Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Marriage vs Civil Unions

PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 12:14:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I have somewhat of a unique position on the future roles of marriage and civil unions.

Civil unions are often viewed as a "separate, but equal" policy. I happen to agree. However, being a strict Constitutionalist I also agree that religion should be protected.

Historically speaking, marriage has almost always been inextricably linked to religion in one manner or another. While I am not religious, I believe that we should protect the freedom of religion. I do not believe that the state should dictate to a minister that he has to marry a homosexual couple if it goes against his religion. But this ministers beliefs should also not infringe upon the freedom of free people in a free society to consensually marry whomever they please.

So what do we do?

I say anyone who wants to have a legal union should have civil unions, and anyone who wants a ceremony under religious pretenses should be married. The only stipulation is that religious leaders hold no legal authority, except that granted by their god. As it stands now, ministers and pastors and rabbi's and priests are licensed through the state, essentially becoming an arm of the state.

I say civil unions for secular society, and marriages for religious folk.

Discuss...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 12:35:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Are the civil unions gonna be tax-subsidy-free?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 12:35:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Marriage is already state-sanctioned considering all of the benefits that come with its recognition (tax breaks etc..). There's no going back. By now it has been almost entirely secularized (ie. anyone licensed by government can perform a legally binding marriage). Historical context makes absolutely no difference at this point. Soo, the inevitable question is, why don't we simplify things and have just the one institution called marriage? Religious institutions won't be forced to perform homosexual marriages; there are plenty of civil servants that will do it. If you want to act in the interest of fairness, then segregating the two is nonsensical.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 12:37:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/8/1958 12:35:31 PM, Some southern guy wrote wrote:
Slavery is already state-sanctioned considering all of the benefits that come with its recognition (unpaid labor etc..). There's no going back.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 12:37:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
that faux-quote should've read 1858 not 1958.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 12:47:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/8/2010 12:37:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/8/1958 12:35:31 PM, Some southern guy wrote wrote:
Slavery is already state-sanctioned considering all of the benefits that come with its recognition (unpaid labor etc..). There's no going back.

Well I mean, if you don't mind dealing with another civil war...

At 7/8/2010 12:37:28 PM, Some Libertarian wrote:
I think people take me seriously
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 1:39:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
To me marriage is between a man and a women because I am a man married to a women.

I like it.

Don' t tax me so much and I would not care for tax subsides. If the government left marriage alone than we would not have this problem but the powers that be want to keep america with traditional values (some would say religious).

I don't mind but I do not agree fully.
It will be the way it is for a while so why worry yourself over it.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 1:44:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/8/2010 12:47:00 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 7/8/2010 12:37:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/8/1958 12:35:31 PM, Some southern guy wrote wrote:
Slavery is already state-sanctioned considering all of the benefits that come with its recognition (unpaid labor etc..). There's no going back.

Well I mean, if you don't mind dealing with another civil war...

The idea is that it's something that was written pre-civil-war.

The point is there's plenty going back. (And I doubt recalassifying marriage in a way that permits people to "preserve the sanctity of the term" and permits gays to have legal benefits is "civil war" material.)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 1:46:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/8/2010 12:14:10 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I have somewhat of a unique position on the future roles of marriage and civil unions.

Civil unions are often viewed as a "separate, but equal" policy. I happen to agree. However, being a strict Constitutionalist I also agree that religion should be protected.

Historically speaking, marriage has almost always been inextricably linked to religion in one manner or another. While I am not religious, I believe that we should protect the freedom of religion. I do not believe that the state should dictate to a minister that he has to marry a homosexual couple if it goes against his religion. But this ministers beliefs should also not infringe upon the freedom of free people in a free society to consensually marry whomever they please.

So what do we do?

I say anyone who wants to have a legal union should have civil unions, and anyone who wants a ceremony under religious pretenses should be married. The only stipulation is that religious leaders hold no legal authority, except that granted by their god. As it stands now, ministers and pastors and rabbi's and priests are licensed through the state, essentially becoming an arm of the state.

I say civil unions for secular society, and marriages for religious folk.

Discuss...

Not so unique, i share the same exact thought on the matter, and have for a while (it's very libertarian).
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 2:24:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/8/2010 12:14:10 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I have somewhat of a unique position on the future roles of marriage and civil unions.

It's not really that unique.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 3:47:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/8/2010 12:14:10 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Civil unions are often viewed as a "separate, but equal" policy. I happen to agree. However, being a strict Constitutionalist I also agree that religion should be protected.

Second amendment. Should the right for religiond to indoctrinate children be protected?


Historically speaking, marriage has almost always been inextricably linked to religion in one manner or another. While I am not religious, I believe that we should protect the freedom of religion. I do not believe that the state should dictate to a minister that he has to marry a homosexual couple if it goes against his religion. But this ministers beliefs should also not infringe upon the freedom of free people in a free society to consensually marry whomever they please.

Marriage grew as a way of making political and economical ties.

I say anyone who wants to have a legal union should have civil unions, and anyone who wants a ceremony under religious pretenses should be married. The only stipulation is that religious leaders hold no legal authority, except that granted by their god. As it stands now, ministers and pastors and rabbi's and priests are licensed through the state, essentially becoming an arm of the state

I say civil unions for secular society, and marriages for religious folk.

While I agree, I don't agree with religious marriages being legal. You can get married, but that wont' transfer into any state recognition or other related benefits. If you want recognition, you'll need a civil union.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 3:49:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/8/2010 3:47:15 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 7/8/2010 12:14:10 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Civil unions are often viewed as a "separate, but equal" policy. I happen to agree. However, being a strict Constitutionalist I also agree that religion should be protected.

First amendment. Should the right for religion to indoctrinate children be protected?

Fix'd
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 3:59:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/8/2010 12:14:10 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Civil unions are often viewed as a "separate, but equal" policy. I happen to agree. However, being a strict Constitutionalist I also agree that religion should be protected.

FALSE.

First of all, heterosexual marriages have to be recognized by every state wheras civil unions do not. Second, marriages offer literally hundreds to a thousand of legal and financial benefits that do NOT apply to civil union. Saying that the 2 are "equal" is kinda laughable.

I say civil unions for secular society, and marriages for religious folk. Discuss...

It's important to note that gays are going to call their civil unions "marriages" whether straight people like it or not. It will be a gay marriage, and regardless of how you want to define the legal terminology, the term "civil union" will simply not be applicable. "I'm going to ask my partner to civil union me tonight..." right. Doesn't work. That said, your proposition is perfectly fine and is exactly what PRO gay marriage people advocate: secularization of the government (hey - what a concept!). If civil unions WERE actually "equal" in their rights and benefits, then there would be no real issue now would there.
President of DDO
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 5:00:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/8/2010 1:44:46 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/8/2010 12:47:00 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 7/8/2010 12:37:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/8/1958 12:35:31 PM, Some southern guy wrote wrote:
Slavery is already state-sanctioned considering all of the benefits that come with its recognition (unpaid labor etc..). There's no going back.

Well I mean, if you don't mind dealing with another civil war...

The idea is that it's something that was written pre-civil-war.

The point is there's plenty going back. (And I doubt recalassifying marriage in a way that permits people to "preserve the sanctity of the term" and permits gays to have legal benefits is "civil war" material.)

i was under the impression that you were implying that the abolition of all marriage related benefits is a plausible scenario (which is the position i attempted to ridicule).

All i was trying to say in my first post was that the idea of leaving "marriage" aside for straight couples and then giving gays civil unions with equal benefits is redundant since it would be the exact same thing. You might as well allow gays to get married. The OP says that because marriage was historically connected to religion, it should be allowed to stay the way it is. I say that history makes no difference because marriages today are registered by the state and can be performed by any licensed civil servant, so in the interest of fairness the institution should be extended to include gay couples too instead of creating a separate institution for gays (which would be pointless and would effectively amount to segregation).
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2010 5:26:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/8/2010 5:00:52 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 7/8/2010 1:44:46 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/8/2010 12:47:00 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 7/8/2010 12:37:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/8/1958 12:35:31 PM, Some southern guy wrote wrote:
Slavery is already state-sanctioned considering all of the benefits that come with its recognition (unpaid labor etc..). There's no going back.

Well I mean, if you don't mind dealing with another civil war...

The idea is that it's something that was written pre-civil-war.

The point is there's plenty going back. (And I doubt recalassifying marriage in a way that permits people to "preserve the sanctity of the term" and permits gays to have legal benefits is "civil war" material.)

i was under the impression that you were implying that the abolition of all marriage related benefits is a plausible scenario (which is the position i attempted to ridicule).
Whether the masses are likely to sanction something has no bearing on its merits.


All i was trying to say in my first post was that the idea of leaving "marriage" aside for straight couples and then giving gays civil unions with equal benefits is redundant since it would be the exact same thing.
That's not precisely the proposal of the OP.

Furthermore, since "marriage" is an important term to so many people in a way "civil union" isn't, it has a salutary effect on other policies to detach the term from the state just due to cultural acclimitization, which makes it worth the change even were there no other concerns :P.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 4:16:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/8/2010 6:51:36 PM, comoncents wrote:
@L


You don't like boys, at all?

Of course not, they have cudies.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:26:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/8/2010 12:35:31 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
Marriage is already state-sanctioned considering all of the benefits that come with its recognition (tax breaks etc..). There's no going back.:

Perhaps, but I don't think there should have ever been an intrusion on it to begin with. Anyone should be able to marry whomever they want consensually, however, for legal recognition I think we should have civil unions.

If you want to act in the interest of fairness, then segregating the two is nonsensical.:

It's not segregating them, it is distinguishing between them. Regardless of your personal beliefs, is it right to force a pastor to marry homosexuals if it is against his beliefs? Likewise, is it right to bar homosexuals marriage on the basis that it is against this guy's beliefs, but not their own?

If we can agree that marriage is a religiouis ceremony and a civil union is a legally binding contract, the two are merely distinguished. And if you want to have both, you should be allowed to do that too.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:38:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Should the right for religiond to indoctrinate children be protected?:

"Indoctrination" is subjective. We would have to be more specific.

While I agree, I don't agree with religious marriages being legal. You can get married, but that wont' transfer into any state recognition or other related benefits. If you want recognition, you'll need a civil union.:

If I didn't clarify myself well, know that this is what I meant. You either work for the state or for God. If a religious couple wants to have a religious ceremony declaring their union before God, then get married. If they want certain legal indemnities, they must also get a civil union. Ministers would therefore have no legal authority as they do now, for several reasons, but most notably:

1. It respects the separation of Church and State.
2. It's respects the sanctity and rights of both homosexuals and the religious.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:55:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
First of all, heterosexual marriages have to be recognized by every state wheras civil unions do not. Second, marriages offer literally hundreds to a thousand of legal and financial benefits that do NOT apply to civil union. Saying that the 2 are "equal" is kinda laughable.:

I think you misunderstand me. You are comparing what civil unions are now with what I am declaring them to be in the future. If you'll note in my first post, I am speaking from a future tense.

It's important to note that gays are going to call their civil unions "marriages" whether straight people like it or not. It will be a gay marriage, and regardless of how you want to define the legal terminology, the term "civil union" will simply not be applicable.:

My proposition has less to do with gay marriage vs civil unions than it does separating Church and State. The latter is the meat and potato's.

If civil unions WERE actually "equal" in their rights and benefits, then there would be no real issue now would there.:

It seems there would, now that my thread is being derailed. I think you misunderstand my proposition. I don't just want civil unions for gay people. I want civil unions for anyone who wants legal and civil recognition of their union that is apart from religion. Why? Because the Bill of Rights is clear, per the Establishment Clause, that religion and the state should be separate, to benefit them both.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 7:50:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 5:38:13 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Should the right for religiond to indoctrinate children be protected?:

"Indoctrination" is subjective. We would have to be more specific.
"Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned." - http://en.wikipedia.org...

Seems that by churches running schools they are indoctrinating.


While I agree, I don't agree with religious marriages being legal. You can get married, but that wont' transfer into any state recognition or other related benefits. If you want recognition, you'll need a civil union.:

If I didn't clarify myself well, know that this is what I meant. You either work for the state or for God. If a religious couple wants to have a religious ceremony declaring their union before God, then get married. If they want certain legal indemnities, they must also get a civil union. Ministers would therefore have no legal authority as they do now, for several reasons, but most notably:

1. It respects the separation of Church and State.
2. It's respects the sanctity and rights of both homosexuals and the religious.

That's exactly my plan too.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 7:57:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned." -: Seems that by churches running schools they are indoctrinating.:

But are you not then also indoctrinating others on this forum? Indoctrinating has a negative connotation attached to it, but if you really think about it, it's nothing more than expressing one's opinion(s).

That's exactly my plan too.:

Well, they do say great minds think alike ;)
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 7:58:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 7:51:42 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 7/8/2010 6:51:36 PM, comoncents wrote:
@L


You don't like boys, at all?

Lol - why do you ask?

I was curious and you have always been an honest person, so I know you'll answer truthfully.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 8:00:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 7:57:02 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
"Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned." -: Seems that by churches running schools they are indoctrinating.:

But are you not then also indoctrinating others on this forum?

Nope, I allow them to respond to my posts, critically analyse them, and I will respond, but at times I change my mind on an issue.

Indoctrinating has a negative connotation attached to it, but if you really think about it, it's nothing more than expressing one's opinion(s).

Actually, no. Indoctrination is telling a person "X is right. There is no room for if's and buts, regardless X is always right and any idea conflicting with X is wrong". That's attempting to indoctrinate them. Applying to to schools en masse to more culpable minds means Christianity without critique usually gets through, sadly.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 8:16:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Nope, I allow them to respond to my posts, critically analyse them, and I will respond, but at times I change my mind on an issue.:

I concede that point to you. I suppose that indoctrination is especially marked by grandiosity and beliefs of infallibility.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 8:55:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 5:26:48 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/8/2010 12:35:31 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
If you want to act in the interest of fairness, then segregating the two is nonsensical.:

It's not segregating them, it is distinguishing between them. Regardless of your personal beliefs, is it right to force a pastor to marry homosexuals if it is against his beliefs?

No, but pastors/priests/rabbis are not the only one's licensed to perform marriages. The argument that same-sex marriage would result in priests being forced to perform these ceremonies against their will is simply invalid. If a church refuses to perform the marriage, there are judges, social workers etc.. that are also licensed to perform legally binding marriages.

Likewise, is it right to bar homosexuals marriage on the basis that it is against this guy's beliefs, but not their own?

Of course not, for the reason i mentioned above.

If we can agree that marriage is a religiouis ceremony and a civil union is a legally binding contract, the two are merely distinguished. And if you want to have both, you should be allowed to do that too.

I think you're missing my point. Marriage is not merely a religious ceremony. Marriage is in itself already a legally binding contract. Am I to understand that you are advocating the removal of the legal status of marriage in favour of a purely religious ceremony? If this is the case then you are in effect saying that to get all the legal benefits that are currently associated with marriage, you would need to have a civil union regardless of whether or not you also have a marriage. Why over-complicate things?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 9:58:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
No, but pastors/priests/rabbis are not the only one's licensed to perform marriages.:

But that's my point. Either get the government out of marriage, or separate Church from State.

The argument that same-sex marriage would result in priests being forced to perform these ceremonies against their will is simply invalid. If a church refuses to perform the marriage, there are judges, social workers etc.. that are also licensed to perform legally binding marriages.:

Pastors and priests, through their licensing, are required by law to marry. So in, say, California, they have to marry two homosexuals by law, even if it goes against their beliefs. Their argument is that they answer to a "higher power." So wouldn't it make more sense, and in keeping with the Constitutiton, to simply disassociate one with the other?

I think you're missing my point. Marriage is not merely a religious ceremony. Marriage is in itself already a legally binding contract.:

I understand that, but I am saying that marriages (being religious in nature, by historic virtue) are different than those who want secular marriages because they just want the protections that come with them. So why not make it so that civil unions (secular contracts) be distinguished from marriages (religious unions)?

Am I to understand that you are advocating the removal of the legal status of marriage in favour of a purely religious ceremony? If this is the case then you are in effect saying that to get all the legal benefits that are currently associated with marriage, you would need to have a civil union regardless of whether or not you also have a marriage. Why over-complicate things?:

How is it complicated? You still get married through the state. A priest or pastor simply is licensed by the state. That's it. His primary role is to wed people in the name of God, but not everybody wants that. Plus with their aversion to gay marriage, this removes their ability to deny their union.

And most importantly, it adheres to the Separation of Church and State. Can you seriously argue that pastors working for the state is an infringement of that? Do you think that's what the Framers had in mind?

It doesn't matter if you call it being "married." It's just a word. I am using the term to distinguish different meanings.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)