• 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
celticwar17 said:
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...
Click to expand...

thanks for your OPINION but nope its meaningless because we are talking about law and facts, i could careless what you think, your opinion is and what philosophy you come up with when i have facts. :D
 
ChrisL said:
Doesn't have to be though.
Click to expand...

in theory but unless theres a constitutional amendment to make them the same or something i dont know how to change it since legal preceadence has already defined that its not.
Also it brings me back to my original point why do that, theres no real reason.
 
Objective-J said:
thanks for your OPINION but nope its meaningless because we are talking about law and facts, i could careless what you think, your opinion is and what philosophy you come up with when i have facts. :D
Click to expand...

You haven't stated a single relevant fact this entire thread.
 
Objective-J said:
in theory but unless theres a constitutional amendment to make them the same or something i dont know how to change it since legal preceadence has already defined that its not.
Also it brings me back to my original point why do that, theres no real reason.
Click to expand...

Why do it? So that things that are important to a lot of people about marriage don't have to be changed to please same-sex couples. Such as in the other thread about one state wanting to change the names "bride and groom."

And don't even TELL me that it isn't because of same-sex couples, because obviously it is, otherwise no one would mind the terms bride/groom. :mrgreen:
 
celticwar17 said:
I can't believe you talked to me about my education after I had to read that mess...
Click to expand...

still desperate grasping for straws huh? LMAO
yep sometimes i type like **** LMAO doesnt change the fact you were wrong and haven been for pages
let me know when you have any facts to back up your false claims also i talked about your education on equal rights and american history, you could be a genius at math for all i know :shrug: lol
 
ChrisL said:
Why do it? So that things that are important to a lot of people about marriage don't have to be changed to please same-sex couples. Such as in the other thread about one state wanting to change the names "bride and groom."

And don't even TELL me that it isn't because of same-sex couples, because obviously it is, otherwise no one would mind the terms bride/groom. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I understand the point you are making but they arent being changed in reality

the STATE wanted to change it to make the form easier not gays and that is meaningless to marriage, many states NEVER had bride and groom and in Washington (the state the post was about) didnt used to it was changed at one point. SO i think thats a waste of time and people that are bothered by that are the one with the problem because its meaningless to them. Washingtons form used to say participating parties and many states do the same and always have.

if it was a real issues i would just simply say it should have never been changed :shrug:
 
Objective-J said:
I understand the point you are making but they arent being changed in reality
Click to expand...

Says who?

the STATE wanted to change it to make the form easier not gays and that is meaningless to marriage, many states NEVER had bride and groom and in Washington (the state the post was about) didnt used to it was changed at one point. SO i think thats a waste of time and people that are bothered by that are the one with the problem because its meaningless to them. Washingtons form used to say participating parties and many states do the same and always have.
Click to expand...

You guys keep saying it's meaningless. It is NOT meaningless to everyone, and if it is so "meaningless" then why bother to change it at all? I don't believe that the state would just preemptively decide to change terminology for no good reason. I believe there is a reason behind this move.

if it was a real issues i would just simply say it should have never been changed :shrug:
Click to expand...

So . . . you are personally guaranteeing that same-sex couples are not going to be making demands to make changes to marriage (traditional marriages) to make it more PC for them?
Click to expand...
 
Objective-J said:
says YOU, but reality, history, facts, me and others disagree :shrug:
Click to expand...
what history have you mentioned? the only history I recall is you saying how women fought for the right to vote and how black people fought for racial equality. It has nothing to do with our discussion and they were just examples in your point that I disproved.
What facts did you ever mention? apparently our definition of "equal rights" are different, but it shouldn't even have affected things in the long run.
We have hopefully both been talking about reality... at least I assumed...
just because one other poster or even a thousand others disagreed it still makes no difference in your argument, hence argumentum ad populum. ANOTHER argument of yours, shot down....

Obviously this entire time you just wanted this discussion to turn into a piss match...
 
ChrisL said:
Objective-J said:
1.)Says who?



2.)You guys keep saying it's meaningless. It is NOT meaningless to everyone, and
3.) if it is so "meaningless" then why bother to change it at all?
4.) I don't believe that the state would just preemptively decide to change terminology for no good reason. I believe there is a reason behind this move.



5.)So . . . you are personally guaranteeing that same-sex couples are not going to be making demands to make changes to marriage (traditional marriages) to make it more PC for them?
Click to expand...

1.) reality ;) what is being changed?
2.) but it is meaningless in reality what about the millions of people that dont have bride and groom on their licenses, certificate? they are STILL bride and groom that fact didnt change
3.) because its inaccurate
4.) yes, see above

what was the reason to change it in the first place? are you concerned with that, at one time it said participating parties, which was totally accurate.
Why change that?

5.) what changes can they make? and what is "traditional" marriage thats a made up subjective term that can not be changed. I have tradition that i plan on practicing for my marriage, nothing can change them.

theres nuts out there that still only want whites to be married, those people dont matter just like if theres nuts out there that only want gays to be married lol
Click to expand...
 
celticwar17 said:
1.)what history have you mentioned? the only history I recall is you saying how women fought for the right to vote and how black people fought for racial equality. It has nothing to do with our discussion and they were just examples in your point that I disproved.
2.)What facts did you ever mention?
3.)apparently our definition of "equal rights" are different, but it shouldn't even have affected things in the long run.
4.)We have hopefully both been talking about reality... at least I assumed...
5.)just because one other poster or even a thousand others disagreed it still makes no difference in your argument, hence argumentum ad populum. ANOTHER argument of yours, shot down....

6.)Obviously this entire time you just wanted this discussion to turn into a piss match...
Click to expand...

1.) you never disporved them LMAO they were examples to explain to you what equal rights are but its a concept you still dont understand, no biggie
2.) many as agreed upon by history and others
3.) no they are not different, i dont have my own definition, facts define what it is and i choose the facts while you chose to make up your own. ANd it effects everything if you would stay on topic lol
4.) well i have, you have been talking about fantasy
5.) i agree it doesnt change that the reality that i talked about facts and you did not
6.) wrong again, i tried to educate you on your falsehoods you resisted.

cant have a pissing match when m presenting facts and you are arguing against them, thats not how pissing matches work lol

let me know when you can prove your false statement :D
 
Objective-J said:
says YOU, but reality, history, facts, me and others disagree :shrug:
Click to expand...
And HISTORY, dont make me laugh...

earlier you openly denied how the current marriage laws had Christian influence...

HOW can you even say this when the very part of it we are discussing is gays not being included in marriage... although that is not only a Christian thing... Christian views were the main factor in establishing opposite-sex marriage being the only aloud form of marriage.


Your history was wrong when we were talking about this earlier... YOU WERE FACTUALLY INCORRECT.
The anti-poligamy laws are COMPLETELY derived off the Protestant Christian religion that was mainstream in America all the way to current days. Protestants banned polygamy saying it was a barbaric practice.


And even given this history I was NOT arguing to have Gay marriage banned!
 
Last edited:
Objective-J said:
ChrisL said:
1.) reality ;) what is being changed?
Click to expand...

The terminology, as noted above.

2.) but it is meaningless in reality what about the millions of people that dont have bride and groom on their licenses, certificate? they are STILL bride and groom that fact didnt change
Click to expand...

But to some people apparently it isn't meaningless. It was important enough to some people to write an article about it.


3.) because its inaccurate
Click to expand...

According to who? Two married people are going to be one of any combination of bride/groom.

4.) yes, see above
Click to expand...

See above where and what?

what was the reason to change it in the first place? are you concerned with that, at one time it said participating parties, which was totally accurate.
Why change that?
Click to expand...

Why change anything at all?

5.) what changes can they make? and what is "traditional" marriage thats a made up subjective term that can not be changed. I have tradition that i plan on practicing for my marriage, nothing can change them.
Click to expand...

My idea PROTECTS people who view marriage as a religious ceremony (hence the rings and vows - which DO have religious connotations). You can deny that marriage in America has religious connotations, but that does not mean you are right. There are most definitely deep religious meanings within the symbolism and terminology in a wedding ceremony.

We have no idea what people will want to change in the future because "they don't like it."

theres nuts out there that still only want whites to be married, those people dont matter just like if theres nuts out there that only want gays to be married lol
Click to expand...

I don't know what this has to do with my post? Obviously there are nuts out there.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I'm sure that just out of the blue and after legalizing gay marriage, a state just decided to change the language on marriage certificates. :lamo
 
Objective-J said:
3.) no they are not different, i dont have my own definition, facts define what it is and i choose the facts while you chose to make up your own. ANd it effects everything if you would stay on topic lol
Click to expand...

Yes our definition of what qualifies as an equal right IS different. Because I defined in post #469 that this is an example of equal rights... my logic in it is sound. You never mentioned where you specifically disagreed. Because I think we disagree in the definition of it itself.
 
celticwar17 said:
And HISTORY, dont make me laugh...

1.)earlier you openly denied how the current marriage laws had Christian influence...

2.)HOW can you even say this when the very part of it we are discussing is gays not being included in marriage... although that is not only a Christian thing... Christian views were the main factor in establishing opposite-sex marriage being the only aloud form of marriage.


3.)Your history was wrong when we were talking about this earlier... YOU WERE FACTUALLY INCORRECT.
The anti-poligamy laws are COMPLETELY derived off the Protestant Christian religion that was mainstream in America all the way to current days. Protestants banned polygamy saying it was a barbaric practice.
Click to expand...

1.)no thats not what i did, it seems you make stuff up, what i said was the way your worded a sentence was not true.
Legal marriage has MANY influences, what you read is all stuff made up in your head.

also the reality is, its original influences are meaningless to the debate.

2.) easy see above, lol your funny trying to rehash different arguments to deflect and save face, you were wrong get over it dude :shrug:

3.) sorry i wasnt. nor does it matter to the OP

again im not going to jump all around, this is an equal rights issue and thats that, let me know when you can argue its not. :)
 
celticwar17 said:
Yes our definition of what qualifies as an equal right IS different. Because I defined in post #469 that this is an example of equal rights... my logic in it is sound. You never mentioned where you specifically disagreed. Because I think we disagree in the definition of it itself.
Click to expand...

no you make up your own i use facts :shrug:
cant be unequal if nobody has them and thats just the plain facts of things. i directly replied to that post and it factually wrong.
 
ChrisL said:
Objective-J said:
ChrisL said:
1.)The terminology, as noted above.



But to some people apparently it isn't meaningless. It was important enough to some people to write an article about it.




According to who? Two married people are going to be one of any combination of bride/groom.



See above where and what?



Why change anything at all?



My idea PROTECTS people who view marriage as a religious ceremony (hence the rings and vows - which DO have religious connotations). You can deny that marriage in America has religious connotations, but that does not mean you are right. There are most definitely deep religious meanings within the symbolism and terminology in a wedding ceremony.

We have no idea what people will want to change in the future because "they don't like it."



I don't know what this has to do with my post? Obviously there are nuts out there.
Click to expand...

1.) yes reality
2.) sorry about their luck, they are not affected in reality . lots of people cry about stuff
3.) facts, your statement is simply not true not all people will be bride and groom
4.) it inaccurate
5.) THATS exactly my point ORIGINALLY it said participating parties why was it changed?
6.) they dont need protection because nothing changed for them, the religious ceremony isnt affect one single bit, it cant be thats against the constitution.
7.) because you seem to be focused on gay nuts and not any other nuts
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
I'm sure that just out of the blue and after legalizing gay marriage, a state just decided to change the language on marriage certificates. :lamo
Click to expand...

didnt say that but its logical to change the form because its now inaccurate, do you disagree?
 
Objective-J said:
didnt say that but its logical to change the form because its now inaccurate, do you disagree?
Click to expand...

I do disagree. It is not inaccurate at all if allowed to use a combination of terms, such as groom/groom, bride/bride, groom/bride. What's the problem?
 
ChrisL said:
I do disagree. It is not inaccurate at all if allowed to use a combination of terms, such as groom/groom, bride/bride, groom/bride. What's the problem?
Click to expand...

well then you AGREE because you just made up something that wasnt there.

I dont have a problem with that but it may still be inaccurate :shrug: i think the state did the best move to assure it doesnt need changed again, it used to just say participating parties why was that bad?
 
Objective-J said:
1.)no thats not what i did, it seems you make stuff up, what i said was the way your worded a sentence was not true.
Legal marriage has MANY influences, what you read is all stuff made up in your head.

also the reality is, its original influences are meaningless to the debate.

2.) easy see above, lol your funny trying to rehash different arguments to deflect and save face, you were wrong get over it dude :shrug:

3.) sorry i wasnt. nor does it matter to the OP

again im not going to jump all around, this is an equal rights issue and thats that, let me know when you can argue its not. :)
Click to expand...

What I said

2.) U.S. marriage laws kept Christian thoughts on marriage heavily in mind in the development of them in this country. BUT ANYWAY that was pages ago

Your response,

2.) again simply not true

How can you blatantly lie about what you said in the past when I can easily copy and past what you said...

Your History was wrong...

How, when someone is so caught up in their ego, that when they encounter a paradox in their own arguments their head doesn't explode?
 
Objective-J said:
no you make up your own i use facts :shrug:
cant be unequal if nobody has them and thats just the plain facts of things. i directly replied to that post and it factually wrong.
Click to expand...

argumentum ad nauseam

And it is an unequal consideration of opinions of who can participate in a marriage. The current marriage laws unequally ban the ideas of certain groups of consenting adults of being able to have the contract.
 
Last edited:
Objective-J said:
well then you AGREE because you just made up something that wasnt there.
Click to expand...

Don't know what you're talking about.

I dont have a problem with that but it may still be inaccurate :shrug: i think the state did the best move to assure it doesnt need changed again, it used to just say participating parties why was that bad?
Click to expand...

Explain how it would be inaccurate please. And why would it have to be changed at all. There is nothing inaccurate about it. It is completely accurate as it is with groom/bride or any combination of the two.
Click to expand...
 
celticwar17 said:
What I said

2.) U.S. marriage laws kept Christian thoughts on marriage heavily in mind in the development of them in this country. BUT ANYWAY that was pages ago

Your response,

2.) again simply not true

How can you blatantly lie about what you said in the past when I can easily copy and past what you said...

Your History was wrong...

How, when someone is so caught up in their ego, that when they encounter a paradox in their own arguments their head doesn't explode?
Click to expand...

yes that was my response and its true, since legal marriage and religious marriage are quit different :shrug:

there was no lie at all, you simply make stuff up and what people ACTUALLY write you make stuff up in your head about it LMAO, its very common with you you do it a lot.
i never said it had no influnces which YOU said LMAO those are not even close to the same the only person that lies is you LMAO

please post more so you can look foolish again, i never said what you said which was this "you openly denied how the current marriage laws had Christian influence..." this never happened you made it up and lied and that 100% FACT lol

tell me that cool line about ego again since you just failed and lied AGAIN lol

let me know when you have something to disprove this is an equal rights issue
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom