• 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!

Civil Unions

Should civil unions replace marriage for legal purposes?

  • The term civil union should replace the term marriage for legal purposes

    Votes: 13 31.0%

  • Both terms, civil union (for gay couples)and marriage (for straight), should be used

    Votes: 10 23.8%

  • The term marriage should be use equally for gay and straight couples

    Votes: 15 35.7%

  • Gay couples should not be able to have the rights of marriage at all.

    Votes: 4 9.5%
  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is completely accurate. Marriage, until recently, was always a religious institution.
Click to expand...

Actually, THAT statement is completely inaccurate.

Until relatively recently, the church was always the government, and hence marriage was always a state function.

When the people finally started waking up to the evils of theocracy, and the churches began to break up....it was the state that retained control of the laws regulating marriages, not the churches....after all, just for one example, one wouldn't expect the Catholics and the Prods in Ireland to cooperate in their marriage rules...that's the state's job.

Still is.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Actually, THAT statement is completely inaccurate.

Until relatively recently, the church was always the government, and hence marriage was always a state function.

When the people finally started waking up to the evils of theocracy, and the churches began to break up....it was the state that retained control of the laws regulating marriages, not the churches....after all, just for one example, one wouldn't expect the Catholics and the Prods in Ireland to cooperate in their marriage rules...that's the state's job.

Still is.
Click to expand...

Actually, with what you posted, we are both correct. Marriage functioned as both a religious ceremony and a governmental function...while the church was governmental. However, that does not alter the fact that marriage was church based...regardless of what the context was.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Until relatively recently, the church was always the government, and hence marriage was always a state function.
Click to expand...

Not so. In the strictest sense, the definition of a monarchy is the the king/queen answers only to God. Thus, if you are referring to Western nations as I assume you were, the Catholic Church was looked upon as the higher authority. Priests owned land, it's true, but the Church was not technically the reigning government.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
When the people finally started waking up to the evils of theocracy, and the churches began to break up....it was the state that retained control of the laws regulating marriages, not the churches....after all, just for one example, one wouldn't expect the Catholics and the Prods in Ireland to cooperate in their marriage rules...that's the state's job.
Click to expand...

Also not so. Western nations never had a theocracy. A good example of a theocracy would be the Egyptians where they believed their ruler actually was a god.

When Martin Luther and King Henry VII brought about their revisions to the church, marriage was still considered a religious matter. You still had to get married through a religion; it was just THEIR religion.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Marriage functioned as both a religious ceremony and a governmental function...while the church was governmental.
Click to expand...

The Catholic Church was never governmental. It held control over the Western nations becuase it held power over their immortal souls. Essentially, if you weren't in good favor with the pope, you could be damned. So it acted like a mediator for their squabbles.
 
DGomez said:
This, I am afraid, is an extremely inaccurate statement. Up until quite recently, Religion DID own marriage.
Click to expand...

No, up until quite recently, religion CLAIMED ownership of marriage, whether or not that's actually true or not. However, what may have been true, or perceived to be true in the past, has no bearing on what is true today. In the modern world, religion simply provides a ceremony to celebrate marriage, it has no other function in the process.

You can walk down all the aisles in all of the churches you want, you're not married until you get that piece of paper from the state.
 
Jesse Ventura stated this well:
We can solve the problem simply. Government only acknowledges civil unions then you don‘t have to put your sex down. Let the churches acknowledge marriage. They are the private sectors. If they don‘t want to acknowledge it, they have every right to do so. How on earth can we even entertain the fact that government should have the ability to tell you as an individual who you can fall in love with? Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by DGomez View Post
This, I am afraid, is an extremely inaccurate statement. Up until quite recently, Religion DID own marriage.
Click to expand...

Which religion?
 
The whole issue is complicated by government (well government rarely makes anything more efficient). Marriage was sole property of religion before just after the civil war. The founding fathers didn't have to ask permission to be married; they just got married. But all that changed with the advent of the marriage license; it is at that point in which government usurped marriage from religion and made it an institution of their own. The ideal solution is to, of course, get rid of the marriage license; return to the natural state. Let religion have marriage, the State shouldn't be involved. And there should be no civil union either. The "benefits" of marriage, the most cited ones being contractual obligations and definitions can be handled through separate contract. And there is no reason that shouldn't be allowed, name whom you need to name in order to keep affairs in order and things of that nature. There is no special contract needed, you don't need to be married.

Other benefits of marriage which include monetary advantage, child credit, etc. should all be abolished.
 
Cephus said:
No, up until quite recently, religion CLAIMED ownership of marriage, whether or not that's actually true or not. However, what may have been true, or perceived to be true in the past, has no bearing on what is true today. In the modern world, religion simply provides a ceremony to celebrate marriage, it has no other function in the process.

You can walk down all the aisles in all of the churches you want, you're not married until you get that piece of paper from the state.
Click to expand...

The legal institution of marriage was meant to support the religious institution of marriage.

If the government wants out of the marriage business, so be it, but that necessarily means that civil unions do not exist either.
 
emdash said:
sweeeeeeeeeping generalization. not one argument to deny anyone from marrying anyone they want.
Click to expand...


It is only a sweeping generalization if it is untrue. Care to test it? ;)
 
Jerry said:
Take CA for example: Even in the face of Prop8, gays still today have access to share with a person of the SAME gender each and every single right, without any exception at all what so ever, that heteros have.

Yet that's not enough. Gays cry inequality, and they are correct, but not in the way it appears.

The 14th amendment grantees equality under the law, and today gays in CA have achieved equality under the law.

Where gays are still unequal in not under the law, but sociologically, yet there is no grantee to be equal in society nor can any court ruling dictate sociological acceptance.
Click to expand...

The term "Marriage" is a legal term. If they are denied the use of this term they have not attained equality.
 
Ikari said:
The whole issue is complicated by government (well government rarely makes anything more efficient). Marriage was sole property of religion before just after the civil war. The founding fathers didn't have to ask permission to be married; they just got married. But all that changed with the advent of the marriage license; it is at that point in which government usurped marriage from religion and made it an institution of their own. The ideal solution is to, of course, get rid of the marriage license; return to the natural state. Let religion have marriage, the State shouldn't be involved. And there should be no civil union either. The "benefits" of marriage, the most cited ones being contractual obligations and definitions can be handled through separate contract. And there is no reason that shouldn't be allowed, name whom you need to name in order to keep affairs in order and things of that nature. There is no special contract needed, you don't need to be married.

Other benefits of marriage which include monetary advantage, child credit, etc. should all be abolished.
Click to expand...

I just don't understand where you people get these idiotic ideas from.

Marriage always has and always will ONLY ever "belong" to or be "the property of" (whatever that's supposed to mean) humans.

Humans expressed their union through religion, but that doesn't mean religion owned it unless someone was marrying the religion instead of another person.

Humans expressed their marriage through codified laws, but that doesn't mean any government owned marriage unless someone was marrying the State instead of another person.

What do you folks smoke when you come with this bull****?

Marriage is not a thing to be owned by various political or governmental entities.

Marriage is an activity, a behavior, a way of life, so what you are referring to are trends in how humans have and do practice being married.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It is only a sweeping generalization if it is untrue. Care to test it? ;)
Click to expand...

sure, it should take about three seconds.

a pair of siblings in west virginia wants to get married. allowing marriage between siblings is a dangerous medical precedent.

the word you're looking for is nonplussed. ;)
 
Jerry said:
I just don't understand where you people get these idiotic ideas from.

Marriage always has and always will ONLY ever "belong" to or be "the property of" (whatever that's supposed to mean) humans.

Humans expressed their union through religion, but that doesn't mean religion owned it unless someone was marrying the religion instead of another person.

Humans expressed their marriage through codified laws, but that doesn't mean any government owned marriage unless someone was marrying the State instead of another person.

What do you folks smoke when you come with this bull****?

Marriage is not a thing to be owned by various political or governmental entities.

Marriage is an activity, a behavior, a way of life, so what you are referring to are trends in how humans have and do practice being married.
Click to expand...

Yes. But, LEGALLY, marriage is a creature of the state.
Since the issue here is LEGAL marriage, there is, necessarily, a governmental involvement.
 
Jerry said:
Marriage is an activity, a behavior, a way of life, so what you are referring to are trends in how humans have and do practice being married.
Click to expand...

Then why should the government be able to tell people who they can or can't love?
 
freemyspeech said:
Then why should the government be able to tell people who they can or can't love?
Click to expand...
The government isn't doing that that.
Nice strawman, though.
 
Government shouldn't be involved in it period. Then 'the people' can call it whatever the **** they feel like calling it on any given day or time.
 
Jerry said:
I just don't understand where you people get these idiotic ideas from.

Marriage always has and always will ONLY ever "belong" to or be "the property of" (whatever that's supposed to mean) humans.

Humans expressed their union through religion, but that doesn't mean religion owned it unless someone was marrying the religion instead of another person.

Humans expressed their marriage through codified laws, but that doesn't mean any government owned marriage unless someone was marrying the State instead of another person.

What do you folks smoke when you come with this bull****?

Marriage is not a thing to be owned by various political or governmental entities.

Marriage is an activity, a behavior, a way of life, so what you are referring to are trends in how humans have and do practice being married.
Click to expand...

marriage is a contract. It used to be forged between two people and their God alone in accordance to the traditions and rules of the particular church. It is now forged between two people and the State as a State owned and recognized contract. Perchance a little history will help you out.
 
emdash said:
sure, it should take about three seconds.

a pair of siblings in west virginia wants to get married. allowing marriage between siblings is a dangerous medical precedent.

the word you're looking for is nonplussed. ;)
Click to expand...

Right... so you were simply taking it out of context. Good job. :roll:

I could say that fruits and vegetables are good for people,
And you could say that some people die when they eat strawberries. Wow.

Now, regarding my statement, IN CONTEXT, that people should be able and allowed to marry whomever they want (do I really need to spell out inbreeding and all of that for you) and that there is not a logical or sound argument that can be made to the contrary... make one that is and stop wasting my time.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Right... so you were simply taking it out of context. Good job. :roll:

I could say that fruits and vegetables are good for people,
And you could say that some people die when they eat strawberries. Wow.

Now, regarding my statement, IN CONTEXT, that people should be able and allowed to marry whomever they want (do I really need to spell out inbreeding and all of that for you) and that there is not a logical or sound argument that can be made to the contrary... make one that is and stop wasting my time.
Click to expand...

maybe you don't know what "sweeeeeeping generalization" means.
 
emdash said:
maybe you don't know what "sweeeeeeping generalization" means.
Click to expand...


Maybe you are right... but I certainly know what a "sweeping generalization" is.
I also just demonstrated it with the strawberry analogy...

It appears that you are the one that is lost in the absolutes of this issue.

Now, last time or it will be obvious that you can't... make a counter argument that is logical and rational that allows for legally blocking people, male or female, gay or straight, from marrying one another if all obvious reasons like incest and such are taken out of the equation.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Maybe you are right... but I certainly know what a "sweeping generalization" is.
I also just demonstrated it with the strawberry analogy...

It appears that you are the one that is lost in the absolutes of this issue.

Now, last time or it will be obvious that you can't... make a counter argument that is logical and rational that allows for legally blocking people, male or female, gay or straight, from marrying one another if all obvious reasons like incest and such are taken out of the equation.
Click to expand...

your strawberry analogy would be appropriate if you had said,

fruits and vegetables are always good for everyone, and I defy anyone to come up with one circumstance where ingesting a fruit or vegetable of any kind would have a less than stupendous outcome.

I would have said, are you sure you want to say that? it's rather broad and absolute.

and you would reply, do your worst!

at that point I would say, I get hives when I eat strawberries and sometimes have trouble breathing.

and you would say, WTF you knew what I meant!

regarding marriage, I have already made logical arguments, which you have never refuted. we left off with your racist mexican analogy, which was as weak and misleading as your strawberry analogy.

they're always entertaining though!
 
emdash said:
the fact that homosexual marriage, as you have pointed out, is listed as an existing type of marriage is clearly proof that it should be available everywhere worldwide.
Click to expand...

Couldn't find the "Mexican" analogy, and in the end, I guess that this is all there is to it...
 
emdash said:
your strawberry analogy would be appropriate if you had said,

fruits and vegetables are always good for everyone, and I defy anyone to come up with one circumstance where ingesting a fruit or vegetable of any kind would have a less than stupendous outcome.

I would have said, are you sure you want to say that? it's rather broad and absolute.

and you would reply, do your worst!

at that point I would say, I get hives when I eat strawberries and sometimes have trouble breathing.

and you would say, WTF you knew what I meant!

regarding marriage, I have already made logical arguments, which you have never refuted. we left off with your racist mexican analogy, which was as weak and misleading as your strawberry analogy.

they're always entertaining though!
Click to expand...

Both analogies deal with people in a general sense, but not an absolute one.
You can try and be as nit-picky as you like, and keep taking it out of context,
but in the end you are not proving anything other than your ability to be snide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom