• 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

Do you oppose Civil Unions?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 22.6%

  • No

    Votes: 24 77.4%
  • Total voters
    31
Daktoria said:
What about children? Do children contract their parents before being introduced into society?

Marriage is irrelevant when children are removed from the picture. You don't have to be married to be in love.

On the other hand, children had out of wedlock are exposed to not having guaranteed role models or provision.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? Who said anything about children? I don't know if you were trying to make a comment so stupid it would kill brain cells, but if you were....congrats.
 
muciti said:
Would you opposed to marriage between any 2 consenting adults being called a Civil Union at a government level for the benefits of marriage?
Click to expand...

I don't really care what it's called, as it's a contractual agreement when it comes to legal and inheritance matters. What really matters (imo) is the relationship, and not the title given to it.
 
muciti said:
the question is not about offering a 2nd contract or different terms or even about gay rights or ssm or anything else. Simply whether or not you care about the term marriage as used by the government.
Click to expand...

I don't care what they call it, but if they offer it then it must be fairly offered.
 
tessaesque said:
So what about a heterosexual couples who enjoy bondage, or female-into-male strap-on play?
What about heterosexual couples who are a-sexual?

Should they be denied marriage because their sexual inclinations are "unnatural"?? No? Just the gays? That's discrimination.
Click to expand...

I do not hide the fact that my view on sexuality, marriage and marriage law is and should be centered around procreation and the needs of the children born as a result of these unions. Disagree, ridicule, make fun of, etc with that view point all you want. It is my view point and it will remain my view point.

Homosexual unions cannot be procreative. Women cannot produce sperm and men cannot produce eggs, both are need for procreation. The sexual inclinations you stated may indeed be viewed by some as "unnatural", however, if it is a heterosexual couple, then they may also participate in sexual activities leading to procreation. The instinct for sexual desires is deeply rooted in the species level instinct to reproduce, the taking of "mates" is rooted in instinct to provide for and protect the young produced as the result of the reproduction instinct. The fact that humans can exert control over instincts does not change the fact that these desires are based in an instinct for procreation and protection, nuturing of children. Heterosexuals who's "equipment" is broken or no longer functioning still experience these instincts.
 
DVSentinel said:
I do not hide the fact that my view on sexuality, marriage and marriage law is and should be centered around procreation and the needs of the children born as a result of these unions. Disagree, ridicule, make fun of, etc with that view point all you want. It is my view point and it will remain my view point.
Click to expand...

If those are your personal views that's fine. However, can't a distinction be made between personal views and what is law?
 
muciti said:
the question is not about offering a 2nd contract or different terms or even about gay rights or ssm or anything else. Simply whether or not you care about the term marriage as used by the government.
Click to expand...

I don't see whether you call it Civil Unions or Marriage how that addresses the more serious legal issues?

Even though marriage licenses are issued by states, federal marriage policy is extensive. The federal government has special tax rules for married people. It gives spouses rights and responsibilities under programs like Social Security. It offers benefits to the spouses of its several million employees. And it confers citizenship on foreigners based on their marriages to U.S. citizens.

Should the federal government treat married gays as married, only if they live in jurisdictions that allow gay marriage?

But what about gays who live in states that don’t have gay marriage? Should North Carolina be able to decide that its gay residents don’t get to file joint federal income tax returns, even if they are legally married by another state? Should gay federal workers get spousal benefits only if they work in gay marriage states? Or should the federal government treat gay couples as married no matter where they move?

Some portion of marriage policy can be left up to the states. But gay marriage is also very much a federal issue requiring federal policy solutions regardless of what you call it.
 
Daktoria said:
Then you're uncivilized. I don't talk with uncivilized people.
Click to expand...

She's uncivilized because she doesn't care what labels the government throws on private contracts? Wow, you're an idiot. Luckily for you I talk to idiots every day.

ttwtt78640 said:
Marriage is a contract. Just HOW do you get gov't out of contract law?
Click to expand...

Private contracts predate government.

tessaesque said:
The government must have some level of involvement in marriage because (1) it involves property, (2) more than half of all marriages end in divorce, which creates conflict over said property, (3) most marriages will involve minor children who, in the case of divorce, will also create a source of conflict.
Click to expand...

International trade involves property and the occasional conflict over said property. No government is involved in these issues, yet miraculously billions of dollars worth of goods are moved every single week. Your reliance on government for arbitration is misplaced and depressing.
 
I don't think anyone would force a church to perform same sex marriages, however private businesses as well as the church would have to recognize same sex marriage for the purposes insurance, medical benefits, and the like.

Private businesses have long been told what to recognize by the government- same sex marriage/union would be the same. A business may not like interracial marriage but they can't deny coverage to a mixed race couple.
 
The civil union concept could elminate the petty differences both sides have about marriage. You could probably say that the idea of a union came before the concept of marriage and before governments got involved to regulate the unions which by then for all intents and purposes were called marriages. The argument that there is no such thing as traditional marriage is invalid. The idea that we can in modern times ignore what we know about homosexuality and how some people are compelled to live their lives because of the nature of how they are wired is unfair. We need to give up marriage in a legal sense because it longer represents the nature of relationships in our modern society. We can't change biology and we can't go back in time and change the compelling and overwhelming reason the concept of marriage was created. Call your union a marriage by whatever philosophical and spiritual ceremony you choose or don't call it marriage because you want to completely dissociate yourself from that ancient tradition. Remove marriage from the legal argument of what is fair. This stubborness is why we are not much further along in resolving the issue. Lets' stop being spoiled children only wanting it our way.
 
TNAR said:
International trade involves property and the occasional conflict over said property. No government is involved in these issues, yet miraculously billions of dollars worth of goods are moved every single week. Your reliance on government for arbitration is misplaced and depressing.
Click to expand...


Is that supposed to be a joke? If not a poor attempt at humour it would indicate a sad lack of knowledge about international trade.
 
Marriages are a poor and ineffective arrangement as we know them now. "I'll love you forever" is one of the greatest lies ever told. How can you know that?

All relationships should be contractual and finite. Everyone should utilize the Civil Union agreement and should create an actual contract defining the economics and other specific expectations. Should the contracted decode to have children, a new contract for Marriage would be created and would delineate the responsibilities for the offspring until the age of majority.

Adoption would fall under the Marriage Contract. So, if a SS couple entered a Civil Union they would convert to a Marriage Agreement if and when they adopted a minor.

I'd really like to see a permit requirement for children. I suggest a license fee of around $1,000.00 which is placed ITF the child benefit. This could also be expanded into an MSA (Mandatory Savings Account) to replace Social Security. I know that's off-topic so we can discuss that elsewhere.
 
How about.... we stop pretending religion has a monopoly over universal terms?
 
MaggieD said:
18% of U.S. companies already recognize domestic partners for the purpose of healthcare benefits, family leave, etc. They realize what the American people have yet to do: it's not worth the effort to discriminate against same-sex unions. There are better fish to fry.

For those who think it should be a state issue? I don't think that's right either. The effect of that concept is that if a same-sex couple is legally married in Massachusetts and subsequently moves to a state who doesn't recognize them? That state can and will deny their rights to the 'contract aspects' of marriage.

Anti-discrimination of same-sex marriages should be handled at the Federal level as a Civil Rights issue and let's just fry bigger fish.
Click to expand...

You open up too many cans of worms with the "federalize" everything logic. Marriage is and always has been a state contract law issue. To assert that MAN = WOMAN is very foolish and would make ILLEGAL many things including auto insurance laws, different physical standards based on gender, title 9 college sports laws and all sorts of "separate but equal" things that now benefit females/minorities. The idea of semi-equal or ALMOST equal has been accepted in many cases. Just what "civil right" is being denied? You have no right to REDEFINE marriage, to include either SSM, polygamy, bigamy or polyamory. If the STATE marriage law says "one man and one woman" that is intentionally different than "two people", just as an auto insurance rate based on gender, a military "unisex" position requiring different physical standards based on gender or having "separate but equal" restrooms or boy/girl scouts.

The Difference Between Polygamy, Polyamory and Bigamy - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
 
Hatuey said:
How about.... we stop pretending religion has a monopoly over universal terms?
Click to expand...

1) Would you like government to suppose God as well?

2) Would you agree that children universally are entitled to male and female role models?

3) Would you read this peace by Russell Kirk on the value of religion towards society?

Russell Kirk -- Civilization Without Religion?
 
Last edited:
grip said:
I don't see whether you call it Civil Unions or Marriage how that addresses the more serious legal issues?

Even though marriage licenses are issued by states, federal marriage policy is extensive. The federal government has special tax rules for married people. It gives spouses rights and responsibilities under programs like Social Security. It offers benefits to the spouses of its several million employees. And it confers citizenship on foreigners based on their marriages to U.S. citizens.

Should the federal government treat married gays as married, only if they live in jurisdictions that allow gay marriage?

But what about gays who live in states that don’t have gay marriage? Should North Carolina be able to decide that its gay residents don’t get to file joint federal income tax returns, even if they are legally married by another state? Should gay federal workers get spousal benefits only if they work in gay marriage states? Or should the federal government treat gay couples as married no matter where they move?

Some portion of marriage policy can be left up to the states. But gay marriage is also very much a federal issue requiring federal policy solutions regardless of what you call it.
Click to expand...

I didnt say anything about addressing any other issues or anything else. This thread was not meant to be a discussion about ssm, it is a very simple question. I just wanted to know if people cared if the government stopped using the term marriage and instead used another term. There are hundreds of threads about ssm you people can go discuss that on. This thread was simply about the term marriage and peoples attachment to it.
 
Somerville said:

"unatural acts"(sic) Same-Sex Behavior Seen In Nearly All Animals

Mankind is part of the animal kingdom, no matter what your specific religious belief has to say on the subject. We humans ain't special except for our capacity for advanced thought.
Click to expand...

True, but did you actually read your article? Did you note that some of those species suffer from genetic defect that causes the behavior, or the behavior is noted when the lack of males or females is present. Also, any references to it being a sexual preference vs a sexual act when factors do not allow access to the opposite sex can only actually be observed in species that mate for life. The birds mentioned mate for life, their instincts are to mate at a particular time in their life span, so when there is a lack of male available at that time, yes, the females join in a "union". But, is that union actually based upon a sexual preference or lack of available males? There is a distinction between homosexual acts and homosexual preference. Males of many species, apparently including humans, sometimes participate in homosexual acts as an expression of dominance, not preference.


When and where did I ever bring religious beliefs into my arguments on this subject? When have I ever expressed religion as the basis of my view point?
 
Last edited:
First and foremost I believe in freedom.
A same sex couple should enjoy all the legal rights as a normal couple.
The issue comes in that calling such a union a Marriage, offends some peoples religious beliefs.
Simple answer, Government marries no one, but only recognizes civil unions.
Everyone goes home happy, Freedom wins!!
 
jambalaya said:
The civil union concept could elminate the petty differences both sides have about marriage. You could probably say that the idea of a union came before the concept of marriage and before governments got involved to regulate the unions which by then for all intents and purposes were called marriages. The argument that there is no such thing as traditional marriage is invalid. The idea that we can in modern times ignore what we know about homosexuality and how some people are compelled to live their lives because of the nature of how they are wired is unfair. We need to give up marriage in a legal sense because it longer represents the nature of relationships in our modern society. We can't change biology and we can't go back in time and change the compelling and overwhelming reason the concept of marriage was created. Call your union a marriage by whatever philosophical and spiritual ceremony you choose or don't call it marriage because you want to completely dissociate yourself from that ancient tradition. Remove marriage from the legal argument of what is fair. This stubborness is why we are not much further along in resolving the issue. Lets' stop being spoiled children only wanting it our way.
Click to expand...

answering the bolded bits

Which "tradition" are you using? What is commonly seen as "traditional marriage" in America today is less than 200 years old. One can't use the Bible as justification for opposite sex marriages between one man and one woman because there are multiple citations of polygamous marriage in the text.


Which culture are you talking about when you write "compelling and overwhelming reason"? There are many reasons we know of, for a societal blessing of sexual partnerships. Primary in most of them has related to just who gets to keep the 'stuff' accumulated, when the dominant member, mostly the male but not in all societies, dies
 
muciti said:
try harder. show me where i said anything about segregation.
Click to expand...

What's with your bad attitude? You need to bring some serious goods if you're going to take that kind of posture, and frankly kid you just ain't delivering.
 
zstep18 said:
If those are your personal views that's fine. However, can't a distinction be made between personal views and what is law?
Click to expand...

You do not vote or support certain laws and not support others based upon your personal views? Your persnal views on political matters is your political lean.
 
DVSentinel said:
You do not vote or support certain laws and not support others based upon your personal views? Your persnal views on political matters is your political lean.
Click to expand...

I vote based on what's best and what's fair.
 
DVSentinel wrote something about the article I had linked to on same sex behaviour and used the phrase "genetic defect"

"genetic defect" or a genetic difference? I have to ask if you read the full article.

By emphasising the genetic aspect you would seem to be arguing that same-sex preferences are genetically determined unlike many of those who oppose LGBT issues because they seem them as a "lifestyle choice"


Your last sentence could be altered, in so far as humans are concerned, by reference to various well-studied societies thru out history. Classical Greek society often saw male-male pairs as true expressions of love while male-female relationships were based on power, property and progeny.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
What's with your bad attitude? You need to bring some serious goods if you're going to take that kind of posture, and frankly kid you just ain't delivering.
Click to expand...

You keep trying to argue with me about a point i am not making. What posture? You still have yet to make your point that I am somehow advocating some type of segregation. Go read my posts, ask someone for help if you are not able to comprehend what i wrote, then reply. DO NOT reply until you do the first two parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom