, or getting rid of state recognized marriage entirely, could be a slap in the face to non-heterosexuals and could further stir up resentment. Realistically, I don't think the government or voters would take away marriage rights for everybody or change the term from marriage to civil unions for heterosexuals, but I hadn't thought about the argument in that way before. Thanks :)
 
simple, because like i said the HONEST answer to the name change would be so the gays couldnt have it OR to hush up the antigay crowd.

A humorous example I like to give is what if when Obama won we decided we wont be calling him the president any more because that word is sacred and we need to protect its sanctity, from now one its the CEO of America because we dont want a black guy to ever be the president of the united states?

Congrats Mr. Obama/ Mrs Clinton! you won! uhm listen, see the thing is we aren’t going to call you the President, see well, uhm , you are half black/a woman and we just cant call you THE PRESIDENT, that’s a “sacred" word based on MY opinion, even though we have used it for all others we are going to change it NOW, we are going to call you aaaaaah . . . . uhm . . . The CEO if the United States of America, yeah thats it.


Now mind you, you'll still have the same "full rights/privileges" and powers and decisions to make has the president we just cant call you that or use that word anymore because of you.

I understand what you are saying, from here on out everybody would be called the same but I think its a huge slap in the face of gays because everyone would know why it was changed. And it would be so people could continue discriminating. No thanks.

I get the argument that you're making, I just don't buy it.

A law that treats everyone the same is by definition not discriminatory. And if it takes calling it civil unions for everyone for gays to get the same civil rights as straight people, then so be it. Because in the end, that's really the only part that I care about, is the civil rights. I couldn't care less what it's called.
 
I get the argument that you're making, I just don't buy it.

A law that treats everyone the same is by definition not discriminatory. And if it takes calling it civil unions for everyone for gays to get the same civil rights as straight people, then so be it. Because in the end, that's really the only part that I care about, is the civil rights. I couldn't care less what it's called.

Three words for you: seperate but equal. Surely you're not saying that wasn't discriminatory?
 
I get the argument that you're making, I just don't buy it.

A law that treats everyone the same is by definition not discriminatory. And if it takes calling it civil unions for everyone for gays to get the same civil rights as straight people, then so be it. Because in the end, that's really the only part that I care about, is the civil rights. I couldn't care less what it's called.

It would be a separate but equal institution, which has been ruled unconstitutional. While I would take the compromise just to get the rights, I would be surprised if it didn't get ruled to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, and go to having SSM.
 
It would be a separate but equal institution, which has been ruled unconstitutional. While I would take the compromise just to get the rights, I would be surprised if it didn't get ruled to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, and go to having SSM.

Three words for you: seperate but equal. Surely you're not saying that wasn't discriminatory?

Go back and actually read what I suggested. I never said I support civil unions only for homosexuals. I support them only if it's for everyone (i.e. the law treats everyone equally). It is not a 'separate but equal' situation.
 
Go back and actually read what I suggested. I never said I support civil unions only for homosexuals. I support them only if it's for everyone (i.e. the law treats everyone equally). It is not a 'separate but equal' situation.

Well that was two pages wasted on a misunderstanding :lol:
 
Go back and actually read what I suggested. I never said I support civil unions only for homosexuals. I support them only if it's for everyone (i.e. the law treats everyone equally). It is not a 'separate but equal' situation.

Oh. I think that's more unlikely than gay marriage, but I wouldn't care if it happened.
 
I get the argument that you're making, I just don't buy it.

A law that treats everyone the same is by definition not discriminatory. And if it takes calling it civil unions for everyone for gays to get the same civil rights as straight people, then so be it. Because in the end, that's really the only part that I care about, is the civil rights. I couldn't care less what it's called.

I think you only don't buy it because you are not gay. I have said it for myself. Im not gay and would probably be find with your suggestion also but what I have an issue with is if a gay person asked me to explain to them how it isnt a slap in the face, discrimination and letting the bad guys win . . well . . . I couldn't

I couldn't honestly look them in the eye and say, that it was right.

What about my example? would that be ok, wouldit have been ok not to call it the president anymore just because a black guy finally made it? and no we call it the CEO of AMerica?


I guess my main point is that everyone would know it was changed because of GAY CITIZENS and any other answer would be dishonest and that to me makes it wrong.

If changing it to civil unions was a serious idea that's been around way BEFORE gay rights then maybe id buy it. But the only reason it would be getting changed is to please the homophobes, bigots and or selfish people that want to discriminate. No thanks. Keeping its name is what makes the most sense.

I agree a law that treats people equally isnt discrimination but the question is WHY CHANGE IT? What drove the name to be changed? Why not just make marriage include everyone and make the CURRENT law not discriminate.

In the end I agree with you in ways I just want all my fellow Americans treated equally and dont want to see them discriminated against but this IMO is letting the bad guys win.
 
Yes.

10 Characters
 
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.

That's fine. If you advocate the removal of the Marriage License and replace it with something like a Civil Union License which is the legal contract which contains all the legal "privilege" of marriage and is open to any 2 consenting adults, and return marriage to fully within the realm of religion; then it's a consistent argument that can abide by the rights of the individual. But you'll have one heck of a time changing the details of the Marriage License, the government is not likely to give up power it usurped.

I say that so long as the Marriage License exists, you cannot rightfully and justly forbid same sex couples from entering into legal marriage.
 
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
You don't understand, you're a centrist, you have to agree with me. ;)
 
You don't understand, you're a centrist, you have to agree with me. ;)

no not really, no offense but I actually feel the less I agree with you the better and more objective I probably am ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom