• 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
Civil; unions are not common ground. Civil unions are creating a separate set of rules so that a few people do not get offended at what others might do, and for zero gain. Civil unions as the OP expresses(which do not exist in this country currently) would be the same as marriage, so you are creating a whole new set of government regulations because you are afraid of having gays sign the same form as you but in every other way being the exact same. Why can't you take responsibility for your own emotional irrationality?

:) If Civil Unions were the exact same thing, then why the heated rejection of them? :)
 
:) If Civil Unions were the exact same thing, then why the heated rejection of them? :)

Because there is no logical reason for the extra set of regulations. Only emotional ones. Note that you are not presenting any logical arguments for them either.
 
:shrug: maybe. The fact remains that those who wrote our laws put that in their because their religious background informed them that it was wrong. You are attempting to declare motive and belief to be somehow illegitimate.

You might have a point if countries based on other religions did not have laws against murder. Turns out they do have such laws however, making laws against things like murder and theft not based on religion.

:shrug: it wouldn't. however, shifting the institution of marriage further from it's basis as the center of the family unit and in the direction of "just a couple of people who love each other" would absolutely make it weaker. Not as bad in the case of SSM as, say, no-fault divorce has done - but that's not really a reason to make it worse.

SSM does not shift marriage further away from a basis as the center of a family unit. Quite the opposite. Hard to believe, but gay people have families and children too.
 
Drop the term marriage in government. And make it all civil unions. This is the only position I would advocate. I would disapprove of gay relationships being called "marriage" because I think the term marriage is a religious term ALWAYS meaning between a man and a women. Since it is a religious term, it has no place in government. You simply can't change a religious definition into a non religious definition by law.

I would also disapprove two individuals not being able to get the same benefits as the current married couples do.

In this set up, I do not see why anyone couldn't get a civil union... even brother and sister, borther and brother, friend and friend, gay lover and gay lover. It is not the governments job to declare what is a relationship and what isn't.
 
Last edited:
Drop the term marriage in government. And make it all civil unions. This is the only position I would advocate. I would disapprove of gay relationships being called "marriage" because

1.) I think the term marriage is a religious term ALWAYS meaning between a man and a women.
2.)Since it is a religious term, it has no place in government.
3.) You simply can't change a religious definition into a non religious definition by law.

1.) you are factually wrong
2.) see above
3.) nobody is doing this.
 
1.) you are factually wrong
2.) see above
3.) nobody is doing this.

Im not factually wrong the marriage laws in this country have been modeled after the christian definition of marriage. It should never of happened, but it did.
 
1.) you are factually wrong
2.) see above
3.) nobody is doing this.
When the marriage laws were in place, the very definition of marriage was between a man and a women. That was the meaning of the word. Look it up in a dictionary right now and it will say the same thing. Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

All the perks in marriage of today is based on the Christian definition of marriage and family. The perks were engineered specifically for it.

Why, if you are redefining it do you choose all the same perks? Why can't more then one person? borthers and sisters? Why play favorites with only this kind of relationship?

The current form of marriage DID play favorites in every aspect of it. If you truly wanted it to be equal you should make these benefit's available to any two or more persons. And only the term civil union accurately describes this, because the term marriage is a very specific thing.
 
Last edited:
When the marriage laws were in place, the very definition of marriage was between a man and a women. That was the meaning of the word. Look it up in a dictionary right now and it will say the same thing. Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

All the perks in marriage of today is based on the Christian definition of marriage and family. The perks were engineered specifically for it.

Why, if you are redefining it do you choose all the same perks? Why can't more then one person? borthers and sisters? Why play favorites with only this kind of relationship?

The current form of marriage DID play favorites in every aspect of it. If you truly wanted it to be equal you should make these benefit's available to any two or more persons. And only the term civil union accurately describes this, because the term marriage is a very specific thing.

From your link.
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
 
When the marriage laws were in place, the very definition of marriage was between a man and a women. That was the meaning of the word. Look it up in a dictionary right now and it will say the same thing. Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

All the perks in marriage of today is based on the Christian definition of marriage and family. The perks were engineered specifically for it.

Why, if you are redefining it do you choose all the same perks? Why can't more then one person? borthers and sisters? Why play favorites with only this kind of relationship?

The current form of marriage DID play favorites in every aspect of it. If you truly wanted it to be equal you should make these benefit's available to any two or more persons. And only the term civil union accurately describes this, because the term marriage is a very specific thing.

Really? Where is the bible does it talk about tax breaks for being married? Or is that not a perk?
 
I keep seeing posts that seem to say, "If Civil Unions are the same thing, then what's the big deal?"

I agree . . . from now on there should be no more marriage for heterosexuals . . . they too should accept Civil Unions . . . after all, it's the same thing.
 
Really? Where is the bible does it talk about tax breaks for being married? Or is that not a perk?

There shouldn't be tax breaks for being married, since that is preferential treatment.
 
Drop the term marriage in government. And make it all civil unions. This is the only position I would advocate. I would disapprove of gay relationships being called "marriage" because I think the term marriage is a religious term ALWAYS meaning between a man and a women. Since it is a religious term, it has no place in government. You simply can't change a religious definition into a non religious definition by law.

I would also disapprove two individuals not being able to get the same benefits as the current married couples do.

In this set up, I do not see why anyone couldn't get a civil union... even brother and sister, borther and brother, friend and friend, gay lover and gay lover. It is not the governments job to declare what is a relationship and what isn't.
I hate to break it to you....but even if you make the word "marriage" a "religious" term....there are plenty of churches willing to marry gay men and gay women. And...btw....you need to read up on your religion. Marriage has had many definitions over the years and has not always meant between a man and a woman.
 
There shouldn't be tax breaks for being married, since that is preferential treatment.

Whether there should be or not is irrelevant. It is one of literally hundreds and hundreds of federal benefits of being married, and those benefits are not based on religion.
 
Really? Where is the bible does it talk about tax breaks for being married? Or is that not a perk?

Nowhere... and I didnt say it did. All the perks in marriage are based on the traditional thought of the happy christian family. It wasn't based on a polygomy, it wasn't based on two gay couples, it wasn't based on a open relationship, it wasn't based on a muslim marriage, it wasn't based on some random cults idea of marriage, nor a friendship, or family tie, it wasn't based on any other possible relationship BUT the traditional christian marriage. This is something you can't really deny. And why didn't you answer any of my questions?

Im not even christian myself, but this is something so obvious. All you guys seem to want to do is rub it in Christians faces.
 
Last edited:
I hate to break it to you....but even if you make the word "marriage" a "religious" term....there are plenty of churches willing to marry gay men and gay women. And...btw....you need to read up on your religion. Marriage has had many definitions over the years and has not always meant between a man and a woman.

No, in the U.S. it has always meant between a man and a women... No matter how much you wish it not be true, this is the facts. And why didn't you answer any of my questions?
 
No, in the U.S. it has always meant between a man and a women... No matter how much you wish it not be true, this is the facts.

Your post I was referring to said nothing about the US. Regardless. There are plenty of churches here that would marry gay people even if the word "marriage" were left to religion alone.
 
Yea, you had to go to the third definition... do you think that existed when the marriage laws were in place?

Actually the second AND the third.

Marriage laws have changed repeatedly since the first laws were put in place.
 
Actually the second AND the third.

Marriage laws have changed repeatedly since the first laws were put in place.
Not the actual definition... this is incorrect. The perks and laws around rights have changed, but the definition has stayed the same. And the first definition is the one that describes the one that has been used, and the other two arn't specific, but generic definitions like walking: to walk. ALl your trying to do is just throw out "GOTCHYAS", but they arn't working and don't contribute to the conversation.
 
Your post I was referring to said nothing about the US. Regardless. There are plenty of churches here that would marry gay people even if the word "marriage" were left to religion alone.
Im not concern with the churches I am concern with the definition of marriage. Current churches can't redefine what marriage means in law. AND it's unconstitutional to have religious unions be recognized by government.
 
Your post I was referring to said nothing about the US. Regardless. There are plenty of churches here that would marry gay people even if the word "marriage" were left to religion alone.
And I ask you again, you are labeling this thing called marriage in our government... Why?

You are playing favorites, why can't anyone enjoy benefits between any two or more consenting adults? Who is the government and who are you to define what is a relationship that is viable to have these perks?
 
Government should not be involved in any sort of marriage. Nothing. Civil Unions should be used for homosexual or heterosexual couples only for tax purposes. Marriage should be left where it started...the churches.
 
Not the actual definition... this is incorrect. The perks and laws around rights have changed, but the definition has stayed the same. And the first definition is the one that describes the one that has been used, and the other two arn't specific, but generic definitions like walking: to walk. ALl your trying to do is just throw out "GOTCHYAS", but they arn't working and don't contribute to the conversation.

Try the new edition of Blacks law dictionary. It includes SSM too.

Words change meaning over time. Besides, I'm not redefining YOUR marriage, you can still consider marriage as only between a man and his bought and paid for property if you choose. What you think of my marriage has no meaning to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom