WTF is wrong with a civil union?

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.

I mean this is considered an "alternative" lifestyle so why the push for a traditional label that has long been honored by everyone?

Many of you claim some of us are against equal treatment but you're wrong. You can have equal treatment but you don't need to trash traditional values to achieve it.

 

[Oddball]

In my world, I against them because it's still state involvement in a private matter.

In the lolberal world, it's a matter of nothing more than semantics.

 

[Truthmatters]

I say we should have civil unions for everyone.

If you want a religious marriage then get one.

Thaat way religious types can keep the word marriage

 

[SniperFire]

Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.

That, and the homos want us to like them.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

In my world, I against them because it's still state involvement in a private matter.

In the lolberal world, it's a matter of nothing more than semantics.

While true I wish civil unions would be embraced so we could put this issue behind us. It's damaging to both parties and fosters gridlock.

 

[WillowTree]

They want Christian privilege until it's Christmas time.. then they'll shit all over it.

 

[The T]

This whole issue is a matter of forced acceptence and an attempt to claim a violation of 'rights'. All those couples need do is go and enter into an agreement through civil channels without taking over or changing the meaning of traditional values.

 

[Dr.Drock]

In my world, I against them because it's still state involvement in a private matter.

In the lolberal world, it's a matter of nothing more than semantics.

I agree, equality for straights and gays. Everyone should be able to get a civil union, up to the church to recognize a marriage.

If the church doesn't want to recognize or perform gay marriages, remarriages, or marriages of people with crooked noses, they shouldn't have to. But in terms of the law, equal civil unions should be the goal for everyone.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.

I mean this is considered an "alternative" lifestyle so why the push for a traditional label that has long been honored by everyone?

Many of you claim some of us are against equal treatment but you're wrong. You can have equal treatment but you don't need to trash traditional values to achieve it.

So you disagree with the concept of common law marriage? You're right that it's all about the contract of marriage, not the religious ritual that some people choose. It's about the rights of power of attorney, to create common property, to be able to have hospital visitation, to have the basic next of kin rights that married people have.

But your argument becomes bullshit when you want to call it something it's not. Civil unions? Why not pass laws to apply that label to common law and people who aren't married in a church, as civil unions? But then we'll also need laws to allow people who are married by some court person or sea captain, to be allowed to adopt and have family benefits, etc.

Why not just get over the fact that if two people want to contract to a family commitment, that they be given equal protection, and present themselves as married?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The government should have absolutely no role in marriage. No perks or set backs, no "license', which is essentially outlawing marriage unless authorization is granted by the "authorities" to do so.

This issue would be a complete no-issue if it weren't the always intrusive, state that wants to usurp the social elements of society for dictation.

 

[ClosedCaption]

In my world, I against them because it's still state involvement in a private matter.

In the lolberal world, it's a matter of nothing more than semantics.

While true I wish civil unions would be embraced so we could put this issue behind us. It's damaging to both parties and fosters gridlock.

You want gay people to do what you want them to do so you can move on with life?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Way to twist up what oddball laid down. He indicated no such thing of "wanting anyone to do what he wants them to do". The exact opposite actually.

 

[Immanuel]

Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.

I mean this is considered an "alternative" lifestyle so why the push for a traditional label that has long been honored by everyone?

Many of you claim some of us are against equal treatment but you're wrong. You can have equal treatment but you don't need to trash traditional values to achieve it.

If what you are saying means, "let the gays have civil unions and the straights have marriage", then you are making an argument much like the arguments for segregation during the civil rights era. I think in that case it is as wrong as segregation. If on the other hand, you are calling for state recognized civil unions for all couples, gay or straight, and religious marriage for those who believe in that concept (also gay or straight), then I would agree with you.

Immie

 

[Montrovant]

I think the issue is probably that giving a different label to what is supposed to be the exact same thing smacks of separate but equal. If the idea is that homosexuals should have the same legal, secular rights and privileges to marriage as heterosexuals, but people are unwilling to use the same label, then clearly they are NOT thought of as being the same.

Civil unions for gays is certainly much closer to equality, but the need to give it a different name than straights use sounds too much like an unwillingness to really allow gays to have the same privileges. Having the legal unions all be labelled civil unions rather than marriage would be a better solution IMO. I don't think heterosexuals would be willing to give up the marriage label, though. Of course, removing government from marriage entirely would also work, but that's not happening any time soon.

 

[Dick Tuck]

The government should have absolutely no role in marriage. No perks or set backs, no "license', which is essentially outlawing marriage unless authorization is granted by the "authorities" to do so.

This issue would be a complete no-issue if it weren't the always intrusive, state that wants to usurp the social elements of society for dictation.

So there should be no legal contract regarding property rights, next of kin status, automatic power of attorney, and heredity rights to married couples? What about rights and responsibilities to those who dissolve their unions? That sounds like a very myopic view.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

They can form their own legal contracts on such matters. It isn't the perogative of the state to dictate social matters of this kind. it is their role to enforce a contract and protect the participants from contract fraud.

Unless you think people are so fucking useless they need to be led by the hand in order to maintain such matters. i do not. But I dont hate people like statists do.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

In my world, I against them because it's still state involvement in a private matter.

In the lolberal world, it's a matter of nothing more than semantics.

While true I wish civil unions would be embraced so we could put this issue behind us. It's damaging to both parties and fosters gridlock.

You want gay people to do what you want them to do so you can move on with life?

No I want gays to achieve their goals without trashing the values of others so people like you will stfu about it.

 

[California Girl]

I say we should have civil unions for everyone.

If you want a religious marriage then get one.

Thaat way religious types can keep the word marriage

Holy Shit! We agree on something. That's not good.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I think the issue is probably that giving a different label to what is supposed to be the exact same thing smacks of separate but equal. If the idea is that homosexuals should have the same legal, secular rights and privileges to marriage as heterosexuals, but people are unwilling to use the same label, then clearly they are NOT thought of as being the same.

Civil unions for gays is certainly much closer to equality, but the need to give it a different name than straights use sounds too much like an unwillingness to really allow gays to have the same privileges. Having the legal unions all be labelled civil unions rather than marriage would be a better solution IMO. I don't think heterosexuals would be willing to give up the marriage label, though. Of course, removing government from marriage entirely would also work, but that's not happening any time soon.

Nonsense, their relationship IS different. Thus the need to define it differently. The end result is the same while understanding marriage as a traditional term.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

While true I wish civil unions would be embraced so we could put this issue behind us. It's damaging to both parties and fosters gridlock.

You want gay people to do what you want them to do so you can move on with life?

No I want gays to achieve their goals without trashing the values of others so people like you will stfu about it.

That's the biggest problem right there. What it really boils down to is two things: 1)The perks and equal right provided by the government 2) to force those who hold marriage in a religiously sacred fashion to accept their choice.

Which is why the only way to fix this problem is to remove government from the picture. No perks, no set backs no nothing. Then everyone can marry based on their religious beliefs. Homosexuals and others can have their own sect to marry one another. That way, there is no political issue of marriage. It is a social issue.