• 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
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.
That's not History 101. That's your perception of how society works. Your perception is flawed for two reasons: 1) It could be legitimately argued that our "house" is divided in many ways and that there are already "sets of competing tribes." 2) There could be many things other than a "central institution" that unites people or, at the very least, keeps them from harming one another.
 
Because other than the emotional charge, the situation has not changed. What was wise then is wise now.

Oh joy, an appeal to tradition. Tradition =/= wise.

And yes. The situation did change. It went from gays willing to compromise to being shown that compromise was not an option. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Those against gay marriage were also against civil unions. Now they are for it (willing to compromise) and the gays are not willing to compromise. Because they were shown that if it were up to those against them then they wouldn't get anything.
 
Oh joy, an appeal to tradition. Tradition =/= wise.

In many things, certainly. Tradition is simply the accumulation of what people who lived before us have found to have worked best. A sort of Democracy that is not limited to the living.

And yes. The situation did change. It went from gays willing to compromise to being shown that compromise was not an option

that is incorrect. compromise is explicitly an option, and even more explicitly an option in this thread.
 
That's not History 101. That's your perception of how society works.

no, that's fairly basic.

1) It could be legitimately argued that our "house" is divided in many ways and that there are already "sets of competing tribes."

that is correct, it could be. The argument would, however, still fall flat. We are not yet that far gone.

2) There could be many things other than a "central institution" that unites people or, at the very least, keeps them from harming one another.

History has demonstrated this to be incorrect. The institution does not have to be organic (for example, Tito kept the tribes of his area from attacking each other through the imposition of totalitarian dictatorship), but it does have to be there.
 
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.



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".



Not at all. They are exactly where I found them when I do so.

Would civil unions have been an acceptable compromise to the interracial marriage debate?
 
what people who lived before us have found to have worked best.
Correct: Tradition is simply the accumulation of what [some of the usually small, but powerful] people who lived before us and [who lived in different times, in different societies, with less knowledge] have to have worked best [for some of them].

compromise is explicitly an option, and even more explicitly an option in this thread.
At this point, it's mostly an option only in the minds of those who are losing the battle over SSM.
 
At this point, it's mostly an option only in the minds of those who are losing the battle over SSM.

:) That is generally the way of it. Those who are more confident in their power tend to believe in pushing conflict to the bitter end, and those who are less so tend to believe in finding common ground.
 
no, that's fairly basic.

that is correct, it could be. The argument would, however, still fall flat. We are not yet that far gone.

History has demonstrated this to be incorrect. The institution does not have to be organic (for example, Tito kept the tribes of his area from attacking each other through the imposition of totalitarian dictatorship), but it does have to be there.
1. No, that's your perception.

2. No, the argument would not fall flat. For the most part, the notion that millions of people are united by a single institution or concept is a myth.

3. No, your perception of history leads you to believe that that argument is incorrect. There does not have to be a central institution that keeps people together.
 
:) That is generally the way of it. Those who are more confident in their power tend to believe in pushing conflict to the bitter end, and those who are less so tend to believe in finding common ground.
I'm glad you're honest about that.
 
I'm glad you're honest about that.

:shrug: hey man, power is power. That's why Europeans want the US to have it's foreign policy subject to some form of external veto, and the US wants free reign to do as it pleases. One has power and the other doesn't.
 
In many things, certainly. Tradition is simply the accumulation of what people who lived before us have found to have worked best. A sort of Democracy that is not limited to the living.

What once "worked best" does not mean that it is best for here and now.

that is incorrect. compromise is explicitly an option, and even more explicitly an option in this thread.

Just because a compromise is available does not mean that it should be used. Particularly when if the shoe was on the other foot the other side never would have compromised.
 
What once "worked best" does not mean that it is best for here and now.

I cannot think of any example where sociologically, when a door opened . . . that it ever shut again. Tattoos were once thought to be a deviant practice carried out only by convicts and sailors. Now-a-days, if a chick don't have a tramp stamp something is wrong. Remember when gays had to live in the closet? Think that is coming back anytime soon? Or will the door continue to open?

Just because a compromise is available does not mean that it should be used. Particularly when if the shoe was on the other foot the other side never would have compromised.

Here's a compromise . . . all those people against gay marriage get the first 230-years-or-so of the country without gay marriage . . . the rest of us get gay marriage for the next 230-years. Deal? Some people are going to look stupid in 40-years, and most will deny they were ever against it.
 
DiavoTheMiavo said:
Here's a compromise . . . all those people against gay marriage get the first 230-years-or-so of the country without gay marriage . . . the rest of us get gay marriage for the next 230-years. Deal? Some people are going to look stupid in 40-years, and most will deny they were ever against it.

I couldn't give a damn, personally. It only starts becoming a problem when people start viewing marriage as a "right".
 
I couldn't give a damn, personally. It only starts becoming a problem when people start viewing marriage as a "right".

SCOZTUS has said marriage is a right.
 
I cannot think of any example where sociologically, when a door opened . . . that it ever shut again. Tattoos were once thought to be a deviant practice carried out only by convicts and sailors. Now-a-days, if a chick don't have a tramp stamp something is wrong. Remember when gays had to live in the closet? Think that is coming back anytime soon? Or will the door continue to open?



Here's a compromise . . . all those people against gay marriage get the first 230-years-or-so of the country without gay marriage . . . the rest of us get gay marriage for the next 230-years. Deal? Some people are going to look stupid in 40-years, and most will deny they were ever against it.

Again, and a better example, The general intelligence of the DP panel is close to that of our Supreme Court, and far better than that of Congress.
 
winston53660 said:
SCOZTUS has said marriage is a right.

I've googled "Supreme Court marriage right" - and saw zero headlines that talked about it being a right. I've seen umpteen articles saying that they can and will hear cases involving gay/SSM. However, at no point did I see a statement from SCOTUS saying that "marriage is a right".

It's just viewed as a "right" by a lot of people who think that every damned thing today is a "right". It's as if America has forgotten the definition of "privilege".
 
I've googled "Supreme Court marriage right" - and saw zero headlines that talked about it being a right. I've seen umpteen articles saying that they can and will hear cases involving gay/SSM. However, at no point did I see a statement from SCOTUS saying that "marriage is a right".

It's just viewed as a "right" by a lot of people who think that every damned thing today is a "right". It's as if America has forgotten the definition of "privilege".

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"

Loving v. Virginia
 
I've googled "Supreme Court marriage right" - and saw zero headlines that talked about it being a right. I've seen umpteen articles saying that they can and will hear cases involving gay/SSM. However, at no point did I see a statement from SCOTUS saying that "marriage is a right".

It's just viewed as a "right" by a lot of people who think that every damned thing today is a "right". It's as if America has forgotten the definition of "privilege".

So marriage is a privelege that the state grants to whom it wants? I tend to be of the belief that its absolutely none of their business. We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Religionists using the state's muscle to provide special priveleges to some citizens that they deny to others is inherently immoral, and certainly out of the scope of government's power granted by the constitution.
 
I've googled "Supreme Court marriage right" - and saw zero headlines that talked about it being a right.
Really? I goggled the same phrase and the first two results mentioned it.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So marriage is a privelege that the state grants to whom it wants? I tend to be of the belief that its absolutely none of their business. We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Religionists using the state's muscle to provide special priveleges to some citizens that they deny to others is inherently immoral, and certainly out of the scope of government's power granted by the constitution.

States have a funny way of showing what they think is and is not their business. Here in Alabama, there is no lottery, and all forms of gambling-based games are illegal. In multiple counties in this state, they're "dry". Alcohol cannot be sold within county lines, and it is illegal to possess even in ways that's legal anywhere else.

Do I think that states should legislate morality? No, of course not. However, I'm not going to get on a soapbox and say it's my "right" to go and have a beer at any place I want, or to buy a scratch-off at the local convenience store because I suddenly feel the need to.
 
Back
Top Bottom