• 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?


  • Total voters
    99
The law of the land is very simple: Separate but equal is not equal. There is no way around this.
 
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.

No. Certain people's desire to get government out of marriage is a thinly veiled attempt by Christians to take the ball home in a huff so that nobody else can play. Which would almost be acceptable if Christians owned that ball that in the first place. Which they don't.
 
Last edited:
What I said was that gay people should be able to choose between groom/bride, groom/groom, bride/bride, basically any combination of the two. You claim that I said the EXACT opposite. That is just annoying.

I thought what you said is that heteros get the word "marriage," and gays don't. That gays wanting the word "marriage" is "unfair." Did I get that wrong? Mix you up with someone else on this topic?
 
And even if you could make them identical, what exactly then is the point. Marriage in everything but name is marriage, so call it what it is..

The point made by doing it that way would be that those icky homos are not the same as us and do not deserve the same title. Separate but equal is what they are proposing, so even if you take them at their word that the civil unions they are proposing be created for gays would have all the same rights and privileges, it's still wrong.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the gov't should be involved in any way, shape, or form. The only thing the gov't should be involved in is a contract that is voluntarily entered into by any two adults, regardless of sex. This would be used to settle child custody disputes, property disputes, and settle the tax filing issue that is always brought up. The old Justice of the Peace marriages need to go away. Marriage should be conducted by churches and private entities, not by the gov't.
 
10 scariest words in the English language:

"I'm from the government and I'm here to protect marriage".

It's hilarious that many of the same people who think Ronald Reagan is the bees knees are so quick to think of the government as something which can protect marriage. :lol:
 
I would prefer the government separate the legal benefits of a recognized partnership from the religious/ceremonial aspects of the word marriage. Ideally, all couples, whether hetero- or homosexual would be able to have their relationship legally recognized in a civil union or domestic partnership, or whatever term you want to use. The marriage ceremony (if the couple wanted one) could be held anywhere that allowed them to hold the ceremony, and officiated over by any person who was willing to do so, but the ceremony would carry no legal weight.

I'm much less in favor of the idea of civil unions applying to gays and heterosexuals still using the term marriage. Separate but equal very rarely works, because the two things are very rarely equal. As a stepping stone to full equality though, it might be better than what we have now, although I think a better option would be to simply let the states decide if they will allow gays to marry, but pass a law on the national level requiring all states to recognize marriages performed in other states as valid.
 
10 scariest words in the English language:

"I'm from the government and I'm here to protect marriage".

It's hilarious that many of the same people who think Ronald Reagan is the bees knees are so quick to think of the government as something which can protect marriage. :lol:
It's the same people who don't think the government is responsible enough to manage tax money, but is responsible enough to determine the beginning of life (abortion) and facilitate the end of it (death penalty). The same people who think people shouldn't be so "sensitive" about racial epithets because they're "just words", but who think the word "marriage" is sacred.
 
Last edited:
i am against gay marriage morally, but i support equal rights for gays. No matter what you say is against the bible, state and church are not combined. The church should not be running our government. I generally agree with the church on moral grounds surrounding gay marriage, but that does not mean that everybody has to. Human rights are human rights. It is the right of a person to be married, and it should be to whoever they please. Stop whining about how marriage should be between a man and woman and get on with life. Get married how you believe, because you HAVE that right, just like gays SHOULD.
 
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.

You realize that politicians were behind the change of terms and not homosexuals right? And if I remember correctly they ended up changing the terms back.
 
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.

Im sure someone already beat me too this but separate but equal is unconstitutional.
 
First off, I'll say that I could care less if the Fed Govt passes pro-LGBT legislation regarding marriage. Does not affect me one way or the other. I will not campaign for it but I refuse to campaign against it as well. I have a question, however: If passing legislation for SSM rights is the "RIGHT" thing to do.............why is it that so many political leaders at the Federal level (even those on the Left) seem to "shy away" from openly defending it? We have one of the more Liberal Presidents and Supreme Courts in recent history. We've also experienced a Democratic Congress with a super majority within the past five years. We've had arguably the most Left-leaning Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leaders ever...........and yet, we've failed to push SSM legislation through with any real degree of success? Why is this? Why have our political leaders resorted to nothing more effective than ballot initiatives at the state level where most are doomed to fail?


While it's all too easy for the pro-SSM crowd to pass blame directly upon the shoulders of organized churches and on the "religious right" I will propose another theory. The Democratic Party and the political "Left" in general has failed their own base of support. Why?..........Well, for the sake of political expediency of course! Politicians (both Left and Right) are primarily concerned with TWO THINGS only................gaining and maintainting political power. Smart politicians realize that the majority of American voters are still opposed to the Fed Govt. legislating morality inside marriages and bedrooms. Smart politicians know that to take strong stances on such divisive issues is a great way to commit political suicide.

So, my point, in reference to a few earlier posts, is this: While relying on the Fed Govt to "protect" the institution of marriage seems a ridiculous proposition.....................the pro-SSM crowd relying on the Fed Govt to do what they believe is "right" and "humanistically good" is also just as silly a proposition. When are we going to wise up and stop relying on govt to "fix everything" from Capitol Hill or from the bench of the SCOTUS? When dealing with the Fed govt the policy of "hoping for the best but expecting the worst" is generally the safest approach. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
I have no doubt that what I said angers some people against SSM. I'm not worried about that. As far as "denigrating" religious people, I don't seek to do that at all and many religious people have the same views as I do. I want same-sex marriage to be legal and I want gay/bisexual people to be treated equal. If anybody is upset by that and how I present my opinion, oh well.

There's a few reasons I love you TPD, and this is one of them.
 
No, because it's still the government relegating homosexual persons to second-class status. Whether you use the word marriage or union isn't as important as using the same word for both straight and gay couples.
Why would homosexuals want to adopt a tradition that has historically been exclusive to heterosexuals? Wouldn't that in and of itself be demeaning? One would think that they would want to maintain their own identity. To be independent of heterosexual traditions. To also have their own definition of permanent partnership. A stand alone definition.
 
Yay, my first poll is so popular! :D



Any-who, I guess I'll weigh in.

I can see why the Civil Union compromise is sought after in the SSM debate. It satisfies two main points. Gay couples are given the federal benefits and legal recognition as marriage, but the actual term is reserved for the union between one man and one women.

However, this fails due to one simple fact: Having two federally recognized institutions to serve the exact same purpose is perpetrating a separate but equal mindset. Brown vs Board of Education revealed that separate but equal is unconstitutional.
 
First off, I'll say that I could care less if the Fed Govt passes pro-LGBT legislation regarding marriage. Does not affect me one way or the other. I will not campaign for it but I refuse to campaign against it as well. I have a question, however: If passing legislation for SSM rights is the "RIGHT" thing to do.............why is it that so many political leaders at the Federal level (even those on the Left) seem to "shy away" from openly defending it? We have one of the more Liberal Presidents and Supreme Courts in recent history. We've also experienced a Democratic Congress with a super majority within the past five years. We've had arguably the most Left-leaning Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leaders ever...........and yet, we've failed to push SSM legislation through with any real degree of success? Why is this? Why have our political leaders resorted to nothing more effective than ballot initiatives at the state level where most are doomed to fail?

While it's all too easy for the pro-SSM crowd to pass blame directly upon the shoulders of organized churches and on the "religious right" I will propose another theory. The Democratic Party and the political "Left" in general has failed their own base of support. Why?..........Well, for the sake of political expediency of course! Politicians (both Left and Right) are primarily concerned with TWO THINGS only................gaining and maintainting political power. Smart politicians realize that the majority of American voters are still opposed to the Fed Govt. legislating morality inside marriages and bedrooms. Smart politicians know that to take strong stances on such divisive issues is a great way to commit political suicide.

So, my point, in reference to a few earlier posts, is this: While relying on the Fed Govt to "protect" the institution of marriage seems a ridiculous proposition.....................the pro-SSM crowd relying on the Fed Govt to do what they believe is "right" and "humanistically good" is also just as silly a proposition. When are we going to wise up and stop relying on govt to "fix everything" from Capitol Hill or from the bench of the SCOTUS? When dealing with the Fed govt the policy of "hoping for the best but expecting the worst" is generally the safest approach. :shrug:
1. I agree that Democrat politicians never did enough in support of same-sex marriage. For the most part, they started "speaking out" when it because "popular" (for lack of a better word) to do so. This has always been one of my main criticisms of Obama. I always figured he supported, but that he was just too much of a politician (read: coward) to speak up until he felt it was politically safe to do so. I'm happy he finally came out in support of it, but I don't forget his previous official anti-SSM stance. The same goes for Bill Clinton and many other Democrat officials.

2. I think that the Supreme Court needs to deal with SSM, primarily. As a result, I don't have much of a problem with politicians focusing on state rather than federal level legislation. I have, though, wondered why they haven't pushed for legalization of same-sex marriage through Congress directly. I'm sure it's politics as usual. It's only very recently that the majority of the United States supported SSM so they probably didn't feel "safe" pushing for such legislation.

3. As far as relying on the federal government to "fix everything" - everything, in this case, meaning same-sex marriage, I don't see your point. This is a government issue. DOMA was created by the government so the government is the one who has to get rid of it in order for same-sex marriage to be legal. Even in the case of getting government out of marriage altogether, we'd have to go to government so that it could remove itself. In other words, it's not really an issue of going to the government to "fix everything," it's a matter of this issue being a government issue.
 
We are and never will be a country of seperate but equal! We are all equal in America that is called freedom!
 
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.

no because currently no civil union or domestic partnership is equal to marriage, you are granted approx 1400 rights/benefits by marriage and some of them cant be granted any other way. Also civil unions / domestic partnerships have already been defeated in areas marriage as not, property rights, wills, inheritance, etc

"IF" some how they were made equal they would still be a direct slap in the face and a embarrassment, equal was but separate was tried once it failed.
 
Civil unions should be the legal norm for both types of relationships. Marriage should only have religious affiliation.
 
simple question what if the term president of the united states was changed to something else or a new term was used only for black presidents or in the future women presidents, or a different or new title for women CEOs, bosses etc.

SOrry mr Obama we cant call you POTUS, "traditionally" thats never been a man of color and we think a black man holding that title will harm the "sanctity" of it, so we are going to call you CEO of america, then if somebody else wins that is male and white we will go back to calling him POTUS, now mind you, you will still have all the power and responsibility but we just cant call you POTUS.

no thanks thats beyond dumb and to the honesty eye discrimination and insulting.
 
Lump them together, marriage and civil union under "Legally Binding Contract." You only have to be divorced once to understand that marriage is a legally binding contract and the word marriage conceals that fact. If you want Church approval, ask the Church not the voter. In truth, it is all a matter of law and let's keep it in that Court.
 
I'm against limiting reform to civil unions for several but one most important reason. Marriage, as many would say, is a sacred institution, established by religion, that is self-defined as a union between one man and one woman. (Except the widespread practice of polygamy among world religions and through history.) If marriage is to be defined by religion, it has no place in political discourse; it is banned from government policy. Government is not to pass any law respecting religion. But since the institution of marriage is now entrenched as a legal entity, a function of the government, it is utterly divorced from religion; religion cannot have any authority or influence on it. Therefore, barring non-religious objections to it, legalization is the only acceptable course. The only way to challenge it is to challenge separation of church and state, and thus the constitution.
 
Civil unions are a great idea, if they are for all consenting adults Keeping the term marriage is less optimal, but still reasonable if it also offered to everyone. Anything else is a violation of equal protection under the law. People whining about tradition are utter hypocrites given the current legal status of marriage with regards to gender equality and divorce compared to the past, but that misses the larger point: tradition is not an excuse to violate equal protection.
 
I don't think the gov't should be involved in any way, shape, or form. The only thing the gov't should be involved in is a contract that is voluntarily entered into by any two adults, regardless of sex. This would be used to settle child custody disputes, property disputes, and settle the tax filing issue that is always brought up. The old Justice of the Peace marriages need to go away. Marriage should be conducted by churches and private entities, not by the gov't.

What I'm going to need explained to me in the slowest, most patient way possible, is what government having to do with marriage is a problem. Pretend I'm super stupid here. And if you don't have to pretend, all the better!
 
Back
Top Bottom