• 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!

Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?[W:237]

Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?

  • Yes, civil unions are an acceptable compromise.

    Votes: 17 17.2%

  • No, they are not, because:

    Votes: 51 51.5%

  • The government should not be involved with marriage, at all.

    Votes: 23 23.2%

  • Other (Please Explain)

    Votes: 8 8.1%
  • Total voters
    99
cpwill said:
No you were not, you were snidely and passively-aggressively attacking by implicitly accusing her of the moral equivalency of racism.
Click to expand...

YEAH! :mrgreen:
 
cpwill said:
It alters the basis of the unit, which in turn shifts it from focusing on that function. It is as if we were to take the Sacramento Police Force and tell them that instead of solving and preventing crimes in Sacramento, they were now tasked with "world peace". Naturally, Sacramento would suffer. Broadening the focus away from the mission reduces it's effectiveness.
Click to expand...

You just repeated your earlier point. I'm asking how it would alter the basis, and how it shifts it's focus.



Then you have a problem, because expanding the definition to include simply two people who love each other will further decay the connection between marriage and stable family formation.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have to support this claim. What data I have read suggest their is no decay when two lesbians or two gay men marry and raise a family.
 
ChrisL said:
As YOU stated, the terminology used is stupid and unimportant and basically irrelevant to the issue. NOW suddenly it becomes an important little change that we NEED in order to make SSM equal? :lol: I'm sorry, but THAT is hilarious. Do you not see the hypocrisy there?
Click to expand...

No hypocrisy. It is just facts. Some change is needed. It doesn't have to be completely gender neutral, but it must include something because it is unreasonable to make a man or woman be referred to as a term used to refer to the opposite gender. And it also makes for the most accurate paperwork to ensure that people's genders are correct. So some change is needed. If they want to make options of "bride/groom and bride/groom, circle appropriate" that is fine or if they would rather just say "person A and person B" that should all be left up to the state because it doesn't make a difference in how any legal institution or paperwork functions or is viewed. But if instead of making these changes, a government would rather change institutions it now has in place completely and in doing so also expect other places to change their own recognition or lack of in order to accommodate the one place's refusal to make a small change that is a huge problem. It is a lot of unnecessary change to try to appease sensibilities that shouldn't reasonably be offended by the small change in the first place.
 
ChrisL said:
Well, when you freak like that and say things that are totally untrue, you only make yourself look absurd. :)
Click to expand...

No....your logic makes YOU look absurd. You are either ok with tradition and terminology or you aren't. You are picking and choosing when and where you want to apply them. If you want to stay with marriage "traditions"......and think that terminology is unchangeable...then you have to accept that it was wrong to legalize inter-racial marriage....afterall....traditions and terminology matter, don't they?
As I suspect.....you are just another hypocrite that is fine to change definitions when you want to....but will cling to "tradition" when it fits your bigoted point of view.
 
cpwill said:
No you were not, you were snidely and passively-aggressively attacking by implicitly accusing her of the moral equivalency of racism.
Click to expand...

No....just pointing out the hypocrisy in her post.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
You just repeated your earlier point. I'm asking how it would alter the basis.
Click to expand...

Because it further degrades the emphasis on biological parent-pairs forming stable lifelong unions in order to facilitate the successful rearing of the next generation into "just two people who love each other". You decrease the degree to which Marriage has a connection to Family when you so alter its' definition.

What evidence do you have to support this claim. What data I have read suggest their is no decay when two lesbians or two gay men marry and raise a family.
Click to expand...

Yeah, self-selection studies tend to do that. I could do polling in neighborhoods where the median household income is $338,000 and demonstrate that single-parenthood doesn't strongly correlate with poverty, too. ;)

However, I was talking socially, not individually, and we are talking about the public definition of marriage, here, which as of yet, has not experienced this change.
 
roguenuke said:
No hypocrisy. It is just facts. Some change is needed. It doesn't have to be completely gender neutral, but it must include something because it is unreasonable to make a man or woman be referred to as a term used to refer to the opposite gender. And it also makes for the most accurate paperwork to ensure that people's genders are correct. So some change is needed. If they want to make options of "bride/groom and bride/groom, circle appropriate" that is fine or if they would rather just say "person A and person B" that should all be left up to the state because it doesn't make a difference in how any legal institution or paperwork functions or is viewed. But if instead of making these changes, a government would rather change institutions it now has in place completely and in doing so also expect other places to change their own recognition or lack of in order to accommodate the one place's refusal to make a small change that is a huge problem. It is a lot of unnecessary change to try to appease sensibilities that shouldn't reasonably be offended by the small change in the first place.
Click to expand...

My point is that if a gay couple wants to be married, that is fine. I would not want to deny them that. But when they try to change things about marriage, then it is not marriage that they want at all, and there are people who do not want certain things changed about it, and those people are NO less important if we are talking about true "equality" here.
 
disneydude said:
No....just pointing out the hypocrisy in her post.
Click to expand...

No, you were being a dick. That's fine, if you want to be a jerk. We have a whole basement for it. But don't pretend you are interested in refining our corporate understanding of the issues at play because you decided to throw a race card.
 
roguenuke said:
Are you asking me why people enter into civil unions instead of marriages?
Click to expand...

Yes, that and to explain exactly what things about having equal tax and other benefits would make it MORE difficult for those who choose a civil union. Equal to married couples that is.
 
disneydude said:
No....your logic makes YOU look absurd. You are either ok with tradition and terminology or you aren't. You are picking and choosing when and where you want to apply them. If you want to stay with marriage "traditions"......and think that terminology is unchangeable...then you have to accept that it was wrong to legalize inter-racial marriage....afterall....traditions and terminology matter, don't they?
As I suspect.....you are just another hypocrite that is fine to change definitions when you want to....but will cling to "tradition" when it fits your bigoted point of view.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your assessment of me, but whatever. I really couldn't care less. Just quit nagging at me please.
 
cpwill said:
No, you were being a dick. That's fine, if you want to be a jerk. We have a whole basement for it. But don't pretend you are interested in refining our corporate understanding of the issues at play because you decided to throw a race card.
Click to expand...

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But it is absolutely hypocrisy to cry about how important traditions and terms are...and how he should never change a definition of a word.....but ooops.......I mean........only if you are talking about gay stuff......if you are talking about other stuff....well....then....er.......um........well......I guess traditions and terms can change.....what I mean is....well......ah........ok.....no I'm not being hypocritical......you're just being a dick.....LOL.......
 
ChrisL said:
I don't have a problem with SSM, so long as they don't try to change everything about it. Get married and accept it for what it is or isn't.
Click to expand...

No one has changed anything, other than adding the option of spouse to bride and groom.
They were proposing a change, but decided against it.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
I disagree with your assessment of me, but whatever. I really couldn't care less. Just quit nagging at me please.
Click to expand...

You are certainly free to flaunt your hypocrisy....but you aren't free to not have others point out how glaring it is.
 
disneydude said:
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But it is absolutely hypocrisy to cry about how important traditions and terms are...and how he should never change a definition of a word.....but ooops.......I mean........only if you are talking about gay stuff......if you are talking about other stuff....well....then....er.......um........well......I guess traditions and terms can change.....what I mean is....well......ah........ok.....no I'm not being hypocritical......you're just being a dick.....LOL.......
Click to expand...

This is so idiotic. :lamo
 
ChrisL said:
My point is that if a gay couple wants to be married, that is fine. I would not want to deny them that. But when they try to change things about marriage, then it is not marriage that they want at all, and there are people who do not want certain things changed about it, and those people are NO less important if we are talking about true "equality" here.
Click to expand...

It is still marriage. It still functions as a marriage. You and they can still call yourselves "bride/groom", "husband/wife" as appropriate. You can still legally do everything that is an actual part of marriage. The only change is verbiage on one document as opposed to major changes in laws of not only the state you are in but also across the country.

There are people that don't want any change at all. There were people who didn't want it changed to allow interracial couples to marry. There still are. There are people who don't want same sex couples to have any legal recognition and are in fact many who would prefer they be arrested, put in mental homes, or even killed for being together. There are still going to be some people like this after same sex couples are allowed to legally marry. Are their opinions "less important" than the rest of ours and why? (And this would include those who are against interracial marriage?)
 
cpwill said:
Because it further degrades the emphasis on biological parent-pairs forming stable lifelong unions
Click to expand...

That arguement could be used against all adoption-based families.

You decrease the degree to which Marriage has a connection to Family when you so alter its' definition.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. You decrease the degree when you alter the connection. Two lesbians or two gay men can still have the same level of connection with their children as straight couples do.


Yeah, self-selection studies tend to do that.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that the studies I have read are incorrect?

However, I was talking socially, not individually, and we are talking about the public definition of marriage, here, which as of yet, has not experienced this change.
Click to expand...

The People of Washington would like to have a word with you.
 
ChrisL said:
My point is that if a gay couple wants to be married, that is fine. I would not want to deny them that. But when they try to change things about marriage, then it is not marriage that they want at all, and there are people who do not want certain things changed about it, and those people are NO less important if we are talking about true "equality" here.
Click to expand...

What exactly are gay people trying to "change" about marriage? Seriously.
 
roguenuke said:
It is still marriage. It still functions as a marriage. You and they can still call yourselves "bride/groom", "husband/wife" as appropriate. You can still legally do everything that is an actual part of marriage. The only change is verbiage on one document as opposed to major changes in laws of not only the state you are in but also across the country.

There are people that don't want any change at all. There were people who didn't want it changed to allow interracial couples to marry. There still are. There are people who don't want same sex couples to have any legal recognition and are in fact many who would prefer they be arrested, put in mental homes, or even killed for being together. There are still going to be some people like this after same sex couples are allowed to legally marry. Are their opinions "less important" than the rest of ours and why? (And this would include those who are against interracial marriage?)
Click to expand...

Yes, opinions that hurt others and cause feelings of hatred are "less important." The customs and traditions surrounding marriage are in no way meant to denigrate anyone. They are just traditions. I have no problem with SS couples who want to get married and not make changes to marriage itself.

In truth, I really DON'T care that much about the terminology issue in marriage licenses. As I've repeatedly stated that is an example I am using to make a point about certain groups wanting to change things for others.
 
ChrisL said:
Yes, opinions that hurt others and cause feelings of hatred are "less important." The customs and traditions surrounding marriage are in no way meant to denigrate anyone. They are just traditions. I have no problem with SS couples who want to get married and not make changes to marriage itself.

In truth, I really DON'T care that much about the terminology issue in marriage licenses. As I've repeatedly stated that is an example I am using to make a point about certain groups wanting to change things for others.
Click to expand...

What exactly do gay people want to change about marriage?
 
disneydude said:
What exactly are gay people trying to "change" about marriage? Seriously.
Click to expand...

What? Are you trying to talk to me like I'm a human being now? :nails
 
I gotta go. BBL! :)
 
ChrisL said:
What? Are you trying to talk to me like I'm a human being now? :nails
Click to expand...

Never said that you weren't....hypocrites and bigots and everyone else are still Human Beings....

They reality is, you haven't listed a single thing about marriage that gays want to change.
 
ChrisL said:
Yes, that and to explain exactly what things about having equal tax and other benefits would make it MORE difficult for those who choose a civil union. Equal to married couples that is.
Click to expand...

Because there are some people, older people especially, that don't want all the same hassles of marriage, such as the fact that they could be considered legally responsible for certain debts of the other or they have other things in place to cover certain decisions through arrangements made with others but want one person to have certain rights/benefits only available through marriage. This is why civil unions/domestic partnerships were still left open to older couples but same sex couples could choose change theirs straight to legal marriage when it was made legal. Why not just get married if the person is old enough to qualify for such a partnership?

Why force such a big change across the country by making them have separately named contracts covering the same thing? You aren't going to appease everyone with any solution. It is ridiculous to even think you would. There are going to be some who don't agree with your solution. I don't agree with your solution. I consider your solution something that will cost me money, no matter where we relatively live because the federal government would have to change things or at least pass extra legislation just to recognize that other union that is equivalent to marriage vice just changing a couple of laws, if that to become gender neutral (most of the federal laws I've seen are actually gender neutral now though). And every state would have to change to address recognition of civil unions as equivalent to marriage. This all would cost more money than just simply changing verbiage on forms. I am a very money-conscious person. I don't want to spend more money than I have to just because some people don't want to change the way they believe things should stay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom