Why not just call it a "Civil Union"?

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Or pass marriage and be done with this divisive issue. As you said, arguing over a word is beyond stupid, right?

Wrong. Marriage is already defined under the law. And it doesn't include gays just like affirmative action doesn't include me.

Separate but equal has been tried. If ALL people got civil unions, fine...not fiscally conservative, but fine.

What damn difference does it make? Give me an example of why it would infringe upon either side.

I could be persuaded if given real reasons but semantics isn't going to cut it. My beliefs are mine and until I see that my beliefs harm others I will hold fast to them. And I do have people very close to me that are affected by thisdebate so I ddon't consider myself insensitive to it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wrong. Marriage is already defined under the law. And it doesn't include gays just like affirmative action doesn't include me.

Separate but equal has been tried. If ALL people got civil unions, fine...not fiscally conservative, but fine.

What damn difference does it make? Give me an example of why it would infringe upon either side.

I could be persuaded if given real reasons but semantics isn't going to cut it. My beliefs are mine and until I see that my beliefs harm others I will hold fast to them. And I do have people very close to me that are affected by thisdebate so I ddon't consider myself insensitive to it.

I could buy into the separate but equal view. Civil Unions for same-sex couples, Civil Marriage for different-sex couples.

It would be a compromise and a placation to those that are upset about the word "marriage".

I also know that in 20-30 years the two terms for the same Civil Institution would be merged. But hey it would make some people feel better in the near term. And then maybe we can get it off the political field so that the legislatures could focus on something important like jobs and the debt.



>>>>

 

[Mustang]

That is a very good question to which there is no reasonable response.

It isn't gender, it's semantics.

I'm not going into the street to define a minor word, one way or the other.

This is obviously being kept a 'burning issue' (directly affecting a small group out of a small minority) by forces that either get part of their support from anti-homosexuals of from pro-homosexuals.

It's sort of like religion; to keep going, the end must never be attained. There are directors and workers that derive their being (and their salaries) from the movement/cause/sect existing.

To social conservatives (especially the religious ones), it would be giving ground on what they consider to be a moral absolute.

So.....how do we call this a "free" Country....if the church-folk are layin'-down-the-LAW....or,trying to....once, again??!!!​

Most people are probably hard wired (I don't know how else to put it) to want their own way. So, I understand the tendency for people (especially in groups) to find solace in numbers and dig in their heels for a fight.

But I'm more of a compromiser at heart. In many things, I think it's generally a waste of energy to bicker endlessly when a solution presents itself.

I've long supported Civil Unions (which, oddly enough, my state just passed into law). I say give gay people equal rights in terms of the law, but do it by giving them an equivalent status without the classification of the word marriage. They would have all the legal rights of married people simply without the official use of the term.

And when push comes to shove, gay relationships, even ones that can last happily for 50 years or more, can never be truly equal since natural procreation is not possible between the partners. So, the relationships are more equivalent than they are equal compared to heterosexual partners.

I must also admit that I can see where parents of young children could easily see the issue of gay marriage as a threat to their impressionable children if their children consider gay marriage little or no different from a heterosexual marriage/relationship. I say that in the sense that orientation and behavior are two completely different things. I would no more want to see a heterosexually-oriented young person enter into a gay marriage when he or she is young simply because they have a close same sex friendship that perhaps goes a little further than it probably should have, than I would want to see a gay-oriented person enter into a heterosexual marriage mostly because he or she is just trying to better fit in to a mostly heterosexual society.

But I'm not going to be out there demonstrating one way or the other. I'm a live and let live kind of person. In my opinion, the world would be a FAR better place if more people adopted that attitude. But I hold out no hope for that taking place anytime soon as people seem to thrive on conflict of one kind or another. And often, when they don't have conflict, they'll find it, or manage to create it somehow. And there are more than enough people willing to accommodate them by jumping in to the fray. And there will be equally as many people willing to exploit both sides for fun and profit.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Like I said perception and semantics.

Pass civil union and be done with this divisive issue. Arguing over terminology is beyond stupid.

Or pass marriage and be done with this divisive issue. As you said, arguing over a word is beyond stupid, right?

Wrong. Marriage is already defined under the law. And it doesn't include gays just like affirmative action doesn't include me.

"There you go, again...."

......gettin' all bi-polar on us!!!​

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Separate but equal has been tried. If ALL people got civil unions, fine...not fiscally conservative, but fine.

What damn difference does it make? Give me an example of why it would infringe upon either side.

I could be persuaded if given real reasons but semantics isn't going to cut it. My beliefs are mine and until I see that my beliefs harm others I will hold fast to them. And I do have people very close to me that are affected by thisdebate so I ddon't consider myself insensitive to it.

I could buy into the separate but equal view. Civil Unions for same-sex couples, Civil Marriage for different-sex couples.

It would be a compromise and a placation to those that are upset about the word "marriage".

I also know that in 20-30 years the two terms for the same Civil Institution would be merged. But hey it would make some people feel better in the near term. And then maybe we can get it off the political field so that the legislatures could focus on something important like jobs and the debt.



>>>>

A fair compromise and if our grandchildren determine us to be idiots when they start making the laws so be it.

 

[bendog]

What damn difference does it make? Give me an example of why it would infringe upon either side.

I could be persuaded if given real reasons but semantics isn't going to cut it. My beliefs are mine and until I see that my beliefs harm others I will hold fast to them. And I do have people very close to me that are affected by thisdebate so I ddon't consider myself insensitive to it.

I could buy into the separate but equal view. Civil Unions for same-sex couples, Civil Marriage for different-sex couples.

It would be a compromise and a placation to those that are upset about the word "marriage".

I also know that in 20-30 years the two terms for the same Civil Institution would be merged. But hey it would make some people feel better in the near term. And then maybe we can get it off the political field so that the legislatures could focus on something important like jobs and the debt.



>>>>

A fair compromise and if our grandchildren determine us to be idiots when they start making the laws so be it.

If there's one thing we can be certain of about the future is that our grandchildren will determine we were idiots.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Whew.....this whole think is gettin' TOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bizarre!!!!

Now......

....Bill-O's gettin' it right!!!!!!!!!

"Bill O'Reilly, the conservative Fox News host, believes same-sex marriage advocates have a more convincing argument than opponents, who do nothing but rehash scripture to make their point."​

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

Instead of "tying the knot," could slang it out as "Plugging the dyke?" errrr..........wait...........

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

I could buy into the separate but equal view. Civil Unions for same-sex couples, Civil Marriage for different-sex couples.

It would be a compromise and a placation to those that are upset about the word "marriage".

I also know that in 20-30 years the two terms for the same Civil Institution would be merged. But hey it would make some people feel better in the near term. And then maybe we can get it off the political field so that the legislatures could focus on something important like jobs and the debt.



>>>>

A fair compromise and if our grandchildren determine us to be idiots when they start making the laws so be it.

If there's one thing we can be certain of about the future is that our grandchildren will determine we were idiots.

That's the most goddamned TRUE statement I've read on these forums in my short tenure here! You kicked THAT motherfucker square in the nuts!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

March 27, 2013
2:56pm

Supreme Court Indicates It May
Strike Down Marriage Law​

 

[NYcarbineer]

Like I said perception and semantics.

Pass civil union and be done with this divisive issue. Arguing over terminology is beyond stupid.

Or pass marriage and be done with this divisive issue. As you said, arguing over a word is beyond stupid, right?

Wrong. Marriage is already defined under the law. And it doesn't include gays just like affirmative action doesn't include me.

No it isn't. Some states define marriage one way, some another. Some include gays, some don't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If civil marriage and civil union are the same thing, it is irrational not to call them the same thing.

 

[DiamondDave]

Hence why you have genetic males able to call themselves female now... hell, why not allow the to declare themselves dogs??.. why not lamps?? why not aliens from the planet Zyphos??

Things are NOT the same.. and this is why when the government starts going beyond what governmental things it should be worried about in these matters (forced recognition, forced acceptance, forced anti-discrimination about a choice and behavior, etc) it is WRONG...

Recognize every person and every adult family unit the same as in taxation, inheritance, power of attorney, etc... beyond that, let people choose to accept or tolerate or whatever AS THEY CHOOSE in this free society

 

[bodecea]

Hence why you have genetic males able to call themselves female now... hell, why not allow the to declare themselves dogs??.. why not lamps?? why not aliens from the planet Zyphos??

Things are NOT the same.. and this is why when the government starts going beyond what governmental things it should be worried about in these matters (forced recognition, forced acceptance, forced anti-discrimination about a choice and behavior, etc) it is WRONG...

Recognize every person and every adult family unit the same as in taxation, inheritance, power of attorney, etc... beyond that, let people choose to accept or tolerate or whatever AS THEY CHOOSE in this free society

People ARE allowed to choose. We are talking about the Government which is NOT allowed to pick and choose which law-abiding, tax-paying citizens they can discriminate against for no legal reason.

 

[Antares]

Bullshit.

.

Just curious. "Marriage" is a contract that allows its principles access to certain things such as inclusion in health insurance policies or the ability to take advantage of estate planning benefits.

If the word "marriage" is the issue, why can't a civil union contract make everyone happy?

.

Because separate but equal is just as unconstitutional.

 

[DiamondDave]

Hence why you have genetic males able to call themselves female now... hell, why not allow the to declare themselves dogs??.. why not lamps?? why not aliens from the planet Zyphos??

Things are NOT the same.. and this is why when the government starts going beyond what governmental things it should be worried about in these matters (forced recognition, forced acceptance, forced anti-discrimination about a choice and behavior, etc) it is WRONG...

Recognize every person and every adult family unit the same as in taxation, inheritance, power of attorney, etc... beyond that, let people choose to accept or tolerate or whatever AS THEY CHOOSE in this free society

People ARE allowed to choose. We are talking about the Government which is NOT allowed to pick and choose which law-abiding, tax-paying citizens they can discriminate against for no legal reason.

On the governmental side FINE.... but we all know it is BEYOND that... allowing people to sue for having their feelings hurt because someone did not recognize their behavior or choice and discriminated against them.... these laws go beyond taxes, contracts, etc.... and infringe on the freedoms of others to discriminate and make up their own minds about choices and behaviors of others

 

[bodecea]

Hence why you have genetic males able to call themselves female now... hell, why not allow the to declare themselves dogs??.. why not lamps?? why not aliens from the planet Zyphos??

Things are NOT the same.. and this is why when the government starts going beyond what governmental things it should be worried about in these matters (forced recognition, forced acceptance, forced anti-discrimination about a choice and behavior, etc) it is WRONG...

Recognize every person and every adult family unit the same as in taxation, inheritance, power of attorney, etc... beyond that, let people choose to accept or tolerate or whatever AS THEY CHOOSE in this free society

People ARE allowed to choose. We are talking about the Government which is NOT allowed to pick and choose which law-abiding, tax-paying citizens they can discriminate against for no legal reason.

On the governmental side FINE.... but we all know it is BEYOND that... allowing people to sue for having their feelings hurt because someone did not recognize their behavior or choice and discriminated against them.... these laws go beyond taxes, contracts, etc.... and infringe on the freedoms of others to discriminate and make up their own minds about choices and behaviors of others

No more and no less than now. How would legalizing gay marriage change that?

 

[bendog]

If civil marriage and civil union are the same thing, it is irrational not to call them the same thing.

There ya go. Imo just getting a marriage license and signing some official document holding yourself out to be bound to a civil union (and all the unpleasant laws of getting out of it and supporting offsrpring and INDOLENT wives (- makes you chains you into a civil union.

You wanta be married? Go find a priest or unitarian minister or something who'll do the job and give you a plaque or something.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hence why you have genetic males able to call themselves female now... hell, why not allow the to declare themselves dogs??.. why not lamps?? why not aliens from the planet Zyphos??

Things are NOT the same.. and this is why when the government starts going beyond what governmental things it should be worried about in these matters (forced recognition, forced acceptance, forced anti-discrimination about a choice and behavior, etc) it is WRONG...

Recognize every person and every adult family unit the same as in taxation, inheritance, power of attorney, etc... beyond that, let people choose to accept or tolerate or whatever AS THEY CHOOSE in this free society

People ARE allowed to choose. We are talking about the Government which is NOT allowed to pick and choose which law-abiding, tax-paying citizens they can discriminate against for no legal reason.

On the governmental side FINE.... but we all know it is BEYOND that... allowing people to sue for having their feelings hurt because someone did not recognize their behavior or choice and discriminated against them.... these laws go beyond taxes, contracts, etc.... and infringe on the freedoms of others to discriminate and make up their own minds about choices and behaviors of others

No "these laws" as in Same-sex Civil Marriage laws. These laws DO NOT provide that someone can sue, those laws ONLY have to do with government recognition of equal status.

The laws that cause what you are worried about are actually Public Accommodation laws which limit a private business ability to discriminate based on various factors which include race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc. (specifics can vary by State).

Take for example the case of the Photographer that refused to shoot the Commitment Ceremony in New Mexico. New Mexico doesn't even have Same-sex Civil Marriage, yet the issue still arose. Not because of Civil Marriage, but because of Public Accommodation.

Approve Same-sex Civil Marriage.

Repeal Public Accommodation Laws.

>>>>

 

[jknowgood]

Shouldn't social issues be behind the real issue, how about working on the economy, and then take on social issues.. I really don't see how gay marrige is going to bring down unemployement.