Civil Unions

independent_thinker2002 said:

Let gays and straights use the word marriage. As long as the govt. is in the marriage business, they should recognize both without seperate but equal terminology.

Click to expand...

I say, let gays and straights use the word marriage, but only let government use the term civil union. groups that government does not deem eligible for one of this "civil unions" would not be obliged to apply for federal/state approval or recognition, but could get married if they wanted with no restrictions. let's face it: true love cannot be bound by any and all restrictions government imposes on it. it is only cheapened by them as people continue to appeal to government for affirmation of what they feel in their hearts. romance and the state do not mix.

Jerry said:

Thank you for admitting that gay marriage is endangering my own personal right to marry. Gay marriage now achieves the criteria to be legal discrimination, and must never be allowed.

Click to expand...

It only endangers your right to have the government recognize it. It will not and cannot endanger your right to actually marry.

Jerry said:

I never had any such 'right to marry who I want', though. Never.

Gays have always had each and every single right that I enjoy, and I have always been bound by each and every single restriction that gays have been.

Click to expand...

Who do you want to marry Jerry? A woman? Or a man? Please don't sidestep this question. There are only two possible choices. There are no "what if's", there are no "but's". Nothing but "man" or "woman". Next question. If you were only allowed to marry men would you object to it? Yes or no.

Jerry said:

There never was inequality, and to be fair, if marriage is abolished things would still be equal.

Click to expand...

Heterosexuals get to marry who they want. Homosexuals do not. That is not equality.

Jerry said:

So, we know that gay marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with equality, in any way, to any degree, at all whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Wrong. It has every thing to do with equality and rights. You just don't want to see the inequality that is there.

Jerry said:

No one's talking about religion, and I don't belong to a church even if we were.

Click to expand...

Look back through the thread. Religion has been mentioned quite a few times.

Jerry said:

Nice try at a Red Herring, but you'll need to come up with something I haven't heard over and over for years.

The only thing new you bring to the table is a concession that gay marriage seeks to destroy my rights. Since your position destroys the gay marriage argument in toto, I care even less about 'gay rights' as a result.

Click to expand...

It's not a red herring. It's fact. It's truth. Its right. And if you had correctly red what I said you would know that it does nothing to destroy gay marriage arguement. If anything your response shows that it strengthens it.

emdash said:

I say, let gays and straights use the word marriage, but only let government use the term civil union. groups that government does not deem eligible for one of this "civil unions" would not be obliged to apply for federal/state approval or recognition, but could get married if they wanted with no restrictions. let's face it: true love cannot be bound by any and all restrictions government imposes on it. it is only cheapened by them as people continue to appeal to government for affirmation of what they feel in their hearts. romance and the state do not mix.

Click to expand...

What will changing the term the govt. uses really change?

And how would you prevent people from calling it whatever they wanted to anyway?

Kal'Stang said:

If you want to use only the America's history then you have to include all the way back to 1492. That is as much a part of our history as before the US was actually formed.

Click to expand...

Not really. It had little effect on the founding of this nation. Why don't we just include Canada and South America while we are at it.

Kal'Stang said:

It is during this time that led up to the Revolutionary war. And is even taught as US history in schools. Which still puts it within the time line of before priests started officiating marriages.

Click to expand...

You are reaching big time on that one.

Until 1775 when the colonies rebelled they were British colonies.

I suppose next you want us to include the history of Britain into it? :lol:

Blackdog said:

Not really. It had little effect on the founding of this nation. Why don't we just include Canada and South America while we are at it.



You are reaching big time on that one.

Until 1775 when the colonies rebelled they were British colonies.

I suppose next you want us to include the history of Britain into it? :lol:

Click to expand...

Nope not reaching. It's a fact that they teach about Columbus in American History. After all if Columbus hadn't come here then it's possible that there wouldn't even be a US. At least not the America that we know it as now.

Kal'Stang said:

Nope not reaching. It's a fact that they teach about Columbus in American History. After all if Columbus hadn't come here then it's possible that there wouldn't even be a US. At least not the America that we know it as now.

Click to expand...

So I guess we can include England and it's history of religious marriage? I guess we can also include the native Americans whom 90% had a religious ceremony's to mark marriage. Since Eric the Red discovered the Americas long before Columbus we can include the history of Northern Europe as well?

Yes. In the context of my argument you are indeed reaching.

The very fact that people are still clinging so tightly to this term, that's it's "mine, mine, all mine" (religious conservative types) is just depressing. This is a good example of why I don't congregate with other Christians, this kind of discriminatory garbage.

And having spent years in church with other Christians, I know what is coming next. "How can you call yourself a Christian yet crap on our traditional Christian values, God said man shouldn't lay with another man." Well God also forgives and we all sin.

Let's just cut the BS on this. This is nothing more than socially conservative religious territorial pissing. Nothing more. Get over yourselves.

Blackdog said:

So I guess we can include England and it's history of religious marriage? I guess we can also include the native Americans whom 90% had a religious ceremony's to mark marriage. Since Eric the Red discovered the Americas long before Columbus we can include the history of Northern Europe as well?

Yes. In the context of my argument you are indeed reaching.

Click to expand...

You are trying to state that in our American history marriage has been about religion. I am showing you that this is not totally correct. What you are doing NOW is trying to move the goal posts to only when the USA was founded.

Blackdog said:

You have got to be kidding?



In the history of this country it does exist.

You mite want to bone up on your history just a little. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Blackdog said:

If I was claiming that or said anything even close you could have had a point. I did not.

I said it is OUR history, that distinctly American history. Pick up a history book about this country and you could learn allot about our traditions.

In the beginning of the history of the 13 colonies you could find a complete history of most families were? In the family Bible. This included Births and marriages. This went for many, many years and included Jewish and other religions including slaves at the time.

This country may not have been formed as a Christian country, but it was formed by a huge undeniable majority of Christians, period. We are still the majority to this very day.

Don't need a copyright or anything else for that. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Our American history starts when Columbus landed. Everyone recognizes this. Hell we even have a holiday just for Columbus. And I'm not talking about Thanksgiving. Though that is another holiday that is about the early settlers..before the founding of the USA.

Sorry but you do not get to move the goal posts. And you certainly don't get to rewrite American history.

Kal'Stang said:

You are trying to state that in our American history marriage has been about religion. I am showing you that this is not totally correct. What you are doing NOW is trying to move the goal posts to only when the USA was founded.

Click to expand...

I am not moving anything. I guess you don't understand sarcasm? I am showing how ridicules your claim is as to my comment. I was not referring to pre 13 colonies history at all.

Kal'Stang said:

Our American history starts when Columbus landed. Everyone recognizes this. Hell we even have a holiday just for Columbus. And I'm not talking about Thanksgiving. Though that is another holiday that is about the early settlers..before the founding of the USA.

Click to expand...

It does not change the fact that marriage in the US even at that time was a religious institution. So it has nothing at all to do with my comment or Hautys claim.

PS you are confusing American History with US History.

Kal'Stang said:

Sorry but you do not get to move the goal posts. And you certainly don't get to rewrite American history.

Click to expand...

I did not have to move them. You are completely off track in reference to my comments.

Blackdog said:

PS you are confusing American History with US History.

Click to expand...

Blackdog said:

If I was claiming that or said anything even close you could have had a point. I did not.

I said it is OUR history, that distinctly American history. Pick up a history book about this country and you could learn allot about our traditions.

In the beginning of the history of the 13 colonies you could find a complete history of most families were? In the family Bible. This included Births and marriages. This went for many, many years and included Jewish and other religions including slaves at the time.

This country may not have been formed as a Christian country, but it was formed by a huge undeniable majority of Christians, period. We are still the majority to this very day.

Don't need a copyright or anything else for that. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Goal posts changed. You fail.

Kal'Stang said:

Goal posts changed. You fail.

Click to expand...

That is moronic, I did not change anything. That is distinctly American, as in the US. You know a term we use interchangeably? Or is that a little above your head as well?

Is that the best you could come up with? :lol:

Just had to add this in for you...

:sinking:

Just love that one.

Blackdog said:

That is moronic, I did not change anything. That is distinctly American, as in the US. You know a term we use interchangeably? Or is that a little above your head as well?

Is that the best you could come up with? :lol:

Just had to add this in for you...

:sinking:

Just love that one.

Click to expand...

:spin:

But hey lets get past this. You do know that people can get married without ever ONCE visiting anyone thats religious? Without even having a ceremony? And it's been that way for a LONG time. Lets see if you know what it is....

independent_thinker2002 said:

What will changing the term the govt. uses really change?

Click to expand...

I think it would be good for morale. semantics are more important than a lot of people are willing to admit.

independent_thinker2002 said:

And how would you prevent people from calling it whatever they wanted to anyway?

Click to expand...

you wouldn't apply for a marriage license if it no longer existed, right? you'd get married, in your church or your parents' backyard or whatever, and then if you and your wife thought it was a good idea to bring uncle sam into your bedroom, you'd apply for civil benefits. so to speak.

Jerry said:

Thank you for admitting that gay marriage is endangering my own personal right to marry.

Click to expand...

How does this endanger your personal right to marry?

Gay marriage now achieves the criteria to be legal discrimination, and must never be allowed.

Click to expand...

What? How so?

I never had any such 'right to marry who I want', though. Never.

Click to expand...

Your playing word games now Jerry. This isn't debating. You know what he was getting at.

Gays have always had each and every single right that I enjoy, and I have always been bound by each and every single restriction that gays have been.

Click to expand...

Have gays been allowed to be married and share in the same benefits as heterosexual couples?

There never was inequality, and to be fair, if marriage is abolished things would still be equal.

Click to expand...

See above question.

So, we know that gay marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with equality, in any way, to any degree, at all whatsoever.

Click to expand...

See above question.

No one's talking about religion, and I don't belong to a church even if we were.

Click to expand...

The main voice opposing gay marriage is absolutely talking religion. And regarding this issue it's the main opposition to it. It's relevant to the conversation.

The only thing new you bring to the table is a concession that gay marriage seeks to destroy my rights.

Click to expand...

Balderdash.

Kal'Stang said:

1: Do homosexuals get to marry who they want? 2: Do heterosexuals get to marry who they want? 3: Are the answers the same?

1: No.
2: Yes.
3: No.

Where is the morality in those questions? Is there logic to those questions? Yes.

Click to expand...

First, the answer to both 1 and 2 is "no". There may be fewer laws restricting whom one is allowed to marry than there were forty years ago, but there are still considerable restrictions.

And the morality in those questions is the unproven moral assumption that the answer to 3 is supposed to be "yes". Considering that that's the assumption we are trying to prove by logic, the fact that you are simply assuming the answer without addressing it means that you are misusing logic.

Korimyr the Rat said:

First, the answer to both 1 and 2 is "no". There may be fewer laws restricting whom one is allowed to marry than there were forty years ago, but there are still considerable restrictions.

And the morality in those questions is the unproven moral assumption that the answer to 3 is supposed to be "yes". Considering that that's the assumption we are trying to prove by logic, the fact that you are simply assuming the answer without addressing it means that you are misusing logic.

Click to expand...

Really? Show me one heterosexual that wants to marry the same sex. Show me one heterosexual that does not get to marry who they want period. Or are you being so literal that you're going to try and pull the old "don't get to marry someone if they say no" bit? Let's not play semantics here. You know darn well what I mean. And what everyone else means by "want to marry who they want to".

Edit: Actually lets put it this way. Are you married Korimyr? If so did you want to marry that person?

Kal'Stang said:

Really? Show me one heterosexual that wants to marry the same sex. Show me one heterosexual that does not get to marry who they want period. Or are you being so literal that you're going to try and pull the old "don't get to marry someone if they say no" bit? Let's not play semantics here. You know darn well what I mean. And what everyone else means by "want to marry who they want to".

Edit: Actually lets put it this way. Are you married Korimyr? If so did you want to marry that person?

Click to expand...

Heterosexuals can marry who ever they want. Homosexuals cannot. How hard is that to understand?

Gibberish said:

Heterosexuals can marry who ever they want. Homosexuals cannot. How hard is that to understand?

Click to expand...

Thats my stance. But those that oppose it don't want to recognize that fact. They like to play semantic games in order to avoid facing the truth that not allowing homosexuals to marry is not right. That heterosexuals are in fact privileged when it comes to marriage.

Canada's Federal Government recognized gay marriage years ago, and the country has not fallen apart. After the legislation was passed there was some media buzz and now you never hear about it. It's such a trivial non-issue. The religious right will always think that they alone have entitlement to the term marriage, but the arguments they present are insufficient for explaining why they alone deserve the right.

Atheists can get married. You don't have to be religious to be "married". Religion doesn't own marriage, even though many traditions subscribe to this idea. America is a plurality and the Constitution was made to acknowledge that, hence freedom of speech, press, religion, etc. Either the State gives everyone the same right to freedom of marriage, or the State should remove its hands from the issue altogether. If the justice system and legislative branch were honest about what the Constitution says, the Equal Protection clause would have stepped in already and ruled on this issue a long time ago.

And no, the "same right" does not mean a gay man will marry a woman. It means a man can marry another man, or a woman can marry another woman. Until the State constitutional amendments came into play defining who marriage was between, the language was universal. This type of dishonesty is why America's foundation has begun to rot.

Gibberish said:

Heterosexuals can marry who ever they want. Homosexuals cannot. How hard is that to understand?

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

Thats my stance. But those that oppose it don't want to recognize that fact. They like to play semantic games in order to avoid facing the truth that not allowing homosexuals to marry is not right. That heterosexuals are in fact privileged when it comes to marriage.

Click to expand...

heterosexual individuals and homosexual individuals are subject to the same restrictions when applying for a marriage license from the state, simply because the state has no way of knowing if individuals are heterosexual or homosexual. that being said, the average heterosexual individual is probably slightly more likely to find the prospect of joining themselves permanently to a member of the opposite sex appealing or tolerable, but nowhere is any individual guaranteed the right to marry the person they would most like to marry. to suggest anything of the kind is illogical. if that's not what you meant, consider that being more accurate in the future will stop semantic arguments before they start.

emdash said:

heterosexual individuals and homosexual individuals are subject to the same restrictions when applying for a marriage license from the state, simply because the state has no way of knowing if individuals are heterosexual or homosexual. that being said, the average heterosexual individual is probably slightly more likely to find the prospect of joining themselves permanently to a member of the opposite sex appealing or tolerable, but nowhere is any individual guaranteed the right to marry the person they would most like to marry. to suggest anything of the kind is illogical. if that's not what you meant, consider that being more accurate in the future will stop semantic arguments before they start.

Click to expand...

Semantics is just a persons way to try and get out of answering honestly. Everyone here knows what is being asked. Knows what it entails. You should not have to be a lawyer in order to have a good debate.

Kal'Stang said:

Semantics is just a persons way to try and get out of answering honestly. Everyone here knows what is being asked. Knows what it entails. You should not have to be a lawyer in order to have a good debate.

Click to expand...

people use semantics to point out flaws in your argument. if that bothers you, fix the flaws and they won't be able to do that anymore. if you can't come up with a way to word your argument without seeing those same flaws, there might be a reason why.

Kal'Stang said:

Really? Show me one heterosexual that wants to marry the same sex.

Click to expand...

Show me one person whose qualifications for marriage only include that their spouse be a member of the appropriate sex. As a matter of fact... why don't you go ahead and show me a person who, having a person they desire to marry, is willing to substitute their intended spouse for any other person.

Kal'Stang said:

Show me one heterosexual that does not get to marry who they want period. Or are you being so literal that you're going to try and pull the old "don't get to marry someone if they say no" bit?

Click to expand...

I might be more tempted to take you seriously if you didn't announce in advance that you're going to counter any argument I make with "you're being too literal!"-- or, in other words, that it's not fair to argue against what you're saying because what you say is not what you mean.

But, for starters... heterosexuals in the majority of States are not legally permitted to marry their first cousins, nor their second cousins in some States. Regardless of their sex or their consent. And if you're going to continue to argue that "heterosexuals get to marry the person they want", you're going to have to explain why the State has the legal and moral privilege of excluding those marriages from consideration.

Or admit that heterosexuals really only have the "right" to get married if the State approves of their coupling-- which is the same state of affairs which governs homosexuals, and what we are really arguing about is whether or not the State should approve of homosexual marriages.

Kal'Stang said:

Let's not play semantics here. You know darn well what I mean. And what everyone else means by "want to marry who they want to".

Click to expand...

Yes. I know exactly what you mean. The problem with this argument is that you do not seem to know what you mean-- because you are saying one thing, claiming to mean another, and then are attempting to use both statements to justify your arguments.

Kal'Stang said:

Edit: Actually lets put it this way. Are you married Korimyr? If so did you want to marry that person?

Click to expand...

I'm not married. Thankfully, the person I want to marry fits the legal criteria for whom I am allowed to marry.

edit: And you are still neglecting the point entirely that you are acting under the unproven moral assumption that the answer to your third question-- "Are they the same?"-- should be "yes", without taking a single step to attempt to prove it. Which, considering that I support gay marriage, is the point that drew me into this conversation in the first place.

You cannot solve this, or any other moral dilemma, on the basis of pure reason. Logic cannot answer this question unless you have already answered it for yourself-- on the basis of your own arbitrary moral principles.

emdash said:

people use semantics to point out flaws in your argument. if that bothers you, fix the flaws and they won't be able to do that anymore. if you can't come up with a way to word your argument without seeing those same flaws, there might be a reason why.

Click to expand...

Can you honestly tell me that people JUST use semantics to point out flaws? Or do you also know that they use semantics to try and get out of an uncomfortable positition by sidetracking a person into discussing semantical nonsense?

Kal'Stang said:

Can you honestly tell me that people JUST use semantics to point out flaws? Or do you also know that they use semantics to try and get out of an uncomfortable positition by sidetracking a person into discussing semantical nonsense?

Click to expand...

I can honestly tell you that in this case, your words are flat-out wrong. you are making a statement that is simply untrue, and then you say "You knew what I meant!" but if you fix the statement to make it true, you can win this argument without the distractions. please, just fix it so we can move on.

or...maybe you can't fix it, because your argument is based on a misconception.

dunno.