• 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
Can a Man marry multiple women? NO

Can two family members marry? NO

These groups of consensual adults do not have equal rights to other consensual adults.

This all comes down to you and the government having NO PLACE defining who can participate in a marriage! Because it is subjective.

NOBODY can marry multiple people.
NOBODY can marry family members.

NO CONSENSUAL ADULTS can marry multiple people or family members genius LMAO

and thats why your example fails because they factually do have the same rights LOL
 
they do have the same rights thats why you fail

Another thing why this argument fails again...

When Gay men had marriage banned.

They still had the "same" rights as every other male. It just wasn't to their liking, because two consensual adults have a right to have a marriage contract with whoever they want too, because it ought to be equal for EVERYONE!
 
NOBODY can marry multiple people.
NOBODY can marry family members.

NO CONSENSUAL ADULTS can merry multiple people or family members genius LMAO

and thats why your example fails because they factually do have the same rights LOL

AGAIN,

when marriage was banned

NOBODY could marry the same sex.

you keep using this same failed argument... IT DOESNT WORK, try something else that you haven't had shot down

"NO CONSENSUAL ADULTS can marry multiple people or family members genius LMAO", I am not debating whether they can or can't.... I am debating whether they should have an equal rights too or not.
 
Last edited:
they dont fit because they arent being denied anything, they are already equal under the law if we are talking about family members

Gay people were also, "equal", under the law. They were allowed to marry anyone from the opposite sex... which was the same for everyone.
 
Another thing why this argument fails again...

When Gay men had marriage banned.

They still had the "same" rights as every other male. It just wasn't to their liking, because two consensual adults have a right to have a marriage contract with whoever they want too, because it ought to be equal for EVERYONE!

but not every other female :D maybe youll finally catch on to this common sense and by granting that EVERYONE would have equal rights.
 
AGAIN,

when marriage was banned

1.)NOBODY could marry the same sex.

2.)you keep using this same failed argument... IT DOESNT WORK, try something else that you haven't had shot down

3.)"NO CONSENSUAL ADULTS can merry multiple people or family members genius LMAO", I am not debating whether they can or can't.... I am debating whether they should have an equal right too or not.

yes but men could marry women and women cant
its not failed at all you simply arent educated on the subject enough to get it LOL its a FACT whether you agree or not it works perfectly and facts and history still prove that you have said NOTHING to change that lol
3.) it wouldnt be an EQUAL right then if nobody can do it LMAO

and this is exactly why you have no clue what equal rights are, if nobody has that right now nobody is being denied anything and thats not fight for equality LOL

WOW this is sooo funny
 
please elaborate... or I'm afraid you have nothing to contribute to the discussion...:ssst:

No need to elebrorate, it was explained perfectly and I don't have time for ignorance and games, sorry buddy I'll just watch you continue to get beatdown.
 
but not every other female :D maybe youll finally catch on to this common sense and by granting that EVERYONE would have equal rights.

Yes, they did... the law was that you could marry the opposite sex... this was "equal" for everyone. If you confront this I will return to my previous arguments that demonstrate there is ALSO an inequality between consensual adults.

Do you think discrimination can only be done when the groups in question are defined by our culture? Polygamist are a group of people. People who want to use marriage purely for the benefits, are a group of people (this is the category I place the family members in). And when you make a certain groups of people unable to obtain the same rights as others, than this is an inequality and is discrimination against said people.
 
No need to elebrorate, it was explained perfectly and I don't have time for ignorance and games, sorry buddy I'll just watch you continue to get beatdown.

Hardly, but I am amused how you proved again how useless your posts are in this thread...;)
 
its not failed at all you simply arent educated on the subject enough to get it LOL its a FACT whether you agree or not it works perfectly and facts and history still prove that you have said NOTHING to change that lol
again, we are at the point in the discussion where history has very little to do with it.

What subject do you think i am not educated in? I can tell how you are not educated in logic and philosophy, because you are making logical fallacies all over the place. Not saying I haven't, but I have not noticed one yet and It would be great if you can point one out for me, cause then we may start actually being constructive if you actually know how arguments work.
 
1.)Yes, they did... the law was that you could marry the opposite sex... this was "equal" for everyone.2.) If you confront this I will return to my previous arguments that demonstrate there is ALSO an inequality between consensual adults.

3.)Do you think discrimination can only be done when the groups in question are defined by our culture?
4.) Polygamist are a group of people.
5.)People who want to use marriage purely for the benefits, are a group of people (this is the category I place the family members in).
6.)And when you make a certain groups of people unable to obtain the same rights as others, than this is an inequality and is discrimination against said people.

1.) no clue what this blabbering is about so make it more clear
2. ) use any previous argument you wnat they all failed :shrug:
3.) nope nor have i even suggest anything close to that nonsense lol,
4.) yes they are :shrug:
5.) yes they are
6.) id agree but thats no happening in anyway what so ever. since NOBODY can marry family members and NOBODY can merry multiple people LMAO

tell me what SAME rights they dont have?
 
again, we are at the point in the discussion where history has very little to do with it.

What subject do you think i am not educated in? I can tell how you are not educated in logic and philosophy, because you are making logical fallacies all over the place. Not saying I haven't, but I have noticed one yet and It would be great if you can point one out for me, cause then we may start actually being constructive if you actually know how arguments work.

you are no educated in what equal rights are and you have proved that many times LOL
logic im very educated in, philosophy is MEANINGLESS to this topic

I have made ZERO fallacies here about equal rights, ZERO
ive already pointed your out but YOU can never be constructive until you acknowledge facts, all i can do is correct you and prove you factually wrong and you can accept those facts or deny them, doesnt matter to me i just laugh at how you deny them and tomorrow i will still have facts on my said and will still have done.
 
No need to elebrorate, it was explained perfectly and I don't have time for ignorance and games, sorry buddy I'll just watch you continue to get beatdown.

so true, so true
its pretty entertaining
 
4.) yes they are
5.) yes they are
6.) id agree but thats no happening in anyway what so ever. since NOBODY can marry family members and NOBODY can merry multiple people LMAO

tell me what SAME rights they dont have?
Okay I can work with this...
"id agree but thats no happening in anyway what so ever. since NOBODY can marry family members and NOBODY can merry multiple people LMAO" so you agree with me, but this is simply what I have been saying this entire time in many many different ways in order to convey it to you. It doesn't make a difference whether NOBODY can marry family members and NOBODY can merry multiple people or not... just because nobody can do it right now doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to.

"tell me what SAME rights they dont have?" they don't have the right to marry a person or persons of their choice.
 
Okay I can work with this...
"id agree but thats no happening in anyway what so ever. since NOBODY can marry family members and NOBODY can merry multiple people LMAO"
1.)so you agree with me, but this is simply what I have been saying this entire time in many many different ways in order to convey it to you. It doesn't make a difference whether NOBODY can marry family members and NOBODY can merry multiple people or not... just because nobody can do it right now doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to.

2.)"tell me what SAME rights they dont have?" they don't have the right to marry a person or persons of their choice.

1.) yes it does it make ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD because if nobody else can do it it NOT "equal" rights LMAO
if you think people should have the right to thats fine by me but that has ZERO to do with equal rights and the op, ZERO
2.)neither does anybody else LMAO

try again
next
 
so true, so true
its pretty entertaining
Oh please, don't gloat, try to keep the theory that I am a not an adult alive now... cause this just looks immature and an attempt to arouse yourself into believing an Argumentum ad populum.
 
Oh please, don't gloat, try to keep the theory that I am a not an adult alive now... cause this just looks immature and an attempt to arouse yourself into believing an Argumentum ad populum.

oh look a failed insult since you have no other factual or logical path to take LOL
not my fault your wrong and others see that fact also.
 
so tell me your suggestion again so i get it right this time ;)

Sure thing. :) Here is a prior post of mine from this thread.



I think that both marriage and civil union should be options. If a gay couple feels that marriage does not meet their definition of their union, then the option of a civil union is there. Instead of trying to change the concept of marriage (i.e., the terminology, religious connotations, etc.), they can choose to be civilly united instead. In this way, the "sanctity" (I hate that word - LOL) is spared for those who feel it is important, and gay people (and straight people) can choose which union is better suited for them.

IOW, I think both should be offered, and let the couple choose, but if they choose "marriage" then they are choosing all that goes along with it, the terminologies, etc.
 
1.) yes it does it make ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD because if nobody else can do it it NOT "equal" rights LMAO
if you think people should have the right to thats fine by me but that has ZERO to do with equal rights and the op, ZERO
2.)neither does anybody else LMAO

try again
next

Ill put it this way, in order for all ideas of what marriage is to be equally considered, than there is no reason to restrict any consensual adults from these benefits. Because restricting the benefits to not being available for everyone, is unequal and discriminatory.

otherwise you are not considering all ideas of what marriage is equally... therefore it is unequal... When certain ideas are accepted and others not that is in-equal rights, in my opinion.
 
you are no educated in what equal rights are and you have proved that many times LOL
logic im very educated in, philosophy is MEANINGLESS to this topic

I have made ZERO fallacies here about equal rights, ZERO
ive already pointed your out but YOU can never be constructive until you acknowledge facts, all i can do is correct you and prove you factually wrong and you can accept those facts or deny them, doesnt matter to me i just laugh at how you deny them and tomorrow i will still have facts on my said and will still have done.
I can't believe you talked to me about my education after I had to read that mess...
 
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. Marriage is a state institution which requires a license to be considered legally married and to break this license you must go to a government secular court and be granted a dissolution of your marriage.

A SOLUTION to the radical right wing hysteria over this would be to announce they would deny a Holy Matrimony Ceremony in their church to any gays who would seek to be married in their church.
 
Sure thing. :) Here is a prior post of mine from this thread.

THANKS! ;)

hmm well i agree with that but nobody is changing the concept marriage and sanctity isnt a concern to legal marriage at all

i doubt anybody would choose civil unions though since its lesser
 
logic im very educated in, philosophy is MEANINGLESS to this topic

Wow... you do know that philosophy is the study of logic and debate... It is the study of how to define the meaning of our words and characteristics in our premise's. To say that philosophy is meaningless to this topic is to say you have no clue what your topic is at all...
 
1.)Ill put it this way, in order for all ideas of what marriage is to be equally considered, than there is no reason to restrict any consensual adults from these benefits. Because restricting the benefits to not being available for everyone, is unequal and discriminatory.

2.)otherwise you are not considering all ideas of what marriage is equally... therefore it is unequal... 3.)When certain ideas are accepted and others not that is in-equal rights, in my opinion.

1.) this is factually not true and that has nothing to do with this thread or equal rights

2.) also wrong you havnet been able to prove your false example unequal one single time
3.), you opinion is factally wrong.
 
THANKS! ;)

hmm well i agree with that but nobody is changing the concept marriage and sanctity isnt a concern to legal marriage at all

i doubt anybody would choose civil unions though since its lesser

Doesn't have to be though.
 
Back
Top Bottom