• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

translation, you still have no facts while i do :shrug:
 
Objective-J said:
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
Click to expand...
Uhhh no, you see, the MARRIAGE LAWS were influenced by Protestant Christianity.

do you deny this now?
 
ChrisL said:
Objective-J said:
1.)Don't know what you're talking about.



2.)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...

1.) because you said you disagree but then went and made something up that wasnt there or isnt in existence.
I asked a very specific question, you said you disagree and then provided a solution that you like that wasnt an option in my question.

2.) easy everybody isnt a bride and groom, and may not be.

I agree why did it need changed it used to say participating parties what was wrong with that and why do you not anser that question?
many states and millions of certs say just that, participating parties.
Click to expand...
 
Objective-J said:
translation, you still have no facts while i do :shrug:
Click to expand...
These are my conclusions based on the definitions of equal rights... which looked up a definition as this...Equality before the law, when all people have the same rights.

Your conclusions are not more or less based on fact than mine.
 
celticwar17 said:
Uhhh no, you see, the MARRIAGE LAWS were influenced by Protestant Christianity.

do you deny this now?
Click to expand...

as i already said a couple times, yes marriage had MANY influences in its creation

what your point, its meaningless to the topic and its something i NEVER denied one single time.

man i can smell your desperation :)
 
Objective-J said:
ChrisL said:
1.) because you said you disagree but then went and made something up that wasnt there or isnt in existence.
I asked a very specific question, you said you disagree and then provided a solution that you like that wasnt an option in my question.
Click to expand...

Still don't know what you're talking about. Please quote what you have a problem with in my response where I supposedly "made something up."

2.) easy everybody isnt a bride and groom, and may not be.
Click to expand...

Oh no? Then what would they be? Everyone is either male or female. You may not like that, but it is an undeniable FACT.

I agree why did it need changed it used to say participating parties what was wrong with that and why do you not anser that question?
Click to expand...

I can't make heads nor tails out of this sentence. Sorry.

many states and millions of certs say just that, participating parties.
Click to expand...

Participating parties what?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
celticwar17 said:
These are my conclusions based on the definitions of equal rights... which looked up a definition as this...Equality before the law, when all people have the same rights.

Your conclusion are not more or less based on fact than mine.
Click to expand...

I agree with that definition, your conclusions are 100% inaccurate, i draw no conclusions only state the facts, sorry.

you are inequality where there isnt any
 
On the one hand,
folks are going to do whatever they want to do,
and no amount of legislation is going to stop them;

on the other hand,
acceptance of alternate lifestlyes forces everyone into this sort of Silence of Political Correctness
where they are then denied their freedoms of speech, thought and lifestyle choices
for themselves and their families.

And, sadly,

more and more,

we're becoming a nation,

divided.
 
Objective-J said:
as i already said a couple times, yes marriage had MANY influences in its creation

what your point, its meaningless to the topic and its something i NEVER denied one single time.

man i can smell your desperation :)
Click to expand...

My point was that your history was wrong. And the point this was made about like ten pages ago. The point currently is that you reference that you have "history" on your side, when you obviously have no grasp of the history of the marriage laws we are discussing.

and it shows your dishonestly or ignorance of history in this debate.
 
Last edited:
fyrenza said:
On the one hand,
folks are going to do whatever they want to do,
and no amount of legislation is going to stop them;

on the other hand,
acceptance of alternate lifestlyes forces everyone into this sort of Silence of Political Correctness
where they are then denied their freedoms of speech, thought and lifestyle choices
for themselves and their families.

And, sadly,

more and more,

we're becoming a nation,

divided.
Click to expand...
Yea this is part of the reason why I would change the language from marriage to civil union...
 
ChrisL said:
Objective-J said:
ChrisL said:
1.)Still don't know what you're talking about. Please quote what you have a problem with in my response where I supposedly "made something up."



Oh no? Then what would they be? Everyone is either male or female. You may not like that, but it is an undeniable FACT.



3.)I can't make heads nor tails out of this sentence. Sorry.



Participating parties what?
Click to expand...

1.) I said and asked you "its logical to change the form because its now inaccurate, do you disagree?"
you said you disagree but them made up your own option on the form? something thats not there

do you understand that now?
you said you disagree because you would do C, well we were only discussing A and B, i dint ask you about anything else

2.) yes they are male and female but that doesnt make them bride and groom :shrug: and what happens if Washington grants rights to transgendered or hermaphrodites etc?

3.) its ok but what ive been asking you is that WASHINGTONS marriage form used ot say participating parties, it was changed at some time to bride and groom? why? does that bother you, it was accurate the way it was.

4.) marriages in many states and million of licenses/forms simply say participating parties and always have.
seems thats the best and most accurate way for a legal contract.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
fyrenza said:
On the one hand,
folks are going to do whatever they want to do,
and no amount of legislation is going to stop them;

on the other hand,
acceptance of alternate lifestlyes forces everyone into this sort of Silence of Political Correctness
where they are then denied their freedoms of speech, thought and lifestyle choices
for themselves and their families.

And, sadly,

more and more,

we're becoming a nation,

divided.
Click to expand...

nobody forces your acceptance or are they denied their freedoms of speech, thought and lifestyle choices
for themselves and their families.

thats actually what is happening to gays

if people want to be divided on equal rights so be it, they are wrong, equality is what the country is about and we are slowly getting better.
 
celticwar17 said:
My point was that your history was wrong. And the point this was made about like ten pages ago. The point currently is that you reference that you have "history" on your side, when you obviously have no grasp of the history of the marriage laws we are discussing.

and it shows your dishonestly or ignorance of history in this debate.
Click to expand...
history is on my side because the histroy i was referring to was what equality is, see another thing you just simply didnt understand and so you made up parts in your head that were meaningless.

so make up some more stuff in your head and try some more failed insults becuas the dishonesty is all on your end with the things you make up that NOBODY said lol

please tell me some more things i never said :)
 
Objective-J said:
ChrisL said:
Objective-J said:
1.) I said and asked you "its logical to change the form because its now inaccurate, do you disagree?"
you said you disagree but them made up your own option on the form? something thats not there
Click to expand...

That is something that can be done that would make EVERYONE happy. What's wrong with that? Or is only making one party happy important? I think the goal should be to try to keep everyone happy and content. :)

do you understand that now?
Click to expand...

Ooooo, snarky! :lol:

you said you disagree because you would do C, well we were only discussing A and B, i dint ask you about anything else
Click to expand...

I can introduce an option C, and you can't tell me that I can't either. :2razz:

2.) yes they are male and female but that doesnt make them bride and groom :shrug: and what happens if Washington grants rights to transgendered or hermaphrodites etc?
Click to expand...

A hermaphrodite usually chooses a gender. Or perhaps they should offer an "O" for other? :shrug: That would be better than taking "bride/groom" away, right? Whether or not it is important to you, it IS important to some people obviously.

3.) its ok but what ive been asking you is that WASHINGTONS marriage form used ot say participating parties, it was changed at some time to bride and groom? why? does that bother you, it was accurate the way it was.
Click to expand...

I'm unaware of that. Links please.

4.) marriages in many states and million of licenses/forms simply say participating parties and always have.
seems thats the best and most accurate way for a legal contract.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion though. A lot of people like bride and groom and don't want it to be changed. And sometimes when you give people an inch, they want to take a mile. I am curious to see what other "changes" might be made in the future. I have no problem with gay marriage, if that is what they really want. I don't support the changing of customs and traditions of marriage as is customary in America for the past few hundred years to appease some people.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Objective-J said:
nobody forces your acceptance or are they denied their freedoms of speech, thought and lifestyle choices
for themselves and their families.

thats actually what is happening to gays

if people want to be divided on equal rights so be it, they are wrong, equality is what the country is about and we are slowly getting better.
Click to expand...

If, in your estimation, "equal rights" means that everyone MUST accept perversion into their minds,
must try to explain it to their children,
must watch as it's flaunted before their very eyes as some sort of understandable choice,

then go paint rainbows on everything you see.

Many folks are of the opinion that we were created, man and woman,
in order to procreate,
and that perverting the very basis of our sexual nature is totally illogical.

Just as oil and water don't mix,
neither do basic truths and obvious lies,

which is why I say that we are becoming divided along a fork in the road
whose pathways of tines will never meet, again.
 
ChrisL said:
Objective-J said:
ChrisL said:
Objective-J said:
1.)That is something that can be done that would make EVERYONE happy. What's wrong with that? Or is only making one party happy important? I think the goal should be to try to keep everyone happy and content. :)



2.)Ooooo, snarky! :lol:



3.)I can introduce an option C, and you can't tell me that I can't either.



4.)A hermaphrodite usually chooses a gender. Or perhaps they should offer an "O" for other? :shrug: That would be better than taking "bride/groom" away, right? Whether or not it is important to you, it IS important to some people obviously.



5.)I'm unaware of that. Links please.



6.)That is your opinion though. A lot of people like bride and groom and don't want it to be changed. And sometimes when you give people an inch, they want to take a mile. I am curious to see what other "changes" might be made in the future. I have no problem with gay marriage, if that is what they really want.
7.)I don't support the changing of customs and traditions of marriage as is customary in America for the past few hundred years to appease some people.
Click to expand...

1.) im fine with making eveybody happy but again not positive that does that
2.) nu-huh! lol i was being serious i want to make sure because we were missing for like 3 posts lol
3.) yes you can but that defeat the purpose of the question :p

if something was colored red and they changed it to purple and i say hey i think purples the better color than red and it works. DO you agree? and you say no orange is awesome!!

thats like cheating lol

4.) better? i think best is to restore it back to what it originally said "parties"

5.) thats not an answer but heres a link ;)
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.../mcdonald/marriage/marriage-1913-wa-zella.jpg
and many states dont have anything but this on it

6.) well im sorry if its insensitive but too bad for them, the form is meaningless THEY will still be bride and groom if thats what they want nothing changes :shrug:
are all the people that dont have that on thier form "not" bride and groom? of course they are if they want to be

7.) again this isnt changing
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
fyrenza said:


1.)If, in your estimation, "equal rights" means that everyone MUST accept perversion into their minds,
must try to explain it to their children,
must watch as it's flaunted before their very eyes as some sort of understandable choice,

then go paint rainbows on everything you see.

Many folks are of the opinion that we were created, man and woman,
in order to procreate,
and that perverting the very basis of our sexual nature is totally illogical.

Just as oil and water don't mix,
neither do basic truths and obvious lies,

which is why I say that we are becoming divided along a fork in the road
whose pathways of tines will never meet, again.
Click to expand...

no one has to accept it, thats just a fact, people are still racist, bigots and misogynistic are they not?

weird you made this post and it doesnt even address anything, my post stands and it has many facts in it
 
Objective-J;1061236799[QUOTE said:
1.) im fine with making eveybody happy but again not positive that does that
Click to expand...

LOL! You'll have to do a little better than that. Explain why it wouldn't make everyone happy. I think that it would.

2.) nu-huh! lol i was being serious i want to make sure because we were missing for like 3 posts lol
Click to expand...

:lol:

3.) yes you can but that defeat the purpose of the question :p
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Other is an option, and it is asked to explain if you pick other. So you are wrong.

if something was colored red and they changed it to purple and i say hey i think purples the better color than red and it works. DO you agree? and you say no orange is awesome!! thats like cheating lol
Click to expand...

Good Lord. Let's not go off the deep end with the ridiculousness now.

4.) better? i think best is to restore it back to what it originally said "parties"
Click to expand...

Well I can't comment on this until I see that this is what it actually ever said via links.

5.) thats not an answer but heres a link ;)
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.../mcdonald/marriage/marriage-1913-wa-zella.jpg
and many states dont have anything but this on it
Click to expand...

I will look at this later. Thank you. :)


6.) well im sorry if its insensitive but too bad for them, the form is meaningless THEY will still be bride and groom if thats what they want nothing changes :shrug:
are all the people that dont have that on thier form "not" bride and groom? of course they are if they want to be
Click to expand...

Why is it "too bad" to be insensitive to one group but not to another? What in the hell would you be if not bride (female) or groom (male)? I already said perhaps they could put in an "O" for other, but that would be RARELY used since most people (transgendered, etc.) have at least CHOSEN a gender.

7.) again this isnt changing
Click to expand...

Well, I'd really like to take a nice long look into that crystal ball you apparently have at your disposal. ;)
 
Objective-J said:
no one has to accept it, thats just a fact, people are still racist, bigots and misogynistic are they not?

weird you made this post and it doesnt even address anything, my post stands and it has many facts in it
Click to expand...

don't break your arm, patting yourself on the back ~
"It MUAT be true, 'cuz I read it, online" only counts if YOU didn't write it
just sayin'
 
ChrisL said:
Doesn't have to be though.
Click to expand...

It is right now. And there is a reason they exist right now at a lesser level, because some people want something less than marriage but that still comes with legal benefits/rights/protections just at a lower level than marriage.

It would be stupid to have two identical contracts at the same level but with different names just to describe two different sets of gender combinations. It is fiscally irresponsible. Just as it would be fiscally irresponsible to change all marriages to civil unions because you would have to change all wording to that (afterall the whole point is that someone wants the word "marriage" not associated with either certain couples or the government contract) and you would have to also change "civil unions" that exist now to something else, since "civil union" describes a different level of legal relationship and there will still be some people who want that different level. People aren't getting into civil unions now for the name, they are doing it for the different level of recognition.
 
fyrenza said:
which is why I say that we are becoming divided along a fork in the road
whose pathways of tines will never meet, again.
Click to expand...

Personally, I believe the division is more like a tree where it looked like it was going to branch off into two equal branches. However, over time, one branch is slowly dying off. Yep the gay tree is healthy and strong.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

umm.... no. Firstly, the other nations that have explicitly rejected religion thus far appear to largely build themselves upon theft and murder. But that is an aside, because Secondly, why someone else may make the same choice I do in no way means that I have adopted their motivations.

SSM does not shift marriage further away from a basis as the center of a family unit. Quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

I have seen that argued, just not yet convincingly.
 
roguenuke said:
It is right now. And there is a reason they exist right now at a lesser level, because some people want something less than marriage but that still comes with legal benefits/rights/protections just at a lower level than marriage.

It would be stupid to have two identical contracts at the same level but with different names just to describe two different sets of gender combinations. It is fiscally irresponsible. Just as it would be fiscally irresponsible to change all marriages to civil unions because you would have to change all wording to that (afterall the whole point is that someone wants the word "marriage" not associated with either certain couples or the government contract) and you would have to also change "civil unions" that exist now to something else, since "civil union" describes a different level of legal relationship and there will still be some people who want that different level. People aren't getting into civil unions now for the name, they are doing it for the different level of recognition.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with SSM, so long as they don't try to change everything about it. Get married and accept it for what it is or isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom