• 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
I'm all for equality, but I am certainly NOT for specific groups getting "special privileges" such as being able to change the wording on marriage certificates because of . . . . ??? I don't even know why.
 
Gays have as much a right to a religious ceremony as anyone else. Thus, no, "civil" union is not the same.
 
If they want to change the concept of marriage to suit them, then I would vote for civil unions. That way everyone gets what they want. If they want a "marriage" then that is fine too, but if they want some special considerations, then civil unions it is. And NO marriage is NOT just a contract between 2 people. It is MUCH more than that.
 
lpast said:
So no more wife and husband...lol...ok
Click to expand...

Yes and no

No more "Wife and Husband" in a LEGAL sense

There's nothing stopping the words from being used in a soceital/cultural/private enterprise sense what so ever.

Just like the word marriage wouldn't magically vanish simply because the government doesn't call it a marriage anymore. Those that want to call themselves "married" still could, those that want to get "married" in the eyes of their church still can, etc.

Just like today a gay couple can still call themselves "Husband" or "wife" and "married" even if the state doesn't recognize it, they just can't say it in a legal fashion.
 
joko104 said:
Gays have as much a right to a religious ceremony as anyone else. Thus, no, "civil" union is not the same.
Click to expand...

Sure they do, until they want to change it suit them. Then, instead of changing it for everyone else, they should be unselfish and go for civil unions.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes and no

No more "Wife and Husband" in a LEGAL sense

There's nothing stopping the words from being used in a soceital/cultural/private enterprise sense what so ever.

Just like the word marriage wouldn't magically vanish simply because the government doesn't call it a marriage anymore. Those that want to call themselves "married" still could, those that want to get "married" in the eyes of their church still can, etc.

Just like today a gay couple can still call themselves "Husband" or "wife" and "married" even if the state doesn't recognize it, they just can't say it in a legal fashion.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree.
 
digsbe said:
Marriage is societal
Click to expand...

It's PARTIALY societal.

It's also partially legal.

The part that's societal, I don't rightly care about. If people in society don't want to view a homosexual couple as "married" then that's their perogative. If they don't want to view a lesbians partner her "wife", so be it. I don't care.

But LEGALY, scoietal norms, mainstream beliefs, and irrational fears of it growing into something else don't override the constitutional issue reguiring equal protectoin under the law.
 
Equal protection under the law? Fine. Changing the wording and concepts of marriage? Nope. Then they can have a civil union because they obviously don't really want a "marriage."
 
ChrisL said:
For the record, I am not against gay marriage. I AM against them trying to change marriage to feed politically correct bull crap. If they want to have a "marriage" then they can have a marriage, just like everyone else, bride/groom and/or husband/wife. They should NOT have the right to change things to fit them. If that is what they want, then they should be ALL for civil unions which could be worded and defined the way they wish. However, when gay people claim they want "marriage" but then try to change certain aspects of it, they are only trying to agitate IMO. Why rock the boat? For vengeance? Sounds like it.
Click to expand...

So you're in favor of allowing two men or two women to be married under the law, with one simply taking the legal definition of the "husband" and one the legal definition of the "wife" in the coupling? Is that what you'r esuggesting?
 
Zyphlin said:
It's PARTIALY societal.It's also partially legal.The part that's societal, I don't rightly care about. If people in society don't want to view a homosexual couple as "married" then that's their perogative. If they don't want to view a lesbians partner her "wife", so be it. I don't care.But LEGALY, scoietal norms, mainstream beliefs, and irrational fears of it growing into something else don't override the constitutional issue reguiring equal protectoin under the law.
Click to expand...
I tried to "like" your post, but the button isn't showing up, so I'll just say that I like it instead.
 
ChrisL said:
Sure they do, until they want to change it suit them. Then, instead of changing it for everyone else, they should be unselfish and go for civil unions.
Click to expand...

??? Be unselfish? I don't even understand that. Why don't straight couples be "unselfish" and everyone go for "civil unions" in relation to the government? I think that "selfishness" has little to do with it. "Civil" inherently means "not spiritual." The government shouldn't be in spiritual matters anyway.
 
Zyphlin said:
So you're in favor of allowing two men or two women to be married under the law, with one simply taking the legal definition of the "husband" and one the legal definition of the "wife" in the coupling? Is that what you'r esuggesting?
Click to expand...

They can take any combination of the groom/bride, husband/wife that they choose. If they both want to be "wife" or both want to be "husband"? That's fine by me, but when you want to CHANGE marriage, then you don't really want a MARRIAGE. You want a civil union or your OWN definition of marriage.
 
joko104 said:
??? Be unselfish? I don't even understand that. Why don't straight couples be "unselfish" and everyone go for "civil unions" in relation to the government? I think that "selfishness" has little to do with it. "Civil" inherently means "not spiritual." The government shouldn't be in spiritual matters anyway.
Click to expand...

Because marriage has meaning to some people beyond a civil union, and the terms and concepts behind it reflect that. The government doesn't have to be involved in spiritual matters.
 
joko104 said:
Gays have as much a right to a religious ceremony as anyone else. Thus, no, "civil" union is not the same.
Click to expand...

Women and men are inherently unequal and do not have the same rights as each other
 
Zyphlin said:
It's PARTIALY societal.

It's also partially legal.

The part that's societal, I don't rightly care about. If people in society don't want to view a homosexual couple as "married" then that's their perogative. If they don't want to view a lesbians partner her "wife", so be it. I don't care.

But LEGALY, scoietal norms, mainstream beliefs, and irrational fears of it growing into something else don't override the constitutional issue reguiring equal protectoin under the law.
Click to expand...

I don't see any legal basis as the Constitution is written now that demands that homosexual marriages be recognized to comply with Constitutional law, it would take an amendment to do so in my opinion. Until that happens the legal regulation of marriage is up to the states and the states may regulate marriage via state constitutional amendments to define marriage (as many have) or by state legislatures doing so.
 
joko104 said:
??? Be unselfish? I don't even understand that. Why don't straight couples be "unselfish" and everyone go for "civil unions" in relation to the government? I think that "selfishness" has little to do with it. "Civil" inherently means "not spiritual." The government shouldn't be in spiritual matters anyway.
Click to expand...

It's selfish in the fact that they want to change terms and concepts in order to suit themselves and to hell with what anyone else feels about marriage (which is VERY important to many people), when they can accept equality in the form of civil unions. That way, people who value marriage and the terms and concepts that go with that can be happy, and the gay people can reside with their partners legally and with all of the same benefits of a marriage but just without the term "marriage."

Again, if they want to change the concept of marriage, then they really want a civil union and not a marriage at all.
 
ChrisL said:
Equal protection under the law? Fine. Changing the wording and concepts of marriage? Nope. Then they can have a civil union because they obviously don't really want a "marriage."
Click to expand...

Yes, equal protection under the law. The Current law allows for Men to do something women can't do, and women to do something men can't do. Simple objection to changing the LEGAL DEFINITION is not a relevant reason for allowing an unconstitutional legal definition to remain on the books.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes and no

No more "Wife and Husband" in a LEGAL sense

There's nothing stopping the words from being used in a soceital/cultural/private enterprise sense what so ever.

Just like the word marriage wouldn't magically vanish simply because the government doesn't call it a marriage anymore. Those that want to call themselves "married" still could, those that want to get "married" in the eyes of their church still can, etc.

Just like today a gay couple can still call themselves "Husband" or "wife" and "married" even if the state doesn't recognize it, they just can't say it in a legal fashion.
Click to expand...

I say horse**** to that sorry...The world does not have to change because a few insist...there is such a thing as equality and such a thing as bending and conforming to the NORM also...you not only want the majority to give you what you consider to be equality you want them to STFU and word it..change it..mold it...to exactly what you want...and to that I say pfffffffft.
You dont want the rest of us to accept equality...you are not satifisfied now with merely getting married..marriage now has to be exactly they way you want it to be and written the way you want it to be...and they want to continue to denigrate what they hate the most...religion...65% of the country believes in god and religion and they dont want reference to that either ?
There is an old saying...you shot your wad.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes, equal protection under the law. The Current law allows for Men to do something women can't do, and women to do something men can't do. Simple objection to changing the LEGAL DEFINITION is not a relevant reason for allowing an unconstitutional legal definition to remain on the books.
Click to expand...

How is it unconstitutional? If we allow gays to unite in a manner that would be the same as marriage except with a different name, there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
 
lpast said:
I say horse**** to that sorry...The world does not have to change because a few insist...there is such a thing as equality and such a thing as bending and conforming to the NORM also...you not only want the majority to give you what you consider to be equality you want them to STFU and word it..change it..mold it...to exactly what you want...and to that I say pfffffffft.
You dont want the rest of us to accept equality...you are not satifisfied now with merely getting married..marriage now has to be exactly they way you want it to be and written the way you want it to be...and they want to continue to denigrate what they hate the most...religion...65% of the country believes in god and religion and they dont want reference to that either ?
There is an old saying...you shot your wad.
Click to expand...

I agree, this is about hatred for everything religious and "getting even" IMO. It is absolutely despicable IMO.
 
ChrisL said:
They can take any combination of the groom/bride, husband/wife that they choose. If they both want to be "wife" or both want to be "husband"? That's fine by me, but when you want to CHANGE marriage, then you don't really want a MARRIAGE. You want a civil union or your OWN definition of marriage.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree with this entirely. IF the term marriage stays on the books, let it stay, and let them both either simply take "husband" or "wife". I don't see much point in changing it to "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2" like we're suddenly in a Doctor Seuss book. To me, there's no compelling constitutional reason why the "wife" and "husband" designations would need to change if marriage was allowable to any 2 adult individuals.

My suggestion was based around the notion that people are stringent about no homosexuals being "married" under the eyes of Government, and thus removing "marriage" as a government term entirely (so they don't have to fear homosexuals being "married" while making sure it's not a seperate but equal issue) and simply using civil unions. In such a situation, I think more generic terms for each individual would be more appropriate.

But absolutely...if we legalized "marriage" for any two individuals I see no reason why some new designation bsides "wife/bride" and "husband/groom" is needed. Have two wives or two husbands.
 
Zyphlin said:
Oh, I agree with this entirely. IF the term marriage stays on the books, let it stay, and let them both either simply take "husband" or "wife". I don't see much point in changing it to "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2" like we're suddenly in a Doctor Seuss book. To me, there's no compelling constitutional reason why the "wife" and "husband" designations would need to change if marriage was allowable to any 2 adult individuals.

My suggestion was based around the notion that people are stringent about no homosexuals being "married" under the eyes of Government, and thus removing "marriage" as a government term entirely (so they don't have to fear homosexuals being "married" while making sure it's not a seperate but equal issue) and simply using civil unions. In such a situation, I think more generic terms for each individual would be more appropriate.

But absolutely...if we legalized "marriage" for any two individuals I see no reason why some new designation bsides "wife/bride" and "husband/groom" is needed. Have two wives or two husbands.
Click to expand...

Agreed. You know, I just feel like if they want "marriage" then "marriage" is what they will get. They don't get to change marriage to make themselves happy. If they want something else, then they should be more supportive of civil unions.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
One of the common arugements I've seen from social conservatives is that the creation of a civil union should answer the questions regarding gay marriage.

Typically, the general idea is this:

  • The civil union will contain the same benefits as a heterosexual marriage
  • The term 'marriage' will only be recognized as between one man and one woman

So, dear reader, my question to you is: Are civil unions an acceptable compromise with regards to the issue of Same-Sex marriage?

I'll try to have the answers as applicable as possible.
Click to expand...
No, they are not: Either give "Marriage" or nothing at all. No half measures.
 
digsbe said:
I don't see any legal basis as the Constitution is written now that demands that homosexual marriages be recognized to comply with Constitutional law
Click to expand...

Where did I say anything about "homosexual marriage" specifically? I've been talking about same sex marriage. Ones sexual preference is irrelevant to me in terms of constitutionality for this. While its true the vast majortiy of same sex people that want to be married are homosexual, that's not the basis for my argument.

A man can marry a woman.

A woman can not marry a woman.

A man, thus, is given a privledge legally that a woman is denied.

As such, that discrimination needs to be shown to be substantially related to serving an important state interest. I have not been presented any state interest that would rise to that level in my opinion.
 
ChrisL said:
How is it unconstitutional? If we allow gays to unite in a manner that would be the same as marriage except with a different name, there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
Click to expand...

Well, first, again my argument was not based on "gays" but on gender.

Having two seperate laws that do the same thing, but calling them different things, for a male and a female is the government implementing "seperate but equal" standards within the law.

If a man marries a woman he gets to be "married". If a woman marries a woman they get to be in a "civil union". They both do the same thing (equal) but are called different things (seperate).

That's problematic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom