Same-Sex Marriage: Yea or Nay? And Explain!

[Dyakovo]

But in other states where same-sex marriage failed, civil unions succeeded.

Name one.

[Goath]

But in other states where same-sex marriage failed, civil unions succeeded.

Name one.

Well- there hasn't ever been a civil unions law repealed by the voters, will marriage has failed both times the voters have had a chance to repeal it.

[Dyakovo]

But in other states where same-sex marriage failed, civil unions succeeded.

Name one.

Well- there hasn't ever been a civil unions law repealed by the voters, will marriage has failed both times the voters have had a chance to repeal it.

He claimed that there are states which have tried to pass laws legalizing homosexual marriage that failed, and that the state was then able to pass laws legalizing homosexual civil unions.
I want him to name one, that shouldn't be too hard, should it?

[Grave_n_idle]

1) Why would only the strait one be called marriages??? That makes no sence!

2) So the point you were making was that the rights don't matter but the terminology does?

3) No, the argument arnt the same. If they were, why would so many posters have said the same argument i did?

4) Why wouldn't it happen? Why is it a half solution? Because you dont get the legal word you want?

1) Because they are, because that battle is ongoing - because you're arguing that that is the bone of contention that we can just circumvent. But it won't finish it - that argument will still remain.

2) No. The rights matter. And, also - it's important that the law function in such a way that achieiving equal rights is NOT a 'compromise', but a recognition.

3) Beats me.

4) People already oppose civil unions. They oppose 'gay marriage' more, but if they dropped the terminology, the whole weight of the argument would fall against civil unions. And yes - I want the word. I won't accept a scenario where there's a 'second best' option. Equality is equality.

1) As I said, that argument would still remain. While they say "its not a marriage", you say "yes it is" and you call it marriage and they don't and our side doesn't care because it doesn't matter in the end because you get to call it marriage.

2) Then how was I makeing your point?

3) Because the arguments aren't the same! Do you see now?

4) No, it wouldn't. Some might, but a fair deal would go onto the civil union side of the argument. With your part of 4, you go against the thing you say in 2. Yes, equality is equality. Thats the argument for the word being used in a legal document not mattering. How do you think that aplies to what you just said?

1) You're arguing against yourself - you're ADMITTING that people would still argue about whether this union is a 'marriage' or not - so the question has never been resolved. At best, it's been slightly diverted.

3) The arguments are the same. You saying 'nuh uh' isn't changing that.

4) I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. What is sure is that people oppose civil unions - that's all that matters. They oppose 'gay marriage' and they oppose anything they think LOOKS like 'gay marriage'. You, yourself, have said that you think the debate over marriage will still continue - so how do you think you're going to get that past people? You think 'civil union' opponents won't use EXACTLY that argument? That it's a shortcut round the law?

You can't change all marriages to civil unions - the same people that resist anyone else getting the same rights as them, wil lalso resist changing the institution in any other way.

I can't believe you don't see that, so I have to assume you DO see it, and are pretending it's not there.

[Omnicracy]

Here's an idea: Stop calling the legal state marriage. Marriage can be thrown to the various religions, and let them marry off the population as they see fit. But it doesn't mean anything legally. Instead, just call what the legal aspect of marriage is something else. Could be civil union, could be whatever. Seems to make a lot more sense, and keeps with separation of church and state to boot.

Why should religion get to hijack what was originally a secular term?

First of all, make it cultural, not religious. There is a big difference between the two. Second, you remove the legal term because some people cannot accept that one word can have both secular and non-secular connotations and the fight is for the right, not some word that only has as much weight as we gove it.

Are you going to make it actually illegal for people to call their contracts marriages?

If you're not - no, you won't do a thing to change the connotations.

Your right, you don't remove the conotation and I never said you did. When there is no more legal argument, however, it doesn't matter what connotations the word holds. Why would it?

What you keep saying, is that the connotation doesn't matter.

But, you're wrong.

Why emancipate the slaves? Why not leave them as slaves, call them slaves, but give them all the same rights as free men?

Why do you think?

That is not what I say. What I say would be closest to calling everyone slaves legaly, haveing free men be a term used by any who choose to to mean what they want, and have the rights of what were once called "free men" held by all that are now called "slave." That is closer to what I say, but still not quite there. Also, that is not an argument that conotations matter, for you say "leave them slaves." By defention, they would not get all the rights of free men under that criteria. Do you have another flawed counter-argument, or was that it?

[Omnicracy]

But in other states where same-sex marriage failed, civil unions succeeded.

Name one.

Well- there hasn't ever been a civil unions law repealed by the voters, will marriage has failed both times the voters have had a chance to repeal it.

already done for me.

[Blouman Empire]

So - everyone would still CALL it marriage, but the text on the license itself would be different?

Marriages ARE 'civil unions'. You're basically arguing that we should retain the separation - because all your idea would do would be change the text, the argument about being able to call it 'marriage' would still remain.

I think you are missing his point the separation is not going to remain, everyone in order to be a couple under the law and get the benefits involved would all be getting simply civil partnerships which is what everyone will get regardless of the two genders.

[Grave_n_idle]

Here's an idea: Stop calling the legal state marriage. Marriage can be thrown to the various religions, and let them marry off the population as they see fit. But it doesn't mean anything legally. Instead, just call what the legal aspect of marriage is something else. Could be civil union, could be whatever. Seems to make a lot more sense, and keeps with separation of church and state to boot.

Why should religion get to hijack what was originally a secular term?

First of all, make it cultural, not religious. There is a big difference between the two. Second, you remove the legal term because some people cannot accept that one word can have both secular and non-secular connotations and the fight is for the right, not some word that only has as much weight as we gove it.

Are you going to make it actually illegal for people to call their contracts marriages?

If you're not - no, you won't do a thing to change the connotations.

Your right, you don't remove the conotation and I never said you did. When there is no more legal argument, however, it doesn't matter what connotations the word holds. Why would it?

What you keep saying, is that the connotation doesn't matter.

But, you're wrong.

Why emancipate the slaves? Why not leave them as slaves, call them slaves, but give them all the same rights as free men?

Why do you think?

That is not what I say. What I say would be closest to calling everyone slaves legaly, haveing free men be a term used by any who choose to to mean what they want, and have the rights of what were once called "free men" held by all that are now called "slave." That is closer to what I say, but still not quite there. Also, that is not an argument that conotations matter, for you say "leave them slaves." By defention, they would not get all the rights of free men under that criteria. Do you have another flawed counter-argument, or was that it?

Your inability to read what I wrote is not a flaw in the argument.

I said 'leave them slaves... but give them all the same rights'.

It's what you're talking about - trying to impose a new connotation (or lack of connotation) just by playing with the terminology.


But - I'll humour you. In order to get closer to a parallel, we'd have to be talking about NOT emancipating slaves, per se - but applying a new name to both slaves AND free men (like 'humans' - we're all humans, now)... and somehow assuming that the people called 'slaves' won't care that they are still 'slaves', and that the people that are still 'free men' won't continue to think of themselves as 'free men'.

[Blouman Empire]

]
You're asking for their inherent rights to be restricted, which is (Buzzword time!) unconstitutional and un-American.

It is unamerican to to restrict rights to a certain group of the populance?

What America are you talking about?

[Grave_n_idle]

So - everyone would still CALL it marriage, but the text on the license itself would be different?

Marriages ARE 'civil unions'. You're basically arguing that we should retain the separation - because all your idea would do would be change the text, the argument about being able to call it 'marriage' would still remain.

I think you are missing his point the separation is not going to remain, everyone in order to be a couple under the law and get the benefits involved would all be getting simply civil partnerships which is what everyone will get regardless of the two genders.

Everyone that is legally allowed to obtain them DOES get that now, and some of them are called marriages.

I'm not 'getting it' because Omni is not discussing reality.

People that can get marriages now will not 'downgrade'.

[Omnicracy]

1) Why would only the strait one be called marriages??? That makes no sence!

2) So the point you were making was that the rights don't matter but the terminology does?

3) No, the argument arnt the same. If they were, why would so many posters have said the same argument i did?

4) Why wouldn't it happen? Why is it a half solution? Because you dont get the legal word you want?

1) Because they are, because that battle is ongoing - because you're arguing that that is the bone of contention that we can just circumvent. But it won't finish it - that argument will still remain.

2) No. The rights matter. And, also - it's important that the law function in such a way that achieiving equal rights is NOT a 'compromise', but a recognition.

3) Beats me.

4) People already oppose civil unions. They oppose 'gay marriage' more, but if they dropped the terminology, the whole weight of the argument would fall against civil unions. And yes - I want the word. I won't accept a scenario where there's a 'second best' option. Equality is equality.

1) As I said, that argument would still remain. While they say "its not a marriage", you say "yes it is" and you call it marriage and they don't and our side doesn't care because it doesn't matter in the end because you get to call it marriage.

2) Then how was I makeing your point?

3) Because the arguments aren't the same! Do you see now?

4) No, it wouldn't. Some might, but a fair deal would go onto the civil union side of the argument. With your part of 4, you go against the thing you say in 2. Yes, equality is equality. Thats the argument for the word being used in a legal document not mattering. How do you think that aplies to what you just said?

1) You're arguing against yourself - you're ADMITTING that people would still argue about whether this union is a 'marriage' or not - so the question has never been resolved. At best, it's been slightly diverted.

3) The arguments are the same. You saying 'nuh uh' isn't changing that.

4) I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. What is sure is that people oppose civil unions - that's all that matters. They oppose 'gay marriage' and they oppose anything they think LOOKS like 'gay marriage'. You, yourself, have said that you think the debate over marriage will still continue - so how do you think you're going to get that past people? You think 'civil union' opponents won't use EXACTLY that argument? That it's a shortcut round the law?

You can't change all marriages to civil unions - the same people that resist anyone else getting the same rights as them, wil lalso resist changing the institution in any other way.

I can't believe you don't see that, so I have to assume you DO see it, and are pretending it's not there.

1) Saying people keep arguing doesn't go against my point, as my point is the argument is meaningless. If one were to say a union between two races isn't a marriage under the system i propose, they can. That doesn't affect whether or not people call it a marriage, does it?

2) just droping 2 are you?

3) So you saying "un-hun" make them the same? I have shown how they differ, have you shown how they do not?

4) I mean you say the word matters in 4 after saying it didn't in 2. There are people who oppose equal rights, yes. Those people, however are not the whole of the anti-gay marriage argument. That was the point 2 adressed. Equality is equality means the words you use do not matter, it is the rights behind them. That is my point and the opposite of yours. People oppose cigarrettes, there still legal. Just because people oppose something doesn't mean you ignor it. Being on the pro side, I thought you would have understood that.

[Omnicracy]

So - everyone would still CALL it marriage, but the text on the license itself would be different?

Marriages ARE 'civil unions'. You're basically arguing that we should retain the separation - because all your idea would do would be change the text, the argument about being able to call it 'marriage' would still remain.

I think you are missing his point the separation is not going to remain, everyone in order to be a couple under the law and get the benefits involved would all be getting simply civil partnerships which is what everyone will get regardless of the two genders.

I think he gets that I'm saying that, but says the fact that some people will say "well its still not a marriage if your gay" make my argument moot. Is that not foolish?

[Grave_n_idle]

There are people who oppose equal rights, yes. Those people, however are not the whole of the anti-gay marriage argument.

Yes, they are.

The argument over the word is propaganda. The agenda is stopping homosexuals from being able to get the exact same rights package as heterosexuals.

[Grave_n_idle]

So - everyone would still CALL it marriage, but the text on the license itself would be different?

Marriages ARE 'civil unions'. You're basically arguing that we should retain the separation - because all your idea would do would be change the text, the argument about being able to call it 'marriage' would still remain.

I think you are missing his point the separation is not going to remain, everyone in order to be a couple under the law and get the benefits involved would all be getting simply civil partnerships which is what everyone will get regardless of the two genders.

I think he gets that I'm saying that, but says the fact that some people will say "well its still not a marriage if your gay" make my argument moot. Is that not foolish?

Marriages ARE civil unions. You're not going to convince the hetero majority to change the name. You're certainly not going to get them to change the name so that homosexuals can get all the same stuff heterosexuals already get.

[Blouman Empire]

Everyone that is legally allowed to obtain them DOES get that now, and some of them are called marriages.

I'm not 'getting it' because Omni is not discussing reality.

Except what he is saying instead of getting a marriage license it will be called a civil partnership contract or something similar.

People that can get marriages now will not 'downgrade'.

What? It doesn't matter what the people think or want when the government implements a change.

[Omnicracy]

Here's an idea: Stop calling the legal state marriage. Marriage can be thrown to the various religions, and let them marry off the population as they see fit. But it doesn't mean anything legally. Instead, just call what the legal aspect of marriage is something else. Could be civil union, could be whatever. Seems to make a lot more sense, and keeps with separation of church and state to boot.

Why should religion get to hijack what was originally a secular term?

First of all, make it cultural, not religious. There is a big difference between the two. Second, you remove the legal term because some people cannot accept that one word can have both secular and non-secular connotations and the fight is for the right, not some word that only has as much weight as we gove it.

Are you going to make it actually illegal for people to call their contracts marriages?

If you're not - no, you won't do a thing to change the connotations.

Your right, you don't remove the conotation and I never said you did. When there is no more legal argument, however, it doesn't matter what connotations the word holds. Why would it?

What you keep saying, is that the connotation doesn't matter.

But, you're wrong.

Why emancipate the slaves? Why not leave them as slaves, call them slaves, but give them all the same rights as free men?

Why do you think?

That is not what I say. What I say would be closest to calling everyone slaves legaly, haveing free men be a term used by any who choose to to mean what they want, and have the rights of what were once called "free men" held by all that are now called "slave." That is closer to what I say, but still not quite there. Also, that is not an argument that conotations matter, for you say "leave them slaves." By defention, they would not get all the rights of free men under that criteria. Do you have another flawed counter-argument, or was that it?

Your inability to read what I wrote is not a flaw in the argument.

I said 'leave them slaves... but give them all the same rights'.

It's what you're talking about - trying to impose a new connotation (or lack of connotation) just by playing with the terminology.


But - I'll humour you. In order to get closer to a parallel, we'd have to be talking about NOT emancipating slaves, per se - but applying a new name to both slaves AND free men (like 'humans' - we're all humans, now)... and somehow assuming that the people called 'slaves' won't care that they are still 'slaves', and that the people that are still 'free men' won't continue to think of themselves as 'free men'.

Well, are they still property or are they emancipated? If emancipated, then no, I do not think they would care if people still thought of them as slaves, not if the alternative is they acctualy are. If not emancipated, then they do not have the same rights and it is not a parrellel at all. One cannot be both property of an individual and a free man.

[Omnicracy]

]
You're asking for their inherent rights to be restricted, which is (Buzzword time!) unconstitutional and un-American.

It is unamerican to to restrict rights to a certain group of the populance?

What America are you talking about?

I believ he means the spirit of America, not the history.

[Omnicracy]

So - everyone would still CALL it marriage, but the text on the license itself would be different?

Marriages ARE 'civil unions'. You're basically arguing that we should retain the separation - because all your idea would do would be change the text, the argument about being able to call it 'marriage' would still remain.

I think you are missing his point the separation is not going to remain, everyone in order to be a couple under the law and get the benefits involved would all be getting simply civil partnerships which is what everyone will get regardless of the two genders.

Everyone that is legally allowed to obtain them DOES get that now, and some of them are called marriages.

I'm not 'getting it' because Omni is not discussing reality.

People that can get marriages now will not 'downgrade'.

The fact that you think changeing everything would be a downgrade shows I was wrong and you realy don't get it.

[Grave_n_idle]

Everyone that is legally allowed to obtain them DOES get that now, and some of them are called marriages.

I'm not 'getting it' because Omni is not discussing reality.

Except what he is saying instead of getting a marriage license it will be called a civil partnership contract or something similar.

People that can get marriages now will not 'downgrade'.

What? It doesn't matter what the people think or want when the government implements a change.

Really?

That's why the healthcare bill just jumped through hoops, right?

Apparently you're not aware that politicians and the media are people, too - and that they have people they answer to.

[Grave_n_idle]

So - everyone would still CALL it marriage, but the text on the license itself would be different?

Marriages ARE 'civil unions'. You're basically arguing that we should retain the separation - because all your idea would do would be change the text, the argument about being able to call it 'marriage' would still remain.

I think you are missing his point the separation is not going to remain, everyone in order to be a couple under the law and get the benefits involved would all be getting simply civil partnerships which is what everyone will get regardless of the two genders.

Everyone that is legally allowed to obtain them DOES get that now, and some of them are called marriages.

I'm not 'getting it' because Omni is not discussing reality.

People that can get marriages now will not 'downgrade'.

The fact that you think changeing everything would be a downgrade shows I was wrong and you realy don't get it.

The fact that you think that's me speaking shows you really DON'T get it.

[Grave_n_idle]

Well, are they still property or are they emancipated? If emancipated, then no, I do not think they would care if people still thought of them as slaves, not if the alternative is they acctualy are. If not emancipated, then they do not have the same rights and it is not a parrellel at all. One cannot be both property of an individual and a free man.

You don't know anyone that's not white, do you?

[Omnicracy]

There are people who oppose equal rights, yes. Those people, however are not the whole of the anti-gay marriage argument.

Yes, they are.

The argument over the word is propaganda. The agenda is stopping homosexuals from being able to get the exact same rights package as heterosexuals.

LOL!!! Are you soo far on your side of it to be THAT wrong about people??? I know several people personaly who compleatly agree with my proposal but are against gay marriage. There have been at least a dozen posters on here who also support my argument but are gainst gay marriage. If you are so blinded by your beliefes that you cannot see that, I am not sure I can keep this debate going.... LOL!!!

[Omnicracy]

So - everyone would still CALL it marriage, but the text on the license itself would be different?

Marriages ARE 'civil unions'. You're basically arguing that we should retain the separation - because all your idea would do would be change the text, the argument about being able to call it 'marriage' would still remain.

I think you are missing his point the separation is not going to remain, everyone in order to be a couple under the law and get the benefits involved would all be getting simply civil partnerships which is what everyone will get regardless of the two genders.

I think he gets that I'm saying that, but says the fact that some people will say "well its still not a marriage if your gay" make my argument moot. Is that not foolish?

Marriages ARE civil unions. You're not going to convince the hetero majority to change the name. You're certainly not going to get them to change the name so that homosexuals can get all the same stuff heterosexuals already get.

Show one iota of evidence to support each point.

[Grave_n_idle]

So - everyone would still CALL it marriage, but the text on the license itself would be different?

Marriages ARE 'civil unions'. You're basically arguing that we should retain the separation - because all your idea would do would be change the text, the argument about being able to call it 'marriage' would still remain.

I think you are missing his point the separation is not going to remain, everyone in order to be a couple under the law and get the benefits involved would all be getting simply civil partnerships which is what everyone will get regardless of the two genders.

I think he gets that I'm saying that, but says the fact that some people will say "well its still not a marriage if your gay" make my argument moot. Is that not foolish?

Marriages ARE civil unions. You're not going to convince the hetero majority to change the name. You're certainly not going to get them to change the name so that homosexuals can get all the same stuff heterosexuals already get.

Show one iota of evidence to support each point.

You didn't already know that marriages are civil unions?

Do you always turn up to gunfights without even a knife?

[Omnicracy]

Everyone that is legally allowed to obtain them DOES get that now, and some of them are called marriages.

I'm not 'getting it' because Omni is not discussing reality.

Except what he is saying instead of getting a marriage license it will be called a civil partnership contract or something similar.

People that can get marriages now will not 'downgrade'.

What? It doesn't matter what the people think or want when the government implements a change.

I don't think thats what he ment by downgrade, but his arguments seem very static and one-dimentional. I doubt any logical argument could dissuade him. He is the other side of the "Homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage an abomination" coin. Arguments just don't fase him.