• 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
ThePlayDrive said:
Do you realize that nobody (that I've seen) has said that, but you? For goodness sake, dude. You're being your own worst enemy here.
Click to expand...

heh...now this I enjoy..playdrive doesnt matter what you have seen...its all about what ive seen with me..whether or not you have seen anything is not of a concern to me. I have a memory that is long...and I even have pages of notes with dates and the statement made written down...only for my reference.
 
Redress said:
You still have not explained how SSM will fundamentally change marriage. Why can't you answer the question?
Click to expand...

I will not address anything that twists my intent
 
lpast said:
ROFLMAO...oh you are going away and right now...OMG clax you truly made my day...lol
Click to expand...

Forget the haters, and enough of the defensive stuff, I really don't care if you are a "homophobe" whatever that means, but earlier you said you were not anti gay, than in a complete change of character you did a180. Just can't figure out who I am taking to.
 
lpast said:
heh...now this I enjoy..playdrive doesnt matter what you have seen...its all about what ive seen with me..whether or not you have seen anything is not of a concern to me. I have a memory that is long...and I even have pages of notes with dates and the statement made written down...only for my reference.
Click to expand...
CLAX1911 has been here only since November and he obviously hasn't called you a bigot or homophobe, so what you've seen is irrelevant. You're doing what you always do in this threads - whining about how people mistreat you before anybody has mistreated to in order to play the victim.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Playdrive, lpast.... cease fire gentlemen. You're pushing the envelope pretty hard here...
 
No. Separate but equal is NEVER an acceptable compromise. Its funny how the people who are the most "supportive" of civil unions are the same ones that 5 years ago were completely against them. Now that gay marriage is an inevitable reality, all of a sudden they are all in favor of civil unions. Well...you know what. We don't want your table scraps. You can take your civil unions and shove them up your ass. Gay marriage will soon be legal across the land and America will finally be closer to its promise of "Freedom and justice for all".
 
Goshin said:
Moderator's Warning:
Playdrive, lpast.... cease fire gentlemen. You're pushing the envelope pretty hard here...
Click to expand...

Ok...I may have missed something but I thought I was being very civil :)
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Do you realize that nobody (that I've seen) has said that, but you? For goodness sake, dude. You're being your own worst enemy here.
Click to expand...

You may need glass's you should get a yearly eye exam..:)
 
digsbe said:
I think it is a good compromise. It allows homosexuals to have the legal benefits of marriage without redefining marriage for those who have moral issues with homosexual relationships qualifying as a marriage.
Click to expand...
When is it ever ok to define anyone elses most intimate personal relationships based on the beliefs of a few bigots? We recognized this not in the too distant past with inter-racial marriage and will soon recognize it with gay marriage.
 
Redress said:
You still have not explained how SSM will fundamentally change marriage. Why can't you answer the question?
Click to expand...

You should be able to assume by now that I wont either...it wont work redress :)
 
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...

Seperate but equal is not equal.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Right. I wasn't joking in the mod box above... the ongoing exchanges of little personal digs WILL cease. One way or another. That goes for all.
 
disneydude said:
We don't want your table scraps.
Click to expand...
This is how I tend to see civil unions. It's as if those who offer and support them are patting gay/bisexual people on the head and saying, "here, be satisfied with these scraps." Civil unions are, in my opinion, a very condescending effort a "compromise."
 
Gipper said:
I'd like to see it as "separate but equal", but that phrase itself carries some stigma to it.

I'd also be more inclined to go with that if atheists were only allowed civil unions and not marriages.
Click to expand...

What does religion have anything to do with marriage?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
This is how I tend to see civil unions. It's as if those who offer and support them are patting gay/bisexual people on the head and saying, "here, be satisfied with these scraps." Civil unions are, in my opinion, a very condescending effort a "compromise."
Click to expand...

EXACTLY.....and those that are pushing them are the same people who were completely against them until gay marriage became an inevitable reality. Now they are desperately trying to push civil unions. Uh.....Thanks.....but no Thanks.
 
RepublicanMcDuc said:
This has little to do with anyone's daddy issues and everything to do with everyone's right to equal protection
Click to expand...

No, that is already legally available to them, and would be made easily so under the Civil Unions compromise, which you will note is being explicitly rejected. This isn't about a rights. It's about a name.

You obviously refuse to see how this is government discrimination.
Click to expand...

Not at all. For the government to issue marriage licenses requires that the government define the qualifications for those licenses, meaning that discrimination is inherent in the deed of issuance. To define something is to place borders around it, to say "this, but not that, that but not this".

By telling gays they can't get married, you are doing them real harm.
Click to expand...

Not at all. They are exactly where I found them when I do so.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Honestly instead of knee jerk reaction learn about us. You don't have to accept us you can even think we are gross, but we are just people, just like anybody else.
Click to expand...

No knee jerk here - I came to this conclusion from experience, direct and virtual, as well as the application of sound logic.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
What does religion have anything to do with marriage?
Click to expand...

Well...according to those that are religious (and against homosexuality)....EVERYTHING. Remember? Marriage is a a religious rite according to them. To paraphrase "Gays should not be allowed to violate the sanctity of marriage because God deems that homosexuality is a sin!"
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Who says there is one? Why does have to be a single institution by which our society thrives?
Click to expand...

History 101: If there is no central institution from which a common set of values extends across the broad spectrum of society, then that society will become a set of competing tribes engaged in a zero-sum struggle for power, and will turn on itself. A house divided will not stand.
 
cpwill said:
No, that is already legally available to them, and would be made easily so under the Civil Unions compromise, which you will note is being explicitly rejected. This isn't about a rights. It's about a name.
Click to expand...

I remember in the not too distant past Gays in California were willing to compromise and accept Civil Unions. The Mayor of some city started performing them and a bunch of people got pissed and got the court to annul those unions. After that...why should they just accept civil unions now? Its obvious that the only reason that they are being offered it now is because gay marriage is becoming a reality and those against gay marriage want some way to keep the word marriage for themselves.

So you're right. It IS about a name. Only it wasn't homosexuals that started it. They are just going to finish it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I remember in the not too distant past Gays in California were willing to compromise and accept Civil Unions. The Mayor of some city started performing them and a bunch of people got pissed and got the court to annul those unions. After that...why should they just accept civil unions now?
Click to expand...

Because other than the emotional charge, the situation has not changed. What was wise then is wise now.
 
lpast said:
You should be able to assume by now that I wont either...it wont work redress :)
Click to expand...

This is what I don't understand. You say people are twisting your words yet when given an opportunity to explain your position you refuse.
 
cpwill said:
Because marriage is the central institution by which our society thrives and survives, and weakening it's structures results in a weakening of our ability to do so.
Click to expand...
And just how does altering the criterion necessary for marriage weaken the institution itself? Will gays somehow weaken the foundations of heterosexual relationships by their mere inclusion? Sounds like a purely emotional plea on it's face.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom