Marriage vs civil unions, the real deal.

Flaylo

Handsome Devil
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
5,858
Reaction score
681
Points
98
Location
In some grass near you
All legal marriage for all intents and purposes are "civil unions" for all intents and purposes because they are strictly about legal rights, they don't "symbolize" in any legal sense, if gays want a "marriage" that symbolizes such they can have their own private wedding and still have a civil union for legal purposes. Civil unions give gays the same legal and property rights as those in a "marriage" so gays are not being denied any rights and being treated as second class, their argument is simply a game of semantics because they say cthe term civil union connotes something that isn't loving or "based" in love, well the government cannot legislate anything to make people feel "loved" that is up to individual couples to feel. The gay argument is completely horseshat, marriages don't legally symbolize love, they are simply about legal, power of attorney and property rights, things that are civil.
 

Big Black Dog

Gold Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
23,371
Reaction score
7,935
Points
340
Here's the real deal... Marriage is a normal thing. Civil unions are queer.
 

bodecea

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
138,564
Reaction score
16,227
Points
2,180
Location
#HasNoClothes
All legal marriage for all intents and purposes are "civil unions" for all intents and purposes because they are strictly about legal rights, they don't "symbolize" in any legal sense, if gays want a "marriage" that symbolizes such they can have their own private wedding and still have a civil union for legal purposes. Civil unions give gays the same legal and property rights as those in a "marriage" so gays are not being denied any rights and being treated as second class, their argument is simply a game of semantics because they say cthe term civil union connotes something that isn't loving or "based" in love, well the government cannot legislate anything to make people feel "loved" that is up to individual couples to feel. The gay argument is completely horseshat, marriages don't legally symbolize love, they are simply about legal, power of attorney and property rights, things that are civil.
Then you support the time and effort to change all legal documents, laws, statutes etc....replacing the words "married" and "marriage" with "civil unioned" and "civil union".
 
OP
Flaylo

Flaylo

Handsome Devil
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
5,858
Reaction score
681
Points
98
Location
In some grass near you
All legal marriage for all intents and purposes are "civil unions" for all intents and purposes because they are strictly about legal rights, they don't "symbolize" in any legal sense, if gays want a "marriage" that symbolizes such they can have their own private wedding and still have a civil union for legal purposes. Civil unions give gays the same legal and property rights as those in a "marriage" so gays are not being denied any rights and being treated as second class, their argument is simply a game of semantics because they say cthe term civil union connotes something that isn't loving or "based" in love, well the government cannot legislate anything to make people feel "loved" that is up to individual couples to feel. The gay argument is completely horseshat, marriages don't legally symbolize love, they are simply about legal, power of attorney and property rights, things that are civil.
Then you support the time and effort to change all legal documents, laws, statutes etc....replacing the words "married" and "marriage" with "civil unioned" and "civil union".
gays have all the same legal right under a civil union that opposite sex couples get under a "marriage" so they have no legal argument of second class treatment and i don't care about that love part, thats betweenthe couples and it is not the job and role of government to make laws or legally sanction something to make people feel "loved." This is a semantics game, not an argument for equal rights rights.
 

FuelRod

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
3,387
Reaction score
1,003
Points
153
This actually makes sense.
Take the Government out of the "marriage" business. Government would only recognize Civil Unions. Marriage would become a strictly religious union. Religions (as they do now) could perform ceremonies for whomever they choose.
 

Ravi

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
90,899
Reaction score
13,994
Points
2,205
Location
Hating Hatters
All legal marriage for all intents and purposes are "civil unions" for all intents and purposes because they are strictly about legal rights, they don't "symbolize" in any legal sense, if gays want a "marriage" that symbolizes such they can have their own private wedding and still have a civil union for legal purposes. Civil unions give gays the same legal and property rights as those in a "marriage" so gays are not being denied any rights and being treated as second class, their argument is simply a game of semantics because they say cthe term civil union connotes something that isn't loving or "based" in love, well the government cannot legislate anything to make people feel "loved" that is up to individual couples to feel. The gay argument is completely horseshat, marriages don't legally symbolize love, they are simply about legal, power of attorney and property rights, things that are civil.
Then you support the time and effort to change all legal documents, laws, statutes etc....replacing the words "married" and "marriage" with "civil unioned" and "civil union".
gays have all the same legal right under a civil union that opposite sex couples get under a "marriage" so they have no legal argument of second class treatment and i don't care about that love part, thats betweenthe couples and it is not the job and role of government to make laws or legally sanction something to make people feel "loved." This is a semantics game, not an argument for equal rights rights.
So what is it that you want? A law that states gay couples cannot claim they are married?

bwahahahahaha!
 

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
28,514
Reaction score
4,553
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
All legal marriage for all intents and purposes are "civil unions" for all intents and purposes because they are strictly about legal rights, they don't "symbolize" in any legal sense, if gays want a "marriage" that symbolizes such they can have their own private wedding and still have a civil union for legal purposes. Civil unions give gays the same legal and property rights as those in a "marriage" so gays are not being denied any rights and being treated as second class, their argument is simply a game of semantics because they say cthe term civil union connotes something that isn't loving or "based" in love, well the government cannot legislate anything to make people feel "loved" that is up to individual couples to feel. The gay argument is completely horseshat, marriages don't legally symbolize love, they are simply about legal, power of attorney and property rights, things that are civil.
Fine, but what's the problem with them calling it a marriage? You don't seem to be addressing the basic problem.
 

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
28,514
Reaction score
4,553
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
All legal marriage for all intents and purposes are "civil unions" for all intents and purposes because they are strictly about legal rights, they don't "symbolize" in any legal sense, if gays want a "marriage" that symbolizes such they can have their own private wedding and still have a civil union for legal purposes. Civil unions give gays the same legal and property rights as those in a "marriage" so gays are not being denied any rights and being treated as second class, their argument is simply a game of semantics because they say cthe term civil union connotes something that isn't loving or "based" in love, well the government cannot legislate anything to make people feel "loved" that is up to individual couples to feel. The gay argument is completely horseshat, marriages don't legally symbolize love, they are simply about legal, power of attorney and property rights, things that are civil.
Then you support the time and effort to change all legal documents, laws, statutes etc....replacing the words "married" and "marriage" with "civil unioned" and "civil union".
gays have all the same legal right under a civil union that opposite sex couples get under a "marriage" so they have no legal argument of second class treatment and i don't care about that love part, thats betweenthe couples and it is not the job and role of government to make laws or legally sanction something to make people feel "loved." This is a semantics game, not an argument for equal rights rights.
Then why do want to keep playing the semantics game? If there's no difference, why are you sticking your nose in somebody else's business? If I want to call my marriage "a friendly merger", who are you to say different?
 

bodecea

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
138,564
Reaction score
16,227
Points
2,180
Location
#HasNoClothes
All legal marriage for all intents and purposes are "civil unions" for all intents and purposes because they are strictly about legal rights, they don't "symbolize" in any legal sense, if gays want a "marriage" that symbolizes such they can have their own private wedding and still have a civil union for legal purposes. Civil unions give gays the same legal and property rights as those in a "marriage" so gays are not being denied any rights and being treated as second class, their argument is simply a game of semantics because they say cthe term civil union connotes something that isn't loving or "based" in love, well the government cannot legislate anything to make people feel "loved" that is up to individual couples to feel. The gay argument is completely horseshat, marriages don't legally symbolize love, they are simply about legal, power of attorney and property rights, things that are civil.
Then you support the time and effort to change all legal documents, laws, statutes etc....replacing the words "married" and "marriage" with "civil unioned" and "civil union".
gays have all the same legal right under a civil union that opposite sex couples get under a "marriage" so they have no legal argument of second class treatment and i don't care about that love part, thats betweenthe couples and it is not the job and role of government to make laws or legally sanction something to make people feel "loved." This is a semantics game, not an argument for equal rights rights.
We are talking changing ALL legal documentation so ALL civil, legal unions are called "civil unions" while all religious marriages are called "marriage."

You're on board for that, right?
 

bodecea

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
138,564
Reaction score
16,227
Points
2,180
Location
#HasNoClothes
Then you support the time and effort to change all legal documents, laws, statutes etc....replacing the words "married" and "marriage" with "civil unioned" and "civil union".
gays have all the same legal right under a civil union that opposite sex couples get under a "marriage" so they have no legal argument of second class treatment and i don't care about that love part, thats betweenthe couples and it is not the job and role of government to make laws or legally sanction something to make people feel "loved." This is a semantics game, not an argument for equal rights rights.
So what is it that you want? A law that states gay couples cannot claim they are married?

bwahahahahaha!

Well, he's too late for that. We and 18,000 other gay couples are married civilly in CA, and we and thousands of others are married religiously. Not even looking at NY, MA, etc.
 
OP
Flaylo

Flaylo

Handsome Devil
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
5,858
Reaction score
681
Points
98
Location
In some grass near you
Then you support the time and effort to change all legal documents, laws, statutes etc....replacing the words "married" and "marriage" with "civil unioned" and "civil union".
gays have all the same legal right under a civil union that opposite sex couples get under a "marriage" so they have no legal argument of second class treatment and i don't care about that love part, thats betweenthe couples and it is not the job and role of government to make laws or legally sanction something to make people feel "loved." This is a semantics game, not an argument for equal rights rights.
So what is it that you want? A law that states gay couples cannot claim they are married?

bwahahahahaha!
If they have all the same rights who gives a shat about the word marriage and how more real their "love" would be, government can't legislate that, what matters is the legal rights since that what marriage is, a legal document, not a document that symbolizes love.
 

ladyliberal

Progressive Princess
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
291
Points
48
You're correct that all government recognition of marriages is "civil" in the sense that the government is the civil authority. Still, marriage is a perfectly accurate word to describe this civil union, and it can apply equally to gay and straight couples. There is no need to create a separate civil union system rather than expanding the government recognition of marriage. Indeed, separate systems for stigmatized minorities have a terrible track record.

Also, you say that "Civil unions give gays the same legal and property rights as those in a 'marriage' ". While "civil unions" could give the same rights as "marriages", the fact is they don't. The rights conveyed by civil unions differ among the states that grant civil unions, and the federal government under DOMA withholds certain rights from gay couples in civil unions or marriages.
 
OP
Flaylo

Flaylo

Handsome Devil
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
5,858
Reaction score
681
Points
98
Location
In some grass near you
gays have all the same legal right under a civil union that opposite sex couples get under a "marriage" so they have no legal argument of second class treatment and i don't care about that love part, thats betweenthe couples and it is not the job and role of government to make laws or legally sanction something to make people feel "loved." This is a semantics game, not an argument for equal rights rights.
So what is it that you want? A law that states gay couples cannot claim they are married?

bwahahahahaha!

Well, he's too late for that. We and 18,000 other gay couples are married civilly in CA, and we and thousands of others are married religiously. Not even looking at NY, MA, etc.
Well if the state of CA lets the people vote on it again those marriages would be invalid. There is no federal marriage law, that is up to the states to decide and the federal government cannot legislate love or any document that makes people feel like their relationship is "loving."
 
OP
Flaylo

Flaylo

Handsome Devil
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
5,858
Reaction score
681
Points
98
Location
In some grass near you
You're correct that all government recognition of marriages is "civil" in the sense that the government is the civil authority. Still, marriage is a perfectly accurate word to describe this civil union, and it can apply equally to gay and straight couples. There is no need to create a separate civil union system rather than expanding the government recognition of marriage. Indeed, separate systems for stigmatized minorities have a terrible track record.

Also, you say that "Civil unions give gays the same legal and property rights as those in a 'marriage' ". While "civil unions" could give the same rights as "marriages", the fact is they don't. The rights conveyed by civil unions differ among the states that grant civil unions, and the federal government under DOMA withholds certain rights from gay couples in civil unions or marriages.
Marriage is religious, a religious union of a man and woman, what we call "marriage" in the United States and other countries is a legally recognozed civil union for property rights, legal and power of attorney purposes. I say keep marriage religious and in the hands of churches and let civil unions be formally recognized.

Marriage laws differ by state too, no different that civil unions, the fact is that civil unions aren't second class, they're fully legally recognized under state laws. the gays are simply wasting time and money arguing over a damn word, not rights.
 

Ravi

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
90,899
Reaction score
13,994
Points
2,205
Location
Hating Hatters
gays have all the same legal right under a civil union that opposite sex couples get under a "marriage" so they have no legal argument of second class treatment and i don't care about that love part, thats betweenthe couples and it is not the job and role of government to make laws or legally sanction something to make people feel "loved." This is a semantics game, not an argument for equal rights rights.
So what is it that you want? A law that states gay couples cannot claim they are married?

bwahahahahaha!
If they have all the same rights who gives a shat about the word marriage and how more real their "love" would be, government can't legislate that, what matters is the legal rights since that what marriage is, a legal document, not a document that symbolizes love.
I didn't understand your answer. Do you want a law that makes it illegal for gay couples to refer to themselves as married?
 

bodecea

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
138,564
Reaction score
16,227
Points
2,180
Location
#HasNoClothes
So what is it that you want? A law that states gay couples cannot claim they are married?

bwahahahahaha!

Well, he's too late for that. We and 18,000 other gay couples are married civilly in CA, and we and thousands of others are married religiously. Not even looking at NY, MA, etc.
Well if the state of CA lets the people vote on it again those marriages would be invalid. There is no federal marriage law, that is up to the states to decide and the federal government cannot legislate love or any document that makes people feel like their relationship is "loving."
You can't back track legally. No ex post facto laws....read your Constitution.
 
OP
Flaylo

Flaylo

Handsome Devil
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
5,858
Reaction score
681
Points
98
Location
In some grass near you
So what is it that you want? A law that states gay couples cannot claim they are married?

bwahahahahaha!
If they have all the same rights who gives a shat about the word marriage and how more real their "love" would be, government can't legislate that, what matters is the legal rights since that what marriage is, a legal document, not a document that symbolizes love.
I didn't understand your answer. Do you want a law that makes it illegal for gay couples to refer to themselves as married?
Thats a strawman argument, gays want the same "rights" under the law and a civil union provides that, neither legally recognized marriage nor civil unions symbolize love, its up to the couples to symbolize their own love, not government.
 
OP
Flaylo

Flaylo

Handsome Devil
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
5,858
Reaction score
681
Points
98
Location
In some grass near you
Well, he's too late for that. We and 18,000 other gay couples are married civilly in CA, and we and thousands of others are married religiously. Not even looking at NY, MA, etc.
Well if the state of CA lets the people vote on it again those marriages would be invalid. There is no federal marriage law, that is up to the states to decide and the federal government cannot legislate love or any document that makes people feel like their relationship is "loving."
You can't back track legally. No ex post facto laws....read your Constitution.
If CA gave gays civil unions which they already have that suffices as long as they get the same rights that a marriage affords in the state of California.
 

Ravi

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
90,899
Reaction score
13,994
Points
2,205
Location
Hating Hatters
If they have all the same rights who gives a shat about the word marriage and how more real their "love" would be, government can't legislate that, what matters is the legal rights since that what marriage is, a legal document, not a document that symbolizes love.
I didn't understand your answer. Do you want a law that makes it illegal for gay couples to refer to themselves as married?
Thats a strawman argument, gays want the same "rights" under the law and a civil union provides that, neither legally recognized marriage nor civil unions symbolize love, its up to the couples to symbolize their own love, not government.
Okie dokie. So your OP is meaningless babbling. Got it.

:thup:
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
55,988
Reaction score
14,449
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
whether a gay couple is married or has a civil union in a state that has approved such, does not make it such, on the federal level....so there is discrimination, so to say, and civil inequality when it comes to the IRS and Social Security survivor benefits etc. Flayo.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top