• 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
notquiteright said:
I don't think I understand how you get government out of marriage if you also want the couple to have full benefits, which includes survivorship, medical consent, joint ownership, insurance, and tax returns. Government is going to be involved as much of the benefit in marriage involves governmental interaction.

I married my wife 26 years ago infront of a federal judge, no church involved.

I am a married man, not a civil union one. I figure same sex folks consider themselves married not unioned, hell 'conservatives' can't stand the word union and southern folks still turn their heads and spit to get the taste out of their mouth when they say 'union'... ;)

Marriage is what it is and we should call it by it's name...
Click to expand...

With all due respect, your marriage will continue to be a "marriage" even if the government, in order to apply benefits, call it a civil union. Absolutely nothing changes for you, even the title. I'd be willing to bet you got a license first before that federal judge "married" you two. When you two signed that license and the county accepted it, you were legally married, what happened with the judge was ritual, unnecessary in the governments eyes where it comes to conferring benefits.

So, what is being discussed here is the possibility of separating the ritual, which many hold dear, from the licensing. Nothing needs to change with the licensing, the benefits, or even those who choose the ritual and the title.

However, my question is this -what assurances do we have that the polygamists won't be the next to assert their need to be legitimately licensed by the state?
 
Daktoria said:
"Civil union" sounds like official friendship. If people didn't know it's a marriage substitute in advance, they'd think the same thing.

Marriage is a romantic, artistic relationship that's meant to guarantee duty of care towards children. It only applies to people who can internally have children. You can go back to the paleolithic era to study the history of marriage to understand this.

If people want to say that marriage "evolves" over time, then language is unreliable. You might as well believe in total anarchy.
Click to expand...

Well, since marriage has evolved over time and we're not in total anarchy, what do you say then?
 
clownboy said:
With all due respect, your marriage will continue to be a "marriage" even if the government, in order to apply benefits, call it a civil union. Absolutely nothing changes for you, even the title. I'd be willing to bet you got a license first before that federal judge "married" you two. When you two signed that license and the county accepted it, you were legally married, what happened with the judge was ritual, unnecessary in the governments eyes where it comes to conferring benefits.

So, what is being discussed here is the possibility of separating the ritual, which many hold dear, from the licensing. Nothing needs to change with the licensing, the benefits, or even those who choose the ritual and the title.

However, my question is this -what assurances do we have that the polygamists won't be the next to assert their need to be legitimately licensed by the state?
Click to expand...

Why do we need such assurances? Polygamy causes no more harm than homosexual relationships do to society at large. The ownership aspect may get a little more complex, but otherwise I see no reason to express concern over legalizing polygamy. There's really no logical reason I'm aware of keep it illegal.
 
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...

Smokescreen. I reject the unspoken assumption here that religion owns the concept of marriage. It doesn't belong to marriage, much less one specific religion.
 
tessaesque said:
Why do we need such assurances? Polygamy causes no more harm than homosexual relationships do to society at large. The ownership aspect may get a little more complex, but otherwise I see no reason to express concern over legalizing polygamy. There's really no logical reason I'm aware of keep it illegal.
Click to expand...


In the past, and present for a few cults, polygamy has been based on subjugation of the female participants. IF and it is a big IF, there were protections for those who chose to live in a polygamous marriage then I too can see polygamy being legalised. A major problem for the American fundie cults that are presently practicing polygamy is their treatment of male youth, too many of the boys are thrown onto the street so that the better connected, mostly older, men have more females to choose from.


Then how about those women who choose to have multiple husbands? Would they be covered by the same laws that allow multiple wives?
 
specklebang said:
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?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with you here. First of all, a marriage confers exacting legal interpretation of all things joint whether it be property, assets or children. It isn't so much about "I'll love you forever," as it is, "If it doesn't work, here's what we can expect."

ttwtt78640 said:
You open up too many cans of worms with the "federalize" everything logic. Marriage is and always has been a state contract law issue.
Click to expand...

Not to be snarky, but so was slavery.

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.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about anything other than same-sex marriage. Throwing other forms of illegal marriages into the mix isn't helpful. You use the term "Separate But Equal." Yes, that's it exactly. Separate. But. Equal. You know, in truth, most people don't give a tinker's dam about SSM. It's much ado about nothing. I understand it's interesting to debate. Fun to take a firm stand against change. But, in actuality? In the big scheme of things? What the hell's the difference?
 
Somerville said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing that the homosexual prefrence is cause by any particular factor, we haven't studied it enough to determine that. I doubt very much that pro-homosexual preferences will actually do that research, because if it is found to have a cause, then it can have a cure and could not be considered normal behavior.

Sorry not buying your tale of Ancient Greece. For one, Spartans, while they did practice male-male homosexuality in a ritualistic form, it was Spartan law that all male citizens had to marry, a female. This would indicate to me that it was a practice for sexual outlet prior to being considered mature enough or capable of marriage. In the end, the Spartans really screwed themselves with many of their practices as the number of Spartan Citizens decreased while the number of Healots and other non-citizens increased. Perhaps there is a reason that Ancient Greece is Ancient and only select portions of their beliefs have moved on to more modern societies.
 
Daktoria said:
1) Would you like government to suppose God as well?
Click to expand...

Try saying that coherently now.

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

I believe children are entitled to parents who care about them and take care of them. The gender of those parents is irrelevant as long as they do their job as parents.

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

Russell Kirk -- Civilization Without Religion?
Click to expand...

No.
 
I'm not opposed to taking the State out of the picture altogether, and having the state perform "Civil Unions" of two consenting adults.

The problem you run into is that you end up not pleasing anyone. If you say that gay civil unions have the same rights, all you're doing is taking the word "marriage" out of the equation. You're bound to anger religious conservatives who don't want to give them the same rights. If you don't make it equal, you're bound to piss off the other side that you're giving gays "second best." Even "seperate but equal" has been struck down by the SCOTUS in other areas.

I'm not sure how you make it work is what I'm saying.
 
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...

For everyone? Sure.
 
What I was trying to convey is that "marriage" is a contractual event. So, of course it covers all things legal. However, most marriages don't even bother to make pre-nup agreements so the marriage concept is pretty flimsy.

I don't think we disagree.


MaggieD said:
I don't agree with you here. First of all, a marriage confers exacting legal interpretation of all things joint whether it be property, assets or children. It isn't so much about "I'll love you forever," as it is, "If it doesn't work, here's what we can expect."?
Click to expand...
 
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'm not opposed to it, because that's what many "marriages" are. A legal civil union between two people. Marriage is a religious institution.
 
specklebang said:
What I was trying to convey is that "marriage" is a contractual event. So, of course it covers all things legal. However, most marriages don't even bother to make pre-nup agreements so the marriage concept is pretty flimsy.

I don't think we disagree.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think we do either, substanatively. Just chatting before Tom brings home some ground beef so I can make meatballs and sketti sauce. ;)

I'd point out, though, that Family Courts do a great job of enforcing the pretty linear contractural arrangement of marriage. There are specific laws about property division, child support, etc. that can only be over-ridden by a pre-nup.
 
Ive always said Im just fine with civil partnerships. Thats a choice between two people to do whatever they want to do..as long as there is no official marriage tag. Im just fine with gay couples having the power of attorney and visiting rights and all like that... Where I dont agree is that two men or two women should be sharing pensions and benefits, social security and getting tax breaks over and above the rights of all single men and women
Id like to make note there that I find it peculiar that many of the people that demand govt get out of marriage...want the govt intruding into our lives in even more insidious ways. Either your for govt out of our private lives entirely or your not
 
Last edited:
Daktoria said:
1)2) Would you agree that children universally are entitled to male and female role models?
Click to expand...

Sure, but unfortunately, in todays society, masculine homosexual females are more "manely" than the average male in our society and many "feminine" homosexual males are more feminine than the average American female today. This whole unisex thing is really screwing up our society in respect to traditional masculinity and femininety.
 
Surtr said:
I'm not opposed to it, because that's what many "marriages" are. A legal civil union between two people. Marriage is a religious institution.
Click to expand...

(bold mine)

It is also a government-licensed institution.
 
Last edited:
Somerville said:
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
Click to expand...

You cannot take the exception and make that the rule. Just because it was done differently at some place and time doesn't make it relevant to our society and many, many other societies. Should we use some isolated South American tribe as an example and change laws and traditions in our country based on what they do? Your argument bears no weight.
 
Unfortunately, the way you phrased it, I had to vote that I was opposed. I am not against all marriages being called civil unions and doing away with the "marriage" label entirely, but no, I don't want there to be one class of relationship called "marriage" and another class of relationship called "civil union". We already have a perfectly good word for it, let's just use the same word for all of them and be done with it.
 
Separate but equal isn't. Whatever same sex and opposite sex marriages are called, they must be called the same thing. They must BE the same thing. Anything else is unconstitutional.
 
No, this would be my preferred solution to the whole issue of gay marriage.
 
Paschendale said:
Separate but equal isn't. Whatever same sex and opposite sex marriages are called, they must be called the same thing. They must BE the same thing. Anything else is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this idea. I agree that the rights granted to homo- and heterosexual couples need to be identical, but I don't think it's necessary that they're called the same thing.
 
if they need to be identical, then they are the same thing, it is a piss poor fig leaf for a few to call one marriage and the other a civil union when they are the same. Doesn't make a lot of sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom