Are civil unions an acceptable compromise for SSM?[W:237]

cpwill said:

I realize that gay people can have families. I think that they are statistically less likely to for stable pairs, but that's becoming a problem with the hetero's as well, and I recognize that they can. I don't have a problem with stable couples adopting - better two mommies than the State. That is not my issue - my issue is the redefinition of marriage away from a focus on stable two-parent family formation for the raising of children and towards "two people who love each other", which is what you seem to be either missing or avoiding.

Click to expand...

This argument fails because marriage has been about "two people who love each other" for a while now, whether you approve or not. This is what the majority wants, whether they recognize it or not because we allow people who can't have children now to get married, 25% of married opposite sex couples where the woman is of childbearing age do not have children at all (which then would not even get into the number of married opposite sex couples where the woman is not of childbearing age, which is likely much higher), divorce does not take into account children of the couple for whether it is harder for the couple to actually get a divorce, not as far as the state mandates anyway, and >50% of US families are stepfamilies, which are more unstable in general than bio families.

Plus, whether people like it or not, a married couple is still a family, even if they don't have children. And they still get almost every incentive of marriage whether they are able to or even want to have children, and that doesn't change if they never have children. The only ones they could be considered not to get, they wouldn't need since they would pertain directly to access to children/child care for children they don't have.

Marriage is never going back to "for the raising of children" because the majority doesn't want it to. The majority wants people to marry for themselves, instead of the children because it is better to ensure the couple is happy with each other whether they have children or not than to force the couple together or to stay together for the children which leads to unhappy, dysfunctional families. Blame it on women's rights and liberation and in the work force if you wish but it isn't returning to what it once was so the best thing to do is to adapt to what it is.

cpwill said:

if you will see my discussion with jredbarron,

Click to expand...

It's 'Jredbaron'.


Capatalized J, one r in 'baron'.

ChrisL said:

It's a concern I have, that's all. Just because you say something is meaningless doesn't make it so.

Click to expand...

Its a "concern" based on no empirical evidence. Its a "concern" based on an irrational fear. Therefore.....yes.....it IS meaningless.

question: In principle, would gay couples be willing to accept civil unions that were identical to marriage in every respect but name? forget the practical implications of implementation, would such a compromise be acceptable in principle?

OscarB63 said:

question: In principle, would gay couples be willing to accept civil unions that were identical to marriage in every respect but name? forget the practical implications of implementation, would such a compromise be acceptable in principle?

Click to expand...

I would, ONLY if the government had only one term for ALL government recognized unions/marriages.

Separate but equal is just setting up a condition for discrimination.

OscarB63 said:

question: In principle, would gay couples be willing to accept civil unions that were identical to marriage in every respect but name? forget the practical implications of implementation, would such a compromise be acceptable in principle?

Click to expand...

I don't quite understand why gays should when no single group has exclusive ownership of the word "marriage".

wolfsgirl said:

I would, ONLY if the government had only one term for ALL government recognized unions/marriages.

Separate but equal is just setting up a condition for discrimination.

Click to expand...

IOW...what it is called is more important than what it really is. tomaytoe or tomahtoe it still tastes the same :shrug:

military rank example: an O3 in the army, air force and marines is called a "captain". an O3 in the navy is called a "lieutenant". separate but equal for more than 100 years and there is no discrimination there.

if the only difference is the name... where is the grounds for discrimination?

it's all about being socially accepted instead of any legal issue

Verthaine said:

I don't quite understand why gays should when no single group has exclusive ownership of the word "marriage".

Click to expand...

should and would are separate concepts.

suppose some filthy rich idiot wants to give both of us 1 million dollars each. would you turn it down simply because he wants to call mine a "gift' and yours a 'handout"?

OscarB63 said:

should and would are separate concepts.

suppose some filthy rich idiot wants to give both of us 1 million dollars each. would you turn it down simply because he wants to call mine a "gift' and yours a 'handout"?

Click to expand...

That's a rather bad analogy.
Is the word "marriage" yours to give out as you see fit?

Verthaine said:

Is the word "marriage" yours to give out as you see fit?

Click to expand...

did I ever say it was? I really don't give a rat's ass either way as long as I still get all the legal benefits from the gubbermint. you can call the union between my wife and I a fraking turnip for all i care.

it's as I said earlier. it is more important to gays (and supporters) to have the social acceptance of calling their unions a 'marriage' than it is to have the identical legal benefits under a different name.

not saying it's right or wrong, but that is how it appears.

just for a reference; a compromise is when both sides give up something. neither side gets 100% of what they want.

anti-gay crowd wants no gay unions at all
gays want 'marriage"

seems to me that in this instance the 'anti-gay' crowd is willing to compromise their position to a much greater extent

OscarB63 said:

did I ever say it was? I really don't give a rat's ass either way as long as I still get all the legal benefits from the gubbermint. you can call the union between my wife and I a fraking turnip for all i care.

it's as I said earlier. it is more important to gays (and supporters) to have the social acceptance of calling their unions a 'marriage' than it is to have the identical legal benefits under a different name.

not saying it's right or wrong, but that is how it appears.

Click to expand...

No need to to get snippy.
All I asked was if you owned the word "marriage",which apparently by your reaction that you don't.
Nor did I even mention legal benefits.
Nor did I imply that you would lose yours.

How things appear to you is how you see it.
Some people choose to see things a certain way.
But it doesn't necessarily mean that is the way they are.

Since you,nor anyone else owns the word "marriage" I still don't see the reason to compromise.

OscarB63 said:

did I ever say it was? I really don't give a rat's ass either way as long as I still get all the legal benefits from the gubbermint. you can call the union between my wife and I a fraking turnip for all i care.

it's as I said earlier. it is more important to gays (and supporters) to have the social acceptance of calling their unions a 'marriage' than it is to have the identical legal benefits under a different name.

not saying it's right or wrong, but that is how it appears.

Click to expand...

You believe that the term 'marriage' is more important to supporters than benefits

I'm going to make an assumption on your reasoning - please clarify if I'm wrong:

You believe this because when homosexuals and supporters of equal marriage privileges are offered the term 'civil unions', but equal benefits, we reject the offer and go for the term 'marriage'.

I believe your leap in reasoning is faulty.

If I were given an absolute choice for gays to be able to enter into civil unions w/ equal benefits or nothing at all, I would of course choose to have differing terms, but equal benefits.

However, this is a societal-based issue - there is no absolute and final ultimatum. what I believe is morally right is for the term to be equal and the benefits to be equal. If I reject the offer to get my top priority because my lower priority wasn't met as well, this does not indicate that my lower priority is actually my top priority. It only indicates that my lower priority is also of great value to me. And if there is a probable chance that I can get both priorities achieved IMO, I will reject the offer and go for bust. Because it's what I believe the right thing to do is.

Calling it two different things can imply to some that they ARE two different things in their fundamental meaning. Homosexuals and supporters believe that the fundamental meaning behind a marriage does not include gender.

Verthaine said:

No need to to get snippy.
All I asked was if you owned the word "marriage",which apparently by your reaction that you don't.
Nor did I even mention legal benefits.
Nor did I imply that you would lose yours.

How things appear to you is how you see it.
Some people choose to see things a certain way.
But it doesn't necessarily mean that is the way they are.

Since you,nor anyone else owns the word "marriage" I still don't see the reason to compromise.

Click to expand...

you were the one getting snippy.

as for the rest, I guess a better question for the OP would have been "are gays willing to accept ANY compromise". apparently the answer is a resounding NO.

not saying that gays should have to compromise. but sometimes in real life, we all have to do things we shouldn't in order to get a 90% solution to what we want.

OscarB63 said:

question: In principle, would gay couples be willing to accept civil unions that were identical to marriage in every respect but name? forget the practical implications of implementation, would such a compromise be acceptable in principle?

Click to expand...

Your question basically is if you ignore reality would it be acceptable. You cannot ignore reality and come up with realistic answers.

fredmertzz said:

If I were given an absolute choice for gays to be able to enter into civil unions w/ equal benefits or nothing at all, I would of course choose to have differing terms, but equal benefits.

Click to expand...

hence the term "compromise"

However, this is a societal-based issue - there is no absolute and final ultimatum. what I believe is morally right is for the term to be equal and the benefits to be equal. If I reject the offer to get my top priority because my lower priority wasn't met as well, this does not indicate that my lower priority is actually my top priority. It only indicates that my lower priority is also of great value to me. And if there is a probable chance that I can get both priorities achieved IMO, I will reject the offer and go for bust. Because it's what I believe the right thing to do is.

Click to expand...

and this confirms my assumption that the societal acceptance is the most important factor, since that seems to be the "deal breaker"

Calling it two different things can imply to some that they ARE two different things in their fundamental meaning. Homosexuals and supporters believe that the fundamental meaning behind a marriage does not include gender.

Click to expand...

and as long as the law enforces that there are NOT any fundamental differences....why should it matter what "some" may imply?

Redress said:

Your question basically is if you ignore reality would it be acceptable. You cannot ignore reality and come up with realistic answers.

Click to expand...

suppose all current law said marriage was between one man and one woman. the proposed compromise would require a second set of laws that said civil union was between two consenting adults. what gays want would require rewriting current law to say marriage is between two consenting adults.

in either case new laws must be written or old laws rewritten/ammended. the only difference is that under the "compromise" there would basically be two sets of almost identical laws on the books. other than being a bit cumbersome, where is the big difference?

OscarB63 said:

hence the term "compromise"



and this confirms my assumption that the societal acceptance is the most important factor, since that seems to be the "deal breaker"



and as long as the law enforces that there are NOT any fundamental differences....why should it matter what "some" may imply?

Click to expand...

Your assumption is not correct that acceptance is more important - though I believe it probably is for many. For me, however, it's just that it IS important undeniably. It's not a deal breaker at all - that's where your making a false assumption - so long as there is a chance we can get both goals - the term and the benefit. Ergo, drawing that conclusion is faulty, unless you are posing a question as an ultimatum.

And it matters what some may infer because acceptance is important, undeniably. But just because it is important does not mean that it's the priority. But if we can get both, we'll certainly try.

OscarB63 said:

just for a reference; a compromise is when both sides give up something. neither side gets 100% of what they want.

anti-gay crowd wants no gay unions at all
gays want 'marriage"

seems to me that in this instance the 'anti-gay' crowd is willing to compromise their position to a much greater extent

Click to expand...

With 19 states banning constitutionally all forms of recognition for same sex couples and the federal government showing no intent whatsoever to allow recognition of anything other than marriage, I'd say the majority of those who are against same sex marriage are not truly willing to give civil unions anyway. That is actually only a small amount of people. And many of those people didn't actually compromise, they started from that position.

With all the real, measurable downsides with having civil unions for same sex couples and marriage for opposite sex couples, including the financial costs to taxpayers across the country and the perceived discrimination, it is not worth it to have the two separate things in place for the same legal benefits/rights/protections/etc.

OscarB63 said:

you were the one getting snippy.

Click to expand...

Actually,I didn't,but if if you choose to believe otherwise,then I have no control over that.

OscarB63 said:

as for the rest, I guess a better question for the OP would have been "are gays willing to accept ANY compromise". apparently the answer is a resounding NO.

not saying that gays should have to compromise. but sometimes in real life, we all have to do things we shouldn't in order to get a 90% solution to what we want.

Click to expand...

So in other words,there is no need for gays to compromise since no one owns the word "marriage" to compromise with.

roguenuke said:

including the financial costs to taxpayers across the country and the perceived discrimination, it is not worth it to have the two separate things in place for the same legal benefits/rights/protections/etc.

Click to expand...

the question i keep asking (and maybe not well or clearly enough) is what additional financial costs to taxpayers are involved in the proposed compromise that are not also involved in rewriting laws to allow gay "marriage"? what are the specific costs involved in this compromise?

Verthaine said:

Actually,I didn't,but if if you choose to believe otherwise,then I have no control over that.

Click to expand...

and neither did I :shrug:

So in other words,there is no need for gays to compromise since no one owns the word "marriage" to compromise with.

Click to expand...

and with many current laws banning gay marriage of any kind.....why is there a need for anti-gays to compromise?

OscarB63 said:

suppose all current law said marriage was between one man and one woman. the proposed compromise would require a second set of laws that said civil union was between two consenting adults. what gays want would require rewriting current law to say marriage is between two consenting adults.

in either case new laws must be written or old laws rewritten/ammended. the only difference is that under the "compromise" there would basically be two sets of almost identical laws on the books. other than being a bit cumbersome, where is the big difference?

Click to expand...

The change to the law(s) that need to be made to allow same sex couples access to legal marriage are small compared to the changes needed to be made to not only allow people access to civil unions but to also set them up across the country to give the exact same benefits/rights/protections as marriage and to also ensure that the federal government recognizes them as well.

What is needed to allow same sex couples to be legally recognized as married: since marriage laws are gender neutral now in how they operate, then we only need to remove gender restrictions within the laws for who can legally get a marriage license.

What is needed to allow couples access to civil unions: we would need to write new laws pertaining to civil unions, specifying that they are exact to marriage except same sex couples can enter into them. Since some states already allow same sex couples to marry, it would have to be decided if their marriages would be recognized as civil unions or marriages in which other states and by the federal government. It would still leave the question about those marriages where someone started as one gender and changed legally to another after the marriage and stay married. Are they married or in a civil union? What if they started in a civil union, then changed genders legally? Civil union or married?

OscarB63 said:

the question i keep asking (and maybe not well or clearly enough) is what additional financial costs to taxpayers are involved in the proposed compromise that are not also involved in rewriting laws to allow gay "marriage"? what are the specific costs involved in this compromise?

Click to expand...

I can't give you exact costs, but logic tells me that it is will cost more to put into place new laws and decide how to handle contradictions or problems between the new and old laws than it would to just say that a man can marry either a man or a woman and a woman can marry either a man or a woman. Marriage laws are gender neutral in how they apply to each spouse already because men and women in marriage are equal and in those rare cases they wouldn't be, those laws would be wrong anyway.

OscarB63 said:

and neither did I :shrug:






and with many current laws banning gay marriage of any kind.....why is there a need for anti-gays to compromise?

Click to expand...

There isn't.
"Anti-gays" don't own the word "marriage",so it really isn't any reason for anyone to compromise.
Just as segregationists had no reason to compromise,but eventually history has proven them to be on the nwrong side of the issue.

It is already been proven in the past that "seperate but equal" just doesn't work.Why compromise and settle for something that doesn't work?

Current laws banning gay marriage will be overturn by the SCOTUS in due time,just as miscegenation laws were done in the pass.
And current trends are pointing to more and more people accepting of SSM.
Why compromise with those who have nothing to offer when the "whole enchilada" will be given by those (a majority of voters) who do matter in due time?