Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How to meet everyone halfway on gay marriage

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 7:36:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I personally only stand up for gay marriage rights due to monetary benefits. Marriage was designed for the creation of children, whatever society has distorted it to be is irrelevant. I believe we should expand the privilages for civil unions and allow homosexuals to be in a civil union. Problem solved, no monetary discrimination (which is my main problem w/ no gay marriage), and no hypocrisy on the meaning of gay marriage. Opinions, criticisms, expansions on my idea?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 7:38:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 7:36:44 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I personally only stand up for gay marriage rights due to monetary benefits. Marriage was designed for the creation of children, whatever society has distorted it to be is irrelevant. I believe we should expand the privilages for civil unions and allow homosexuals to be in a civil union. Problem solved, no monetary discrimination (which is my main problem w/ no gay marriage), and no hypocrisy on the meaning of gay marriage. Opinions, criticisms, expansions on my idea?

Yes. Separate but equal is unconstitutional.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 7:49:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 7:38:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:36:44 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I personally only stand up for gay marriage rights due to monetary benefits. Marriage was designed for the creation of children, whatever society has distorted it to be is irrelevant. I believe we should expand the privilages for civil unions and allow homosexuals to be in a civil union. Problem solved, no monetary discrimination (which is my main problem w/ no gay marriage), and no hypocrisy on the meaning of gay marriage. Opinions, criticisms, expansions on my idea?

Yes. Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

This is different, schools are public, marriage was supposed to be a private institution, until the government forcefully shoved their way in to it.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 8:25:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 7:49:52 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:38:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:36:44 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I personally only stand up for gay marriage rights due to monetary benefits. Marriage was designed for the creation of children, whatever society has distorted it to be is irrelevant. I believe we should expand the privilages for civil unions and allow homosexuals to be in a civil union. Problem solved, no monetary discrimination (which is my main problem w/ no gay marriage), and no hypocrisy on the meaning of gay marriage. Opinions, criticisms, expansions on my idea?

Yes. Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

This is different, schools are public, marriage was supposed to be a private institution, until the government forcefully shoved their way in to it.

I'd only support this if we recognized only civil unions, and kept marriages as something not recognized by the government. This way, you get a civil union for the benefits, and you can get married separately through a private ceremony and call it a marriage, but to the government, all they would care about would be civil unions.

Or, instead of making things needlessly complex, we could just let them call it marriage.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 11:04:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 7:36:44 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I personally only stand up for gay marriage rights due to monetary benefits. Marriage was designed for the creation of children, whatever society has distorted it to be is irrelevant. I believe we should expand the privilages for civil unions and allow homosexuals to be in a civil union. Problem solved, no monetary discrimination (which is my main problem w/ no gay marriage), and no hypocrisy on the meaning of gay marriage. Opinions, criticisms, expansions on my idea?

I would take it a step further and change gov involvement to rename all marriages as "Civil Unions" and leave the word marriage for churches. Churches then can determine their own criteria for marriage.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 1:24:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 11:04:54 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:36:44 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I personally only stand up for gay marriage rights due to monetary benefits. Marriage was designed for the creation of children, whatever society has distorted it to be is irrelevant. I believe we should expand the privilages for civil unions and allow homosexuals to be in a civil union. Problem solved, no monetary discrimination (which is my main problem w/ no gay marriage), and no hypocrisy on the meaning of gay marriage. Opinions, criticisms, expansions on my idea?


I would take it a step further and change gov involvement to rename all marriages as "Civil Unions" and leave the word marriage for churches. Churches then can determine their own criteria for marriage.

I fully agree with this. ^
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
FrackJack
Posts: 1,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 1:48:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 7:36:44 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I personally only stand up for gay marriage rights due to monetary benefits. Marriage was designed for the creation of children, whatever society has distorted it to be is irrelevant. I believe we should expand the privilages for civil unions and allow homosexuals to be in a civil union. Problem solved, no monetary discrimination (which is my main problem w/ no gay marriage), and no hypocrisy on the meaning of gay marriage. Opinions, criticisms, expansions on my idea?

lolnope. even if this is so it is irrelevant. Modern marriage isn't dependent on having child.
: At 8/8/2013 6:15:09 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
: The idiots are rebelling.

http://i.imgur.com...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 1:57:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 1:48:33 PM, FrackJack wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:36:44 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I personally only stand up for gay marriage rights due to monetary benefits. Marriage was designed for the creation of children, whatever society has distorted it to be is irrelevant. I believe we should expand the privilages for civil unions and allow homosexuals to be in a civil union. Problem solved, no monetary discrimination (which is my main problem w/ no gay marriage), and no hypocrisy on the meaning of gay marriage. Opinions, criticisms, expansions on my idea?

lolnope. even if this is so it is irrelevant. Modern marriage isn't dependent on having child.

Yes. Homosexuals can already adopt a child, and they can be in an informal partnership with someone of the same sex while doing so. It's idiotic to think that having those two in a state-recognized marriage would be any worse for the child.

This is why I say that there is NO COMPROMISE on equal marriage rights. A "civil unions for all" compromise would work, but it would be needlessly complex when we could just let them call it marriage and be done with it.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 2:23:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 11:04:54 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:36:44 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I personally only stand up for gay marriage rights due to monetary benefits. Marriage was designed for the creation of children, whatever society has distorted it to be is irrelevant. I believe we should expand the privilages for civil unions and allow homosexuals to be in a civil union. Problem solved, no monetary discrimination (which is my main problem w/ no gay marriage), and no hypocrisy on the meaning of gay marriage. Opinions, criticisms, expansions on my idea?


I would take it a step further and change gov involvement to rename all marriages as "Civil Unions" and leave the word marriage for churches. Churches then can determine their own criteria for marriage.

I say we just get rid of all of the terms and mandate that we can all do it but nobody speak about it. That way we'll never again have to argue over what we are calling it.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 2:34:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 8:25:21 AM, drhead wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:49:52 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:38:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:36:44 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I personally only stand up for gay marriage rights due to monetary benefits. Marriage was designed for the creation of children, whatever society has distorted it to be is irrelevant. I believe we should expand the privilages for civil unions and allow homosexuals to be in a civil union. Problem solved, no monetary discrimination (which is my main problem w/ no gay marriage), and no hypocrisy on the meaning of gay marriage. Opinions, criticisms, expansions on my idea?

Yes. Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

This is different, schools are public, marriage was supposed to be a private institution, until the government forcefully shoved their way in to it.

I'd only support this if we recognized only civil unions, and kept marriages as something not recognized by the government. This way, you get a civil union for the benefits, and you can get married separately through a private ceremony and call it a marriage, but to the government, all they would care about would be civil unions.

Or, instead of making things needlessly complex, we could just let them call it marriage.

A local politician proposed this in the MN house.
It did not go over well, by either side of the issue.
Personally, I like it, but I would rather it go further, and not have anything that "marries" people. And everyone sign the appropriate forms: power of attorney, wills, etc.

There is no discrimination for anyone, all are treated the same, even those unions that 90% of people disagree with get "recognized".
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 2:38:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Drhead,
How is civil unions for gays and marraiges for straights needlessly complex? This is a strange argument.
It is written quite simply in the law.

"Define Civil union"
"Let it be written that anywhere where it says marriage, let it be amended to read marriage or civil union"
Boom, done.

Unless you go through every law and amend it, but I see no reason for that.
My work here is, finally, done.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 2:39:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 7:49:52 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:38:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:36:44 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I personally only stand up for gay marriage rights due to monetary benefits. Marriage was designed for the creation of children, whatever society has distorted it to be is irrelevant. I believe we should expand the privilages for civil unions and allow homosexuals to be in a civil union. Problem solved, no monetary discrimination (which is my main problem w/ no gay marriage), and no hypocrisy on the meaning of gay marriage. Opinions, criticisms, expansions on my idea?

Yes. Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

This is different, schools are public, marriage was supposed to be a private institution, until the government forcefully shoved their way in to it.

Arguably, school was supposed to be a private institution, until the government forcefully shoved its way into it. But what it was is irrelevant. What it is relevant is what it is.

The governments involved, ergo it should play by its own rules.

Separate but equal is unconstitutional.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 2:41:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Furthermore, what is the practical benefit of having and maintaining two forms of "union" that are different only in name but whose mere existence runs the inevitable risk of exploitation to the determinate of a minority?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 2:49:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 2:41:37 PM, drafterman wrote:
Furthermore, what is the practical benefit of having and maintaining two forms of "union" that are different only in name but whose mere existence runs the inevitable risk of exploitation to the detriment of a minority?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 3:37:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 8:25:21 AM, drhead wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:49:52 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:38:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:36:44 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I personally only stand up for gay marriage rights due to monetary benefits. Marriage was designed for the creation of children, whatever society has distorted it to be is irrelevant. I believe we should expand the privilages for civil unions and allow homosexuals to be in a civil union. Problem solved, no monetary discrimination (which is my main problem w/ no gay marriage), and no hypocrisy on the meaning of gay marriage. Opinions, criticisms, expansions on my idea?

Yes. Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

This is different, schools are public, marriage was supposed to be a private institution, until the government forcefully shoved their way in to it.

I'd only support this if we recognized only civil unions, and kept marriages as something not recognized by the government. This way, you get a civil union for the benefits, and you can get married separately through a private ceremony and call it a marriage, but to the government, all they would care about would be civil unions.

Or, instead of making things needlessly complex, we could just let them call it marriage.

Not bad, I agree.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2013 3:40:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 2:39:58 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:49:52 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:38:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:36:44 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I personally only stand up for gay marriage rights due to monetary benefits. Marriage was designed for the creation of children, whatever society has distorted it to be is irrelevant. I believe we should expand the privilages for civil unions and allow homosexuals to be in a civil union. Problem solved, no monetary discrimination (which is my main problem w/ no gay marriage), and no hypocrisy on the meaning of gay marriage. Opinions, criticisms, expansions on my idea?

Yes. Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

This is different, schools are public, marriage was supposed to be a private institution, until the government forcefully shoved their way in to it.

Arguably, school was supposed to be a private institution, until the government forcefully shoved its way into it. But what it was is irrelevant. What it is relevant is what it is.

Children getting an education to stop wealth disparity vs. hurting a small group of people's feelings

The governments involved, ergo it should play by its own rules.

Separate but equal is unconstitutional.
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 12:56:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is such an easy thing to fix.

Let the gays have civil unions with all the benefits as a straight marriage.

Everyone is / should be happy.

With this, you are not tainting the image and name of marriage, while also giving the gays the same benefits.

Marriage was not designed nor meant for the same sex, therefore gays have no rightful claim to it.
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 1:22:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 12:56:17 AM, Bachatero wrote:
This is such an easy thing to fix.

Let the gays have civil unions with all the benefits as a straight marriage.

Everyone is / should be happy.

With this, you are not tainting the image and name of marriage, while also giving the gays the same benefits.

But that implies that Gays 'taint' marriage and that straight people actually consider it sacred even though they treat it like crap, which is a big part of the issue

Marriage was not designed nor meant for the same sex, therefore gays have no rightful claim to it.

^ it's also stupid crap like that which is based only in homophobic opinions that is also an issue.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Bachatero
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 3:35:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 1:22:58 AM, imabench wrote:
At 5/8/2013 12:56:17 AM, Bachatero wrote:
This is such an easy thing to fix.

Let the gays have civil unions with all the benefits as a straight marriage.

Everyone is / should be happy.

With this, you are not tainting the image and name of marriage, while also giving the gays the same benefits.

But that implies that Gays 'taint' marriage and that straight people actually consider it sacred even though they treat it like crap, which is a big part of the issue

Marriage was not designed nor meant for the same sex, therefore gays have no rightful claim to it.

^ it's also stupid crap like that which is based only in homophobic opinions that is also an issue.

Well, marriage was designed and meant for man and women. So by definition alone gays taint it. Not to mention the religious connotations that would could argue.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 7:19:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/7/2013 3:40:15 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/6/2013 2:39:58 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:49:52 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:38:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:36:44 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I personally only stand up for gay marriage rights due to monetary benefits. Marriage was designed for the creation of children, whatever society has distorted it to be is irrelevant. I believe we should expand the privilages for civil unions and allow homosexuals to be in a civil union. Problem solved, no monetary discrimination (which is my main problem w/ no gay marriage), and no hypocrisy on the meaning of gay marriage. Opinions, criticisms, expansions on my idea?

Yes. Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

This is different, schools are public, marriage was supposed to be a private institution, until the government forcefully shoved their way in to it.

Arguably, school was supposed to be a private institution, until the government forcefully shoved its way into it. But what it was is irrelevant. What it is relevant is what it is.

Children getting an education to stop wealth disparity vs. hurting a small group of people's feelings

Doesn't matter. Separate but equal is unconstitutional.


The governments involved, ergo it should play by its own rules.

Separate but equal is unconstitutional.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 7:19:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 12:56:17 AM, Bachatero wrote:
This is such an easy thing to fix.

Let the gays have civil unions with all the benefits as a straight marriage.

Everyone is / should be happy.

With this, you are not tainting the image and name of marriage, while also giving the gays the same benefits.

Marriage was not designed nor meant for the same sex, therefore gays have no rightful claim to it.

What is the practical benefit of having and maintaining two forms of "union" that are different only in name but whose mere existence runs the inevitable risk of exploitation to the detriment of a minority?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 7:49:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 1:22:58 AM, imabench wrote:
At 5/8/2013 12:56:17 AM, Bachatero wrote:
This is such an easy thing to fix.

Let the gays have civil unions with all the benefits as a straight marriage.

Everyone is / should be happy.

With this, you are not tainting the image and name of marriage, while also giving the gays the same benefits.

But that implies that Gays 'taint' marriage and that straight people actually consider it sacred even though they treat it like crap, which is a big part of the issue

Marriage was not designed nor meant for the same sex, therefore gays have no rightful claim to it.

^ it's also stupid crap like that which is based only in homophobic opinions that is also an issue.

It's not homophobic, marriage is a private institution, the government shouldn't be involved in something that was created by religion, therefore since the government is secular they should only have the right to give people civil unions, not marry them. If some church wants to wed gays, that's great, but the government shouldn't do it.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 7:51:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 7:19:02 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/7/2013 3:40:15 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/6/2013 2:39:58 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:49:52 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:38:28 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:36:44 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I personally only stand up for gay marriage rights due to monetary benefits. Marriage was designed for the creation of children, whatever society has distorted it to be is irrelevant. I believe we should expand the privilages for civil unions and allow homosexuals to be in a civil union. Problem solved, no monetary discrimination (which is my main problem w/ no gay marriage), and no hypocrisy on the meaning of gay marriage. Opinions, criticisms, expansions on my idea?

Yes. Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

This is different, schools are public, marriage was supposed to be a private institution, until the government forcefully shoved their way in to it.

Arguably, school was supposed to be a private institution, until the government forcefully shoved its way into it. But what it was is irrelevant. What it is relevant is what it is.

Children getting an education to stop wealth disparity vs. hurting a small group of people's feelings

Doesn't matter. Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

It does matter, because the government is supposed to be secular, and marriage is a religious institution, so the government has no right to wed people.


The governments involved, ergo it should play by its own rules.

Separate but equal is unconstitutional.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 7:53:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 7:19:56 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/8/2013 12:56:17 AM, Bachatero wrote:
This is such an easy thing to fix.

Let the gays have civil unions with all the benefits as a straight marriage.

Everyone is / should be happy.

With this, you are not tainting the image and name of marriage, while also giving the gays the same benefits.

Marriage was not designed nor meant for the same sex, therefore gays have no rightful claim to it.

What is the practical benefit of having and maintaining two forms of "union" that are different only in name but whose mere existence runs the inevitable risk of exploitation to the detriment of a minority?

You are ultimately missing the point. Marriage should be a private institution, the GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT GIVE OUT IS A MARRIAGE LICENSE, only licenses for civil unions. If a private church wants to wed homosexuals, that's their business, the government has no right to do so though.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 7:53:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/6/2013 7:36:44 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I personally only stand up for gay marriage rights due to monetary benefits. Marriage was designed for the creation of children, whatever society has distorted it to be is irrelevant. I believe we should expand the privilages for civil unions and allow homosexuals to be in a civil union. Problem solved, no monetary discrimination (which is my main problem w/ no gay marriage), and no hypocrisy on the meaning of gay marriage. Opinions, criticisms, expansions on my idea?

Nope. Sex was designed for the creation of children. State sponsored marriage was designed for the social organization of man. If you're not against discrimination against gay marriage because of the violation of the principles of justice, then your position is pretty illegitimate.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 7:54:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you are not gonna let gays have civil unions then you also should only let straight people have civil unions. Is it that important to you that gay marriage gets called something else? Like somehow you are negatively affected if gay marriage is called marriage? How would it affect you to call it marriage? It seems you just want to do something to make gays second hand citizens.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 7:55:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 7:53:36 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:36:44 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I personally only stand up for gay marriage rights due to monetary benefits. Marriage was designed for the creation of children, whatever society has distorted it to be is irrelevant. I believe we should expand the privilages for civil unions and allow homosexuals to be in a civil union. Problem solved, no monetary discrimination (which is my main problem w/ no gay marriage), and no hypocrisy on the meaning of gay marriage. Opinions, criticisms, expansions on my idea?

Nope. Sex was designed for the creation of children. State sponsored marriage was designed for the social organization of man. If you're not against discrimination against gay marriage because of the violation of the principles of justice, then your position is pretty illegitimate.

'Justice'

Objective justice or your definition of it?

Objectively the government should NOT give our marriage licenses, marriage is a religious/private institution, and the US government is secular.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 7:57:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 7:54:09 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
If you are not gonna let gays have civil unions then you also should only let straight people have civil unions. Is it that important to you that gay marriage gets called something else? Like somehow you are negatively affected if gay marriage is called marriage? How would it affect you to call it marriage? It seems you just want to do something to make gays second hand citizens.

You, along with all the other politically correct, touchy people here are assuming. I could care less if a private church wants to wed homosexuals, you're 100% right, that doesn't effect me. The government should not wed anyone (straight or homosexual), or give out marriage licenses, only licenses for civil unions.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2013 8:19:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/8/2013 7:55:34 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/8/2013 7:53:36 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/6/2013 7:36:44 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I personally only stand up for gay marriage rights due to monetary benefits. Marriage was designed for the creation of children, whatever society has distorted it to be is irrelevant. I believe we should expand the privilages for civil unions and allow homosexuals to be in a civil union. Problem solved, no monetary discrimination (which is my main problem w/ no gay marriage), and no hypocrisy on the meaning of gay marriage. Opinions, criticisms, expansions on my idea?

Nope. Sex was designed for the creation of children. State sponsored marriage was designed for the social organization of man. If you're not against discrimination against gay marriage because of the violation of the principles of justice, then your position is pretty illegitimate.

'Justice'

Objective justice or your definition of it?

Objectively the government should NOT give our marriage licenses, marriage is a religious/private institution, and the US government is secular.

Then why has monogamy existed in a variety of cultures for longer than Western religion?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian