• 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
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?

if it's jsut a matter of time....why all the handwringing? just sit back and be patient ;)

and, unless i am mistaken...the question in the OP was not "should gays compromise" but rather "would they be willing to". and obviously the answer is no.

as I said, i don't have a dog in this fight so I really don't give a rat's ass either way. I just enjoy playing devil's advocate
 
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

There is set precedence in the law that shows that separate but equal simply isn't equal.
What the military decides to call a job has nothing to do with the laws that are bring discussed.
 
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

Since when do we compromise on the rights of American citizens?

If the anti-gay side was willing to compromise then there would be no laws that ban same sex civil unions/domestic partnerships.
 
No, they are not, because conservatives have yet to provide a legitimate reason why marriage should be a term reserved for heterosexuals.
 
how about incest and polygamy? since we are rewriting the laws defining marriage...why not give those consenting adults the same rights everyone else has?
 
how about incest and polygamy? since we are rewriting the laws defining marriage...why not give those consenting adults the same rights everyone else has?

That isn't how the legal system works. The cases on the court docket involve gender restrictions, not the number of parties, and familial relation.

Those would have to go to court and be heard on their own merits.
 
That isn't how the legal system works. The cases on the court docket involve gender restrictions, not the number of parties, and familial relation.

Those would have to go to court and be heard on their own merits.

I fully realize that those instances would be separate legal issues...but that is not what I asked


assuming you support gay marriage, on what grounds would you oppose incestual or polygamy marriages?
 
how about incest and polygamy? since we are rewriting the laws defining marriage...why not give those consenting adults the same rights everyone else has?

This is another part of the problem. We are not "rewriting laws defining marriage". We are rewriting laws restricting who can enter into marriage. There is a difference. Who can enter into marriage does not define what marriage is. How marriage works defines what marriage is. Marriage as a legal contract is remaining completely the same in how it operates.

Marriage is still about stable, intimate, adult relationships in which the laws are granting certain rights of kinship and more specifically giving closest next of kin status to an intimate partner, since this takes away the need for a lot of paperwork to do the same thing. Many of the benefits of marriage comes from the fact that the vast majority of intimate partners build their lives together by deciding what each person will do to contribute to helping each other and go through life together. The vast majority of those getting married, particularly legally married, do so with the intention to stay together til one of them dies.

Intimate relationships between close family relations are not desirable and for the most part not legal. We have plenty of data to back up a true concern for genetic and/or behavior issues in children that result from these relations. In addition, many of such relationships start, at least to be encouraged, prior to age of consent. This brings up a question of undue influence in these relationships that does not exist for the vast majority of normal couples who get married.

Polygamy has nothing to do with the relationship but rather to do with the way legal marriage operates as a contract. Medical decision making for a spouse is granted with marriage. Outside of marriage, this is granted with a medical power of attorney. A person is only allowed to designate one person as their medical decision maker outside of marriage. There is also the issue that many people do, even without it being legal, abuse plural marriage as a way to oppress women and/or ostracize young men because it becomes one man with many wives which creates a shortage of women for other men and treats women as less than their husband. Many marriage laws would have to be changed to accommodate multiple spouses for very little benefit to society itself, not when we do consider the sexes in marriage equal. Any plural marriages would have to be agreements between all spouses, not just one person having multiple spouses in order to ensure that everyone is aware of the situation, since a major part of marriage now is protection in case of a breakup of the marriage. I'm not even against allowing a form of legal marriage that applies to people wanting multiple spouses in one big marriage. I just know that such a thing will not work with the way marriage operates right now. And the issue does not have to do with same sex couples being allowed to marry, anymore than it had to do with interracial couples being allowed to marry.
 
This is another part of the problem. We are not "rewriting laws defining marriage". We are rewriting laws restricting who can enter into marriage. There is a difference. Who can enter into marriage does not define what marriage is. How marriage works defines what marriage is. Marriage as a legal contract is remaining completely the same in how it operates.

Marriage is still about stable, intimate, adult relationships in which the laws are granting certain rights of kinship and more specifically giving closest next of kin status to an intimate partner, since this takes away the need for a lot of paperwork to do the same thing. Many of the benefits of marriage comes from the fact that the vast majority of intimate partners build their lives together by deciding what each person will do to contribute to helping each other and go through life together. The vast majority of those getting married, particularly legally married, do so with the intention to stay together til one of them dies.

Intimate relationships between close family relations are not desirable and for the most part not legal. We have plenty of data to back up a true concern for genetic and/or behavior issues in children that result from these relations. In addition, many of such relationships start, at least to be encouraged, prior to age of consent. This brings up a question of undue influence in these relationships that does not exist for the vast majority of normal couples who get married.

Polygamy has nothing to do with the relationship but rather to do with the way legal marriage operates as a contract. Medical decision making for a spouse is granted with marriage. Outside of marriage, this is granted with a medical power of attorney. A person is only allowed to designate one person as their medical decision maker outside of marriage. There is also the issue that many people do, even without it being legal, abuse plural marriage as a way to oppress women and/or ostracize young men because it becomes one man with many wives which creates a shortage of women for other men and treats women as less than their husband. Many marriage laws would have to be changed to accommodate multiple spouses for very little benefit to society itself, not when we do consider the sexes in marriage equal. Any plural marriages would have to be agreements between all spouses, not just one person having multiple spouses in order to ensure that everyone is aware of the situation, since a major part of marriage now is protection in case of a breakup of the marriage. I'm not even against allowing a form of legal marriage that applies to people wanting multiple spouses in one big marriage. I just know that such a thing will not work with the way marriage operates right now. And the issue does not have to do with same sex couples being allowed to marry, anymore than it had to do with interracial couples being allowed to marry.


i just asked because I have encountered numerous pro-gay marriage people who find incest and/or polygamy morally unacceptable.
 
I fully realize that those instances would be separate legal issues...but that is not what I asked


assuming you support gay marriage, on what grounds would you oppose incestual or polygamy marriages?

I don't oppose polygamy, but the current marriage laws would need to be refined to fit more than one person.

The only problem I have with incest is coercion, the genetic issues, and the grooming of children to marry a parent, or older sibling.

Personally, not my cup of tea, but to each their own.
 
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?

A small rewrite of a law is much less than creating a whole new set of laws. Your imaginary, unrealistic scenario designed to try and get the response you want still does not work.
 
and with many current laws banning gay marriage of any kind.....why is there a need for anti-gays to compromise?

Because of the shift in public sentiment and the weight of court rulings against SSM limitations.
 
A small rewrite of a law is much less than creating a whole new set of laws. Your imaginary, unrealistic scenario designed to try and get the response you want still does not work.

unlike you, i only want an honest answer to an honest question. but hey....thanks for playing :thumbs:
 
how about incest and polygamy? since we are rewriting the laws defining marriage...why not give those consenting adults the same rights everyone else has?

When in doubt, break out slippery slope arguments. Hint: from a legal standpoint the state can show at least some level of interest in limiting both incest and polygamy. SSM, not so much.
 
Because of the shift in public sentiment and the weight of court rulings against SSM limitations.

so why not just put it to a national vote and let the people decide?

oh yeah, that's right, because atm you wouldn't get the answer you are looking for :lamo
 
When in doubt, break out slippery slope arguments. Hint: from a legal standpoint the state can show at least some level of interest in limiting both incest and polygamy. SSM, not so much.

what slippery slope? I thought the SSM arguement was centered around equal rights for consenting adults.
 
what slippery slope? I thought the SSM arguement was centered around equal rights for consenting adults.

Might want to read the thread, since other arguments have been used. The most compelling argument in favor of SSM in general terms is that it is good for families. From a legal standpoint, it is probably unconstitutional to ban SSM.
 
what slippery slope? I thought the SSM arguement was centered around equal rights for consenting adults.

The state is allowed to show how "unfair laws" may serve a government purpose if they are able to actually provide a reasonable argument in how the "unfairness" is furthering a state interest. We have given ways that preventing incest and multiple people from entering into marriage can legitimately further many interests in just keeping people safe, along with other reasons. Whether they would hold up in court would be for cases dealing with those particular issues. But you nor anyone else has been able to show how preventing a man from marrying a man or a woman from marrying a woman can further any government interest in any way because it doesn't. Such relationships are legal and can not be shown to cause any harm in themselves when we are talking about consenting adults. They are still just two people, so no issues with extra problems from more nor issues with who would have the actual legal authority as spouse/most important spouse.

The prevailing argument about denying same sex couples marriage access has been that marriage is for procreation and can be limited to only those who can procreate, but this is not how legally marriage works now since there is no age limit on marriage, there is no fertility test with marriage, and in fact, several states have laws that specifically say that certain couples can only get married if they cannot procreate with each other and those couples are still legally recognized as married by the federal government and many other states. Along with all these things, married couples are allowed to divorce even if they do have children.
 
Might want to read the thread, since other arguments have been used. The most compelling argument in favor of SSM in general terms is that it is good for families. From a legal standpoint, it is probably unconstitutional to ban SSM.

might want to read the plethora of other threads on this and other forums. sure "other" arguments have been used...but the heart of the argument for SSM is that gays deserves equal rights, specifically the same rights as heteros when it comes to marriage.

funny how those who squeal the loudest for "equal rights" are usually the first ones to spew a laundry list of excuses/reason why other non-traditional unions should be denied the very rights that they bleat for so loudly for themselves

if gays "deserve" the right to get married....then any other group of consenting adults deserve that same right.
 
The state is allowed to show how "unfair laws" may serve a government purpose if they are able to actually provide a reasonable argument in how the "unfairness" is furthering a state interest. We have given ways that preventing incest and multiple people from entering into marriage can legitimately further many interests in just keeping people safe, along with other reasons. Whether they would hold up in court would be for cases dealing with those particular issues. But you nor anyone else has been able to show how preventing a man from marrying a man or a woman from marrying a woman can further any government interest in any way because it doesn't. Such relationships are legal and can not be shown to cause any harm in themselves when we are talking about consenting adults. They are still just two people, so no issues with extra problems from more nor issues with who would have the actual legal authority as spouse/most important spouse.

The prevailing argument about denying same sex couples marriage access has been that marriage is for procreation and can be limited to only those who can procreate, but this is not how legally marriage works now since there is no age limit on marriage, there is no fertility test with marriage, and in fact, several states have laws that specifically say that certain couples can only get married if they cannot procreate with each other and those couples are still legally recognized as married by the federal government and many other states. Along with all these things, married couples are allowed to divorce even if they do have children.

equal rights for everyone....unless you happen to disagree with them


FWIW, 7 states already allow first cousins to marry (oddly enough Alabama is not one of them, but CA is) the arguments against incest are weak at best. the chances of having a "tarded" baby from an incestuous relationship are acutally quite low, unless the inbreeding continues for several generations.
 
Last edited:
might want to read the plethora of other threads on this and other forums. sure "other" arguments have been used...but the heart of the argument for SSM is that gays deserves equal rights, specifically the same rights as heteros when it comes to marriage.

funny how those who squeal the loudest for "equal rights" are usually the first ones to spew a laundry list of excuses/reason why other non-traditional unions should be denied the very rights that they bleat for so loudly for themselves

if gays "deserve" the right to get married....then any other group of consenting adults deserve that same right.

Then people who want other types of marriage should use the legal system to have those restrictions removed. No one else can fight their battle in court. Legal standing.
 
equal rights for everyone....unless you happen to disagree with them


FWIW, 7 states already allow first cousins to marry (oddly enough Alabama is not one of them, but CA is) the arguments against incest are weak at best. the chances of having a "tarded" baby from an incestuous relationship are acutally quite low, unless the inbreeding continues for several generations.

For first cousins the rates are about 4-6% (better health)
For siblings about 30% (better health)
For IVF about 37% (natural news)
For women over 45 1 in 30 (baby hopes)

But those cases would have to be taken to court, and stand on their own merits.
 
For first cousins the rates are about 4-6% (better health)
For siblings about 30% (better health)
For IVF about 37% (natural news)
For women over 45 1 in 30 (baby hopes)

But those cases would have to be taken to court, and stand on their own merits.

so what you are saying is that IVF have higher rates of "tardation" than sibling mating and yet no one is squealing to outlaw IVF.

it's as I suspect. people find incest disgusting and morally unacceptable...just as the mojority of people used to view homosexuality. it's a personal preference. if you are going to support equal rights...support equal rights for everyone

it is none of your, my, our business what consenting adults do in the bedroom.

if two dude want to get married....fine
if two cousins want to get married...fine
if a girl and two guys want to get married....fine
if a guy wants to marry becky the blowup doll....fine
 
equal rights for everyone....unless you happen to disagree with them


FWIW, 7 states already allow first cousins to marry (oddly enough Alabama is not one of them, but CA is) the arguments against incest are weak at best. the chances of having a "tarded" baby from an incestuous relationship are acutally quite low, unless the inbreeding continues for several generations.

Wrong. Equal rights for all but limited by sound government reasoning, just as all rights are. Rights being restricted is almost always going to come down to whether the state can prove that the right of the individual/group is outweighed by the rights of others or benefit to society as a whole. But with either, the state will have to prove that either there is legitimate right to other(s) that is greater or that there is actually a benefit to society in the restriction, and not just say "we don't know what would happen or who might be affected, but we think ..." with nothing or very little to back this up

Actually 19 states completely allow first cousins to marry with no restrictions (except in NC, where double first cousins can't, so offspring of first cousins cannot marry their first cousin). The other 5 states I alluded to are separate from these and they have restrictions that do not allow first cousins to marry if they can procreate. Plus, there are other states that recognize first cousin marriages but won't perform them, such as Washington state.

I'm all for allowing first cousins to marry (although I think genetic counseling would be appropriate and possibly restrictions on double first cousins, since we know generational cousin incest can cause much larger problems). I honestly believe this is more likely to be our next "marriage" fight than something like polygamy.
 
might want to read the plethora of other threads on this and other forums. sure "other" arguments have been used...but the heart of the argument for SSM is that gays deserves equal rights, specifically the same rights as heteros when it comes to marriage.

funny how those who squeal the loudest for "equal rights" are usually the first ones to spew a laundry list of excuses/reason why other non-traditional unions should be denied the very rights that they bleat for so loudly for themselves

if gays "deserve" the right to get married....then any other group of consenting adults deserve that same right.

The same could be said for anyone having the right to marry.

"If opposite sex couples deserve the right to marry, then any other group of consenting adults deserve the same right."

But the problem is that this isn't how our laws work. First you challenge the law in question. Then the state is able to make an argument for why the law furthers a state interest at the appropriate level of scrutiny. The side who challenged the law is allowed to counter any of the states' reasons for why they feel it furthers a legitimate interest with facts, including scientific findings, studies, statistics, how the law works compared to how it is being presented, and many other things. It ultimately comes down to whether the state made a good enough argument to stand up against the counter information presented and the right they are trying to restrict. Each separate issue must go through this process because in most cases, the state is going to have a different reason for why it is restricting the right.
 
Back
Top Bottom