• 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
ChrisL said:
Yes, opinions that hurt others and cause feelings of hatred are "less important." The customs and traditions surrounding marriage are in no way meant to denigrate anyone. They are just traditions. I have no problem with SS couples who want to get married and not make changes to marriage itself.
Click to expand...

What traditions or customs are being changed though? The fact that the terminology on a form that has only been that way for a relatively short period of time in the first place isn't really changing either traditions or customs, things that are more personal and not a part of law in the first place. No one is required to refer to their spouse as "husband" or "wife". No one is required to refer to their soon to be husband or wife as "bride" or "groom" either. Nor would you be required to refer to your "bride" or "groom", "husband" or "wife" as "person A" or "person B" by just having such verbiage on the form.

ChrisL said:
In truth, I really DON'T care that much about the terminology issue in marriage licenses. As I've repeatedly stated that is an example I am using to make a point about certain groups wanting to change things for others.
Click to expand...

What other changes to marriage itself can same sex couples being able to legally marry bring about besides changing terminology on the forms? I honestly cannot think of anything else. Terminology is it because the sexes/genders are legally equivalent when it comes to the laws or should be. If they aren't then the law itself needs to be challenged to begin with as gender discrimination because it isn't right to treat a "husband" different than a "wife" under the law.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
Yes, opinions that hurt others and cause feelings of hatred are "less important." The customs and traditions surrounding marriage are in no way meant to denigrate anyone. They are just traditions. I have no problem with SS couples who want to get married and not make changes to marriage itself.

In truth, I really DON'T care that much about the terminology issue in marriage licenses. As I've repeatedly stated that is an example I am using to make a point about certain groups wanting to change things for others.
Click to expand...
Do people have feelings of hatred when a couple decides to get married by an Elvis impersonator in a drive through chapel in Vegas?
That is not following the customs and traditions of marriage. The words on the government have changed before, they will probably change again. That form doesn't have anything to do with your marriage customs and traditions.

There are currently marriage license applications that say only spouse, or participant, or applicant in states that don't allow SSM. Are those forms stopping anyone from being a husband or wife? Are they stopping anyone from having a traditional or customary marriage?

There are even states where one party doesn't even need to be physically there to have get married, all they have to do is fill out an affidavit.
 
roguenuke said:
What traditions or customs are being changed though? The fact that the terminology on a form that has only been that way for a relatively short period of time in the first place isn't really changing either traditions or customs, things that are more personal and not a part of law in the first place. No one is required to refer to their spouse as "husband" or "wife". No one is required to refer to their soon to be husband or wife as "bride" or "groom" either. Nor would you be required to refer to your "bride" or "groom", "husband" or "wife" as "person A" or "person B" by just having such verbiage on the form.
Click to expand...

Again, like I said, that was just an example. My opinion is that SSM is okay with me as long as they don't try to change anything but if they want to make changes (maybe something "bigger" than simple terminology on a legal document), then they should go for a civil union, and IMO civil unions SHOULD include the benefits that marriage does.

Some people don't agree with making marriage into some gender sterile meaningless government contract. Not everyone would be happy with that, and it has more meaning than that to some people.



What other changes to marriage itself can same sex couples being able to legally marry bring about besides changing terminology on the forms? I honestly cannot think of anything else. Terminology is it because the sexes/genders are legally equivalent when it comes to the laws or should be. If they aren't then the law itself needs to be challenged to begin with as gender discrimination because it isn't right to treat a "husband" different than a "wife" under the law.
Click to expand...

I can't think of anything right now either, but that doesn't really mean anything. As a side note though, I don't see at all how leaving a document to say husband/wife or bride/groom is in any way discriminatory as long as you get to pick.
Click to expand...
 
wolfsgirl said:
Do people have feelings of hatred when a couple decides to get married by an Elvis impersonator in a drive through chapel in Vegas? That is not following the customs and traditions of marriage. The words on the government have changed before, they will probably change again. That form doesn't have anything to do with your marriage customs and traditions.
Click to expand...

I don't see what Elvis impersonators have to do with anything. As long as those people don't complain that they want an option on the marriage license form that says Elvis lover, then I couldn't care less.

There are currently marriage license applications that say only spouse, or participant, or applicant in states that don't allow SSM. Are those forms stopping anyone from being a husband or wife? Are they stopping anyone from having a traditional or customary marriage?
Click to expand...

This is my point. Don't bitch and complain about the way things are and expect everything and everybody to change.

There are even states where one party doesn't even need to be physically there to have get married, all they have to do is fill out an affidavit.
Click to expand...

This is completely irrelevant to everything.
Click to expand...
 
ChrisL said:
wolfsgirl said:
I don't see what Elvis impersonators have to do with anything. As long as those people don't complain that they want an option on the marriage license form that says Elvis lover, then I couldn't care less.



This is my point. Don't bitch and complain about the way things are and expect everything and everybody to change.



This is completely irrelevant to everything.
Click to expand...

No, it is completely relevant. There are no set in stone rules from state to state. Some say applicant, some say participant, some say bride/groom, some let you check off bride/groom/spouse, some have said participant and changed to bride/groom. Are you outraged at other states that have never said bride/groom? How does that have any effect on what you call yourself and your spouse?

The only traditions are what each couple decides to do in their ceremony, and no one can tell you how to have your ceremony.
Click to expand...
 
wolfsgirl said:
ChrisL said:
No, it is completely relevant. There are no set in stone rules from state to state. Some say applicant, some say participant, some say bride/groom, some let you check off bride/groom/spouse, some have said participant and changed to bride/groom. Are you outraged at other states that have never said bride/groom? How does that have any effect on what you call yourself and your spouse?

The only traditions are what each couple decides to do in their ceremony, and no one can tell you how to have your ceremony.
Click to expand...

Outraged? I already said several times that I am only using the terminology issue as an example of a change that some might want to make. Do I know IF they will want to change anything? No I don't. I am simply saying that if they DO want to make changes, perhaps marriage is not for them and a civil union would be a better fit.

It is completely irrelevant whether or not somebody needs an affidavit to get married. That has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.
Click to expand...
 
This is not an equal rights issue and it is not a religious issue. It is a biological issue. Biological compatibility has always been a vital part
of the definition of marriage; nature (evolution, if you believe in that concept) has dictated how the pieces fit together amongst humans and how the species
survives and flourishes.And before you go there, I know that marriage is more than a physical coupling, it is love and friendship/companionship....but ask yourself this: shouldn't any "marriage" based on less than the whole of the NATURAL definition be considered inferior?

I say yes; once biological compatibility...once NATURE...is thrown out of the equation, any combination must be accepted under the ludicrous guise of "equal rights".
Once that Pandora's box is opened, defining marriage as "two consenting adults" is just as discriminatory to man and dog/animal, brother and sister, man and multiple partners or man and inanimate object.

Such nonsensical perversions of nature have been excluded from the marriage definition for recorded history because they fall below the biological definition for the species. Common sense has dictated these exclusions, including "gay marriage" and should continue to do so.

So I say neither civil unions or so-called gay "marriage" are acceptable in any form in any part of the United States
 
Partisan62 said:
This is not an equal rights issue and it is not a religious issue. It is a biological issue. Biological compatibility has always been a vital part
of the definition of marriage; nature (evolution, if you believe in that concept) has dictated how the pieces fit together amongst humans and how the species
survives and flourishes.And before you go there, I know that marriage is more than a physical coupling, it is love and friendship/companionship....but ask yourself this: shouldn't any "marriage" based on less than the whole of the NATURAL definition be considered inferior?

I say yes; once biological compatibility...once NATURE...is thrown out of the equation, any combination must be accepted under the ludicrous guise of "equal rights".
Once that Pandora's box is opened, defining marriage as "two consenting adults" is just as discriminatory to man and dog/animal, brother and sister, man and multiple partners or man and inanimate object.

Such nonsensical perversions of nature have been excluded from the marriage definition for recorded history because they fall below the biological definition for the species. Common sense has dictated these exclusions, including "gay marriage" and should continue to do so.

So I say neither civil unions or so-called gay "marriage" are acceptable in any form in any part of the United States
Click to expand...

That is your right. You will be proven wrong in the long run . . . but you have a right to feel the way you do. As long as women are willing, gay men can have babies. As long as men are willing, gay women can have babies. You gotta love science . . . God gave it to us. In fact he gave us the brains to create a science called "Biology". Which you now seem to be trying to cite to stop 2-people who love each other from marrying. No one wants to marry a horse and the slippery slope you perceive does not exist in the mainstream . . . gays do though. They have been here since the beginning of civilization. they're here, they're queer . . . it would be ever so nice if you could get use to it.
 
ChrisL said:
Outraged? I already said several times that I am only using the terminology issue as an example of a change that some might want to make. Do I know IF they will want to change anything? No I don't. I am simply saying that if they DO want to make changes, perhaps marriage is not for them and a civil union would be a better fit.

It is completely irrelevant whether or not somebody needs an affidavit to get married. That has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.
Click to expand...


You posted 50+ times in this thread "claiming" that gays want to change marriage and yet.....you haven't been able to state with specificity one thing about marriage that gays will change.
 
ChrisL said:
Outraged? I already said several times that I am only using the terminology issue as an example of a change that some might want to make. Do I know IF they will want to change anything? No I don't. I am simply saying that if they DO want to make changes, perhaps marriage is not for them and a civil union would be a better fit.

It is completely irrelevant whether or not somebody needs an affidavit to get married. That has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.
Click to expand...

What do you think that "they" might want to change?
 
disneydude said:
You posted 50+ times in this thread "claiming" that gays want to change marriage and yet.....you haven't been able to state with specificity one thing about marriage that gays will change.
Click to expand...

I never said that they wanted to. I said IF they wanted to. There is a difference you know.
 
wolfsgirl said:
ChrisL said:
What do you think that "they" might want to change?
Click to expand...

Who knows, but the thread about changing the terminology got me thinking about these kinds of things, and since I can't see into the future and neither can you, I would like to see the bases covered.
Click to expand...
 
ChrisL said:
I never said that they wanted to. I said IF they wanted to. There is a difference you know.
Click to expand...

OK....so what about marriages are you contending that gays would change IF they wanted to?
Can you name a single one?
 
If you want true equality, then ALL groups and their feelings and ideals are going to have to matter.
 
disneydude said:
OK....so what about marriages are you contending that gays would change IF they wanted to?
Can you name a single one?
Click to expand...

I never claimed that they ever would. This is a purely hypothetical situation to demonstrate why I chose other in my poll answer. I was asked to explain why I would choose other, and that is what I did.
 
ChrisL said:
Who knows, but the thread about changing the terminology got me thinking about these kinds of things, and since I can't see into the future and neither can you, I would like to see the bases covered.
Click to expand...

Gays didn't petition to change the wording, government officials thought it would be more efficient.

There is no one way that government marriage licenses are written, so how can "they" change something that is not uniform, and has already changed multiple times in some states?

Do you get upset if your bank changes their forms too? My bank recently changed their forms from spouse to second account holder. That didn't seem to change the way anyone thought about their spouse.
 
disneydude said:
Can you give an example?
Click to expand...

Let me word this more clearly for you. I support gay people's right to be married, the pursuit of happiness and blah, blah. I don't support bending to their every whim because they may feel unhappy about certain aspects of marriage. Is that more clear for you?
 
ChrisL said:
I never claimed that they ever would. This is a purely hypothetical situation to demonstrate why I chose other in my poll answer. I was asked to explain why I would choose other, and that is what I did.
Click to expand...

You are making zero sense. So.....you aren't against SSM per se, but you are kind of against it because they might happen to want to change something about it....but you aren't really sure WHAT they would change about it, you are just concerned that there is something that they MIGHT want to change.....but only IF they wanted to change it.
 
wolfsgirl said:
Gays didn't petition to change the wording, government officials thought it would be more efficient.

There is no one way that government marriage licenses are written, so how can "they" change something that is not uniform, and has already changed multiple times in some states?

Do you get upset if your bank changes their forms too? My bank recently changed their forms from spouse to second account holder. That didn't seem to change the way anyone thought about their spouse.
Click to expand...

Good Lord! Once again, I was using that as a hypothetical situation in my reasoning for choosing other in the poll options. It is something that came to my mind and would be a reason for me to support a union as opposed to a marriage in certain circumstances.
 
ChrisL said:
Let me word this more clearly for you. I support gay people's right to be married, the pursuit of happiness and blah, blah. I don't support bending to their every whim because they may feel unhappy about certain aspects of marriage. Is that more clear for you?
Click to expand...

Like What? What "every whim" is any gay asking you to bend for them? It would be more clear if you could come up with a single example.
 
disneydude said:
You are making zero sense. So.....you aren't against SSM per se, but you are kind of against it because they might happen to want to change something about it....but you aren't really sure WHAT they would change about it, you are just concerned that there is something that they MIGHT want to change.....but only IF they wanted to change it.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm saying that if they want to married then they can be married. I don't support them making PC changes to things to do with marriage though. Clear yet?
 
ChrisL said:
If you want true equality, then ALL groups and their feelings and ideals are going to have to matter.
Click to expand...

There are still people who don't believe in inter-faith, or interracial marriage, should we consider their feelings? There is no way for everyone to be treated equally by the law without upsetting some people.
 
disneydude said:
Like What? What "every whim" is any gay asking you to bend for them? It would be more clear if you could come up with a single example.
Click to expand...

If you can't understand by now, I give up.
 
ChrisL said:
Let me word this more clearly for you. I support gay people's right to be married, the pursuit of happiness and blah, blah. I don't support bending to their every whim because they may feel unhappy about certain aspects of marriage. Is that more clear for you?
Click to expand...

Exactly what is, "bending to their every whim." Serious question. Short, succinct and to the point . . . as should be the answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom