Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[Flaylo]

Why should they? Frankly, why should they settle for less than full-fledged marriage?

Because you're unhappy?

If they get the same rights in a civil union it is just as fuulfledged, that other bullshit is semantics...

Wait a minute...you're complaining about "bullshit semantics" when you want to create a separate class of people over semantics?

If civil unions are so great, let's adopt them for ALL non-familial consenting adult couples. It won't take that long to change hundreds of thousands of statues, laws and forms.

I mean, this is the perfect compromise, right? Marriage to the church, civil unions to the government...funny that not once has there been legislation introduced anywhere to do that.

I'm not creating a second, just as a high school diploma is for those who've attended high school and for those who've gotten GEDs marriage is for a man and woman, civil unions giving all the same rights is just as good and not second class, if I was on the SCOTUS I vote to let gays have all the property and tax rights to call their bluff, marriage as defined should not be changed.

 

[Seawytch]

If they get the same rights in a civil union it is just as fuulfledged, that other bullshit is semantics...

Wait a minute...you're complaining about "bullshit semantics" when you want to create a separate class of people over semantics?

If civil unions are so great, let's adopt them for ALL non-familial consenting adult couples. It won't take that long to change hundreds of thousands of statues, laws and forms.

I mean, this is the perfect compromise, right? Marriage to the church, civil unions to the government...funny that not once has there been legislation introduced anywhere to do that.

I'm not creating a second, just as a high school diploma is for those who've attended high school and for those who've gotten GEDs marriage is for a man and woman, civil unions giving all the same rights is just as good and not second class, if I was on the SCOTUS I vote to let gays have all the property and tax rights to call their bluff, marriage as defined should not be changed.

LOL...poor attempt. If only gays got a GED and straights got a HS diploma, you would have an argument. Surely you've heard of separate but equal? We tried it here...it didn't work even though the blacks got the same exact water out of their fountains.

 

[Flaylo]

Wait a minute...you're complaining about "bullshit semantics" when you want to create a separate class of people over semantics?

If civil unions are so great, let's adopt them for ALL non-familial consenting adult couples. It won't take that long to change hundreds of thousands of statues, laws and forms.

I mean, this is the perfect compromise, right? Marriage to the church, civil unions to the government...funny that not once has there been legislation introduced anywhere to do that.

I'm not creating a second, just as a high school diploma is for those who've attended high school and for those who've gotten GEDs marriage is for a man and woman, civil unions giving all the same rights is just as good and not second class, if I was on the SCOTUS I vote to let gays have all the property and tax rights to call their bluff, marriage as defined should not be changed.

LOL...poor attempt. If only gays got a GED and straights got a HS diploma, you would have an argument. Surely you've heard of separate but equal? We tried it here...it didn't work even though the blacks got the same exact water out of their fountains.

I've explained why separate but equal didn't work and thats why I said that if a civil union is given all the rights as a marriage gays have no case, they can't argue that shit is unequal, separate but equal didn't work because it was not equal, all the laws and privileges were stacked in favor of whites so you can't make that bullshit comparison.

 

[PJC]

If that were acceptable to most homosexuals this question could have been settled years ago. At this point, that does not seem to be the case.

Why should they? Frankly, why should they settle for less than full-fledged marriage?

Because you're unhappy?

I think the point is that we all have the right to Marry under the current law. What some would contend is that the current law restricts them from Marrying who they want without restriction.

First, I admire the courage of their conviction. For many years, simply expressing that opinion would have been the lone voice in a very large population. It takes courage even today. Good for you and all on your side of the discussion.

Saying that, I disagree.

All rights come with restrictions. I can't think of a single right that allows it to be excersized, at all times and under all conditions. I also know of no law that forces anyone to excesize those rights.

We have the right to free speech, but if you see someone light a lighter in a crowded theater, and someone yell's "fire" in a terrifying manner, he has violated a condition of free speech. He committed a crime.

At the same time, although we all have the right to the freedom of speech, no one can compel you to speak. Your right is never violated because you don't want to excesize the right.

The laws in most state and on the federal level states that a marriage is a right that is available to all with certain qualifications. The Government does not say you must Marry, it simply says you may Marry, but if you wish too, you must meet certain qualifications.

In this case Same Gender unions, IMO, the government should see that a one size fits all law simply does not work for a segment of the population and we are attempting to create a law that will make that segment whole.

And any limits/restrictions on any of those fundamental rights must be justified by a compelling state interest. There has been none given for denying same sex marriage. That is the whole point.

 

[PJC]

I'm not creating a second, just as a high school diploma is for those who've attended high school and for those who've gotten GEDs marriage is for a man and woman, civil unions giving all the same rights is just as good and not second class, if I was on the SCOTUS I vote to let gays have all the property and tax rights to call their bluff, marriage as defined should not be changed.

LOL...poor attempt. If only gays got a GED and straights got a HS diploma, you would have an argument. Surely you've heard of separate but equal? We tried it here...it didn't work even though the blacks got the same exact water out of their fountains.

I've explained why separate but equal didn't work and thats why I said that if a civil union is given all the rights as a marriage gays have no case, they can't argue that shit is unequal, separate but equal didn't work because it was not equal, all the laws and privileges were stacked in favor of whites so you can't make that bullshit comparison.

Problem is that your "if" argument is not reality; it is a hypothetical as SeaWytch has told you several times. Furthermore, you are saying gays can have all those rights, just not the word Marriage.

So you are worried about the historical and psychological significance of the word itself and the changes in the signification of that word.

Webster defines semantics as the historical and psychological study of the classification of changes in the signification of words and forms as viewed as factors in linguistic development.

Your entire argument therefore boils down to semantics, plain and simple but you have the ironic gall to complain about semantics.

funny haha

 

[ima]

If we let people like poet marry, why not gays?

 

[Pop23]

Why should they? Frankly, why should they settle for less than full-fledged marriage?

Because you're unhappy?

I think the point is that we all have the right to Marry under the current law. What some would contend is that the current law restricts them from Marrying who they want without restriction.

First, I admire the courage of their conviction. For many years, simply expressing that opinion would have been the lone voice in a very large population. It takes courage even today. Good for you and all on your side of the discussion.

Saying that, I disagree.

All rights come with restrictions. I can't think of a single right that allows it to be excersized, at all times and under all conditions. I also know of no law that forces anyone to excesize those rights.

We have the right to free speech, but if you see someone light a lighter in a crowded theater, and someone yell's "fire" in a terrifying manner, he has violated a condition of free speech. He committed a crime.

At the same time, although we all have the right to the freedom of speech, no one can compel you to speak. Your right is never violated because you don't want to excesize the right.

The laws in most state and on the federal level states that a marriage is a right that is available to all with certain qualifications. The Government does not say you must Marry, it simply says you may Marry, but if you wish too, you must meet certain qualifications.

In this case Same Gender unions, IMO, the government should see that a one size fits all law simply does not work for a segment of the population and we are attempting to create a law that will make that segment whole.

And any limits/restrictions on any of those fundamental rights must be justified by a compelling state interest. There has been none given for denying same sex marriage. That is the whole point.

The government does not restrict anyone from entering into a marriage contract. The institution itself, carved out in the manner it was, was so that repopulation (population being required to even have the need for a Government), occurs in an orderly fashion, or as orderly as the government can manage (orderly because the Government only exists if the population is orderly enough to be governed)

Marriage is just a set of incentives granted to those couples that enter into a contract that creates a population in, what is felt to be orderly enough to be governed. The government also penalizes those that opt out of that contract, by taking the benefits away from them. I don't really see why the government does not penalize divorce to a greater extent than they do, but that's for a different discussion.

Creation of the population will always fall on components of a female and a male combination. I do not see this as separate but equal, I see this as different.

 

[rightwinger]

I think the point is that we all have the right to Marry under the current law. What some would contend is that the current law restricts them from Marrying who they want without restriction.

First, I admire the courage of their conviction. For many years, simply expressing that opinion would have been the lone voice in a very large population. It takes courage even today. Good for you and all on your side of the discussion.

Saying that, I disagree.

All rights come with restrictions. I can't think of a single right that allows it to be excersized, at all times and under all conditions. I also know of no law that forces anyone to excesize those rights.

We have the right to free speech, but if you see someone light a lighter in a crowded theater, and someone yell's "fire" in a terrifying manner, he has violated a condition of free speech. He committed a crime.

At the same time, although we all have the right to the freedom of speech, no one can compel you to speak. Your right is never violated because you don't want to excesize the right.

The laws in most state and on the federal level states that a marriage is a right that is available to all with certain qualifications. The Government does not say you must Marry, it simply says you may Marry, but if you wish too, you must meet certain qualifications.

In this case Same Gender unions, IMO, the government should see that a one size fits all law simply does not work for a segment of the population and we are attempting to create a law that will make that segment whole.

And any limits/restrictions on any of those fundamental rights must be justified by a compelling state interest. There has been none given for denying same sex marriage. That is the whole point.

The government does not restrict anyone from entering into a marriage contract. The institution itself, carved out in the manner it was, was so that repopulation (population being required to even have the need for a Government), occurs in an orderly fashion, or as orderly as the government can manage (orderly because the Government only exists if the population is orderly enough to be governed)

Marriage is just a set of incentives granted to those couples that enter into a contract that creates a population in, what is felt to be orderly enough to be governed. The government also penalizes those that opt out of that contract, by taking the benefits away from them. I don't really see why the government does not penalize divorce to a greater extent than they do, but that's for a different discussion.

Creation of the population will always fall on components of a female and a male combination. I do not see this as separate but equal, I see this as different.

How does gay marriage prevent the ability of heterosexuals to repopulate? It has no impact on the ability of our society to produce offspring

 

[Pop23]

And any limits/restrictions on any of those fundamental rights must be justified by a compelling state interest. There has been none given for denying same sex marriage. That is the whole point.

The government does not restrict anyone from entering into a marriage contract. The institution itself, carved out in the manner it was, was so that repopulation (population being required to even have the need for a Government), occurs in an orderly fashion, or as orderly as the government can manage (orderly because the Government only exists if the population is orderly enough to be governed)

Marriage is just a set of incentives granted to those couples that enter into a contract that creates a population in, what is felt to be orderly enough to be governed. The government also penalizes those that opt out of that contract, by taking the benefits away from them. I don't really see why the government does not penalize divorce to a greater extent than they do, but that's for a different discussion.

Creation of the population will always fall on components of a female and a male combination. I do not see this as separate but equal, I see this as different.

How does gay marriage prevent the ability of heterosexuals to repopulate? It has no impact on the ability of our society to produce offspring

I'd does not, and how can't see where it could, but that, in itself does not show how the inclusion promotes the basic principle that marriage was created as an incentive for those that can, within those unions, create population, and those in same gender couplings cannot.

Again, not separate but equal, completely different.

 

[ima]

if all the men and women on earth were gay, we'd still have plenty of children.

 

[rightwinger]

The government does not restrict anyone from entering into a marriage contract. The institution itself, carved out in the manner it was, was so that repopulation (population being required to even have the need for a Government), occurs in an orderly fashion, or as orderly as the government can manage (orderly because the Government only exists if the population is orderly enough to be governed)

Marriage is just a set of incentives granted to those couples that enter into a contract that creates a population in, what is felt to be orderly enough to be governed. The government also penalizes those that opt out of that contract, by taking the benefits away from them. I don't really see why the government does not penalize divorce to a greater extent than they do, but that's for a different discussion.

Creation of the population will always fall on components of a female and a male combination. I do not see this as separate but equal, I see this as different.

How does gay marriage prevent the ability of heterosexuals to repopulate? It has no impact on the ability of our society to produce offspring

I'd does not, and how can't see where it could, but that, in itself does not show how the inclusion promotes the basic principle that marriage was created as an incentive for those that can, within those unions, create population, and those in same gender couplings cannot.

Again, not separate but equal, completely different.

Then why allow marriages to those who are sterile or those who have stated they do not want children?

The current institution of marriage is available to those who choose to have children. That number is not impacted by gays, infertile or unwilling couples

Gay marriages also can have children if they want to

 

[tjvh]

if all the men and women on earth were gay, we'd still have plenty of children.

Ever wonder why you aren't taken seriously?

 

[Pop23]

How does gay marriage prevent the ability of heterosexuals to repopulate? It has no impact on the ability of our society to produce offspring

I'd does not, and how can't see where it could, but that, in itself does not show how the inclusion promotes the basic principle that marriage was created as an incentive for those that can, within those unions, create population, and those in same gender couplings cannot.

Again, not separate but equal, completely different.

Then why allow marriages to those who are sterile or those who have stated they do not want children?

The current institution of marriage is available to those who choose to have children. That number is not impacted by gays, infertile or unwilling couples

Gay marriages also can have children if they want to

Not my argument at all. Births among couples that include a male and a female (or the components of those genders) comprise 100% of of the whole. To say that one group of couples (male - female), are, for repopulation purposes, equal to another group (same gender), is not realistic.

The argument you make is better suited for dropping Marriage, and civil unions all together. IMHO.

 

[rightwinger]

I'd does not, and how can't see where it could, but that, in itself does not show how the inclusion promotes the basic principle that marriage was created as an incentive for those that can, within those unions, create population, and those in same gender couplings cannot.

Again, not separate but equal, completely different.

Then why allow marriages to those who are sterile or those who have stated they do not want children?

The current institution of marriage is available to those who choose to have children. That number is not impacted by gays, infertile or unwilling couples

Gay marriages also can have children if they want to

Not my argument at all. Births among couples that include a male and a female (or the components of those genders) comprise 100% of of the whole. To say that one group of couples (male - female), are, for repopulation purposes, equal to another group (same gender), is not realistic.

The argument you make is better suited for dropping Marriage, and civil unions all together. IMHO.

The fact is that we have an all inclusive definition of marriage. We allow old people to marry even though they have no ability to have children, we allow infertile couples to marry, we allow divorced people to remarry even though they have already failed at marriage.....we even allow black and white people to marry

Yet gays are excluded

 

[ima]

if all the men and women on earth were gay, we'd still have plenty of children.

Ever wonder why you aren't taken seriously?

Because gay people have plenty of children?

 

[Pop23]

Then why allow marriages to those who are sterile or those who have stated they do not want children?

The current institution of marriage is available to those who choose to have children. That number is not impacted by gays, infertile or unwilling couples

Gay marriages also can have children if they want to

Not my argument at all. Births among couples that include a male and a female (or the components of those genders) comprise 100% of of the whole. To say that one group of couples (male - female), are, for repopulation purposes, equal to another group (same gender), is not realistic.

The argument you make is better suited for dropping Marriage, and civil unions all together. IMHO.

The fact is that we have an all inclusive definition of marriage. We allow old people to marry even though they have no ability to have children, we allow infertile couples to marry, we allow divorced people to remarry even though they have already failed at marriage.....we even allow black and white people to marry

Yet gays are excluded

Again, your argument is better suited for not having marriage or civil union at all.

I expressed my reasoning as to why marriage exists as a union between people's of differing genders. Because all couples cannot have, do not wish to have children, or are to old to have children misses the point.

Only the coupling between a male and a female ( or to get even more basic, the components of the two), can create population. Population is required for a government to be needed, and marriage was created so that this population had some order in that creation. An orderly population being required so that a government has a population orderly enough to be governed.

Benefits were given, not because a child exists, but, without the government intruding too much into the private lifes of the participants, because, as a group, male - female coupling has the potential of creating population. Can the same be claimed in same gender couplings?

If not, there is a clear, easily defined difference. If you want to discuss interracial marriage, that is a different discussion altogether.

 

[rightwinger]

Not my argument at all. Births among couples that include a male and a female (or the components of those genders) comprise 100% of of the whole. To say that one group of couples (male - female), are, for repopulation purposes, equal to another group (same gender), is not realistic.

The argument you make is better suited for dropping Marriage, and civil unions all together. IMHO.

The fact is that we have an all inclusive definition of marriage. We allow old people to marry even though they have no ability to have children, we allow infertile couples to marry, we allow divorced people to remarry even though they have already failed at marriage.....we even allow black and white people to marry

Yet gays are excluded

Again, your argument is better suited for not having marriage or civil union at all.

I expressed my reasoning as to why marriage exists as a union between people's of differing genders. Because all couples cannot have, do not wish to have children, or are to old to have children misses the point.

Only the coupling between a male and a female ( or to get even more basic, the components of the two), can create population. Population is required for a government to be needed, and marriage was created so that this population had some order in that creation. An orderly population being required so that a government has a population orderly enough to be governed.

Benefits were given, not because a child exists, but, without the government intruding too much into the private lifes of the participants, because, as a group, male - female coupling has the potential of creating population. Can the same be claimed in same gender couplings?

If not, there is a clear, easily defined difference. If you want to discuss interracial marriage, that is a different discussion altogether.

The actual purpose of marriage was to transfer ownership of a woman

It had nothing to do with children

 

[Pop23]

The fact is that we have an all inclusive definition of marriage. We allow old people to marry even though they have no ability to have children, we allow infertile couples to marry, we allow divorced people to remarry even though they have already failed at marriage.....we even allow black and white people to marry

Yet gays are excluded

Again, your argument is better suited for not having marriage or civil union at all.

I expressed my reasoning as to why marriage exists as a union between people's of differing genders. Because all couples cannot have, do not wish to have children, or are to old to have children misses the point.

Only the coupling between a male and a female ( or to get even more basic, the components of the two), can create population. Population is required for a government to be needed, and marriage was created so that this population had some order in that creation. An orderly population being required so that a government has a population orderly enough to be governed.

Benefits were given, not because a child exists, but, without the government intruding too much into the private lifes of the participants, because, as a group, male - female coupling has the potential of creating population. Can the same be claimed in same gender couplings?

If not, there is a clear, easily defined difference. If you want to discuss interracial marriage, that is a different discussion altogether.

The actual purpose of marriage was to transfer ownership of a woman

It had nothing to do with children

Our idea of an orderly population has changed then. Does not change the meaning of marriage.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not my argument at all. Births among couples that include a male and a female (or the components of those genders) comprise 100% of of the whole. To say that one group of couples (male - female), are, for repopulation purposes, equal to another group (same gender), is not realistic.

The argument you make is better suited for dropping Marriage, and civil unions all together. IMHO.

The fact is that we have an all inclusive definition of marriage. We allow old people to marry even though they have no ability to have children, we allow infertile couples to marry, we allow divorced people to remarry even though they have already failed at marriage.....we even allow black and white people to marry

Yet gays are excluded

Again, your argument is better suited for not having marriage or civil union at all.

I expressed my reasoning as to why marriage exists as a union between people's of differing genders. Because all couples cannot have, do not wish to have children, or are to old to have children misses the point.

Only the coupling between a male and a female ( or to get even more basic, the components of the two), can create population. Population is required for a government to be needed, and marriage was created so that this population had some order in that creation. An orderly population being required so that a government has a population orderly enough to be governed.

Benefits were given, not because a child exists, but, without the government intruding too much into the private lifes of the participants, because, as a group, male - female coupling has the potential of creating population. Can the same be claimed in same gender couplings?

If not, there is a clear, easily defined difference. If you want to discuss interracial marriage, that is a different discussion altogether.

The fundamental discussion though is the government compelling government interest in treating like groups differently. In this case those groups are law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in different-sex couple differently then law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple.

OK, let's go with your premise that procreation is the central aspect of Civil Marriage.

That doesn't change the fundamental question. If known infertile couples are allowed to Civilly Marry, if old people beyond child bearing years are allowed to marry, if some couples must prove infertility prior to being allowed to Civilly Marry are granted an exception to this fundamental requirement for Civil Marriage...

.........................Then what is the compelling government interest denying the same exception to members in same-sex couples?



If procreation is a requirement, but exceptions are made, then what is the compelling reason for denying the same exception to a like situated group.


For discussion purposes, OK, couples that can procreate are different then couples that can't procreate - got it. Now explain compelling government interest in not granting the same exception to a like group.



>>>>

 

[Pop23]

The fact is that we have an all inclusive definition of marriage. We allow old people to marry even though they have no ability to have children, we allow infertile couples to marry, we allow divorced people to remarry even though they have already failed at marriage.....we even allow black and white people to marry

Yet gays are excluded

Again, your argument is better suited for not having marriage or civil union at all.

I expressed my reasoning as to why marriage exists as a union between people's of differing genders. Because all couples cannot have, do not wish to have children, or are to old to have children misses the point.

Only the coupling between a male and a female ( or to get even more basic, the components of the two), can create population. Population is required for a government to be needed, and marriage was created so that this population had some order in that creation. An orderly population being required so that a government has a population orderly enough to be governed.

Benefits were given, not because a child exists, but, without the government intruding too much into the private lifes of the participants, because, as a group, male - female coupling has the potential of creating population. Can the same be claimed in same gender couplings?

If not, there is a clear, easily defined difference. If you want to discuss interracial marriage, that is a different discussion altogether.

The fundamental discussion though is the government compelling government interest in treating like groups differently. In this case those groups are law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in different-sex couple differently then law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple.

OK, let's go with your premise that procreation is the central aspect of Civil Marriage.

That doesn't change the fundamental question. If known infertile couples are allowed to Civilly Marry, if old people beyond child bearing years are allowed to marry, if some couples must prove infertility prior to being allowed to Civilly Marry are granted an exception to this fundamental requirement for Civil Marriage...

.........................Then what is the compelling government interest denying the same exception to members in same-sex couples?



If procreation is a requirement, but exceptions are made, then what is the compelling reason for denying the same exception to a like situated group.


For discussion purposes, OK, couples that can procreate are different then couples that can't procreate - got it. Now explain compelling government interest in not granting the same exception to a like group.



>>>>

One would be potential. A couple that is of child bearing age, but might test infertile, but, and I think we all know people that, even though they were told they could never conceive, have children. Got three children in my neighborhood born of parents that were told that they would never have children.

Second, for a different gender couple, a fertility test would need to be administered, would it not? For a same gendered couple a fertility test would never be required.

Just keep coming up with more differences than commonalities.