Confusion about the gay-marriage debate?

T

thegreatestbak

New member
...So I know gays want marriage, but why can't they just have civil unions which will be the same as marriages except that they will be called civil unions instead of marriages? That way they get all the same benefits as marriage (including the tax breaks) and the religious people won't feel like 'their' definition of marriage (who is to say?) is being compromised?
 
The fact is that the existence of civil unions negates the whole "equal rights" argument of gay marriage since it provides equal priviledges.


There is actually justification for making a distinction between gay and straight relationships, since relationships are based on sexuality and if the sexuality is different, the relationship is different
 
I didn't think civil unions allowed you the same rights as marriage? If it did, why don't some straight people just get civil unions? I have no idea.
 
Separate but equal has NEVER worked in this country. NEVER. It is NOT going to start working now.

Why should I have to get "civil unioned" instead of married? What if interracial couples had to get civil unions instead of marriage? Would that have been fair?

Religious people do not OWN marriage. They cannot claim that it is THEIR term. Gay people have just as much of a right to get married as straight people do, and we have just as much of a right to the same terminology. Anything less is discrimination, and is NOT equality.

And besides all of that, civil unions don't grant the same benefits as marriage does. That's the MAIN reason gay people are fighting for marriage. There are literally over 1,000 rights associated with marriage that gay people wouldn't get with civil unions. Marriage is more than a word.
 
If a Civil Union had all the same legal advantages as a Marriage I think a lot of people would be okay with that, but this is not the case. Common Law is based on legal precedent and in order to establish a similar body for Civil Unions would take decades as would getting adequate legislation through all 50 states legislatures, redefining marriage is the only way to achieve legal equality in a timely manner. The same people who oppose Same-Sex Marriage would oppose modifying Civil Unions to a sufficient degree that there would be no effective difference, their actual goal is less about the sanctity of marriage and more about keeping gays and lesbians second-class citizens just as they did when they opposed inter-racial marriage.
 
I am all for gay marriage. I just don't understand why people don't accept it. Don't people realize that Love has no Gender??? So what a man loves a women, a women loves a women or a man loves another man. Its all about love and who your soul mate is. Why not let them be happy?
 
Because they don't offer all of the legal rights. People in a civil union with one-another have no say legally in the other person's affairs, including medical issues.

BTW Ben, there are straight people with civil unions. Vin Diesel is in a civil union with his partner (can't remember her name,) and Tim Burton and Helena Bonham Carter are in a domestic partnership.
 
Because they don't offer all of the legal rights. People in a civil union with one-another have no say legally in the other person's affairs, including medical issues.

BTW Ben, there are straight people with civil unions. Vin Diesel is in a civil union with his partner (can't remember her name,) and Tim Burton and Helena Bonham Carter are in a domestic partnership.
 
Because they don't offer all of the legal rights. People in a civil union with one-another have no say legally in the other person's affairs, including medical issues.

BTW Ben, there are straight people with civil unions. Vin Diesel is in a civil union with his partner (can't remember her name,) and Tim Burton and Helena Bonham Carter are in a domestic partnership.
 
Because they don't offer all of the legal rights. People in a civil union with one-another have no say legally in the other person's affairs, including medical issues.

BTW Ben, there are straight people with civil unions. Vin Diesel is in a civil union with his partner (can't remember her name,) and Tim Burton and Helena Bonham Carter are in a domestic partnership.
 
Civil unions don't carry the same benefits as that of "marriage."

But if it's all about names, if civil unions are put on the exact same level as marriages, why not just call marriages "civil unions"? It's all the same benefits, including tax breaks.
 
Civil unions don't carry the same benefits as that of "marriage."

But if it's all about names, if civil unions are put on the exact same level as marriages, why not just call marriages "civil unions"? It's all the same benefits, including tax breaks.
 
Lots of gay people want to be able to get married for personal & spiritual reasons. Civil unions don't have nearly as much meaning.

I, personally, am an atheist and do not care for a religious title, although I would still vote for other gays to get it because they deserve that right and it obviously has meaning to them.
 
Lots of gay people want to be able to get married for personal & spiritual reasons. Civil unions don't have nearly as much meaning.

I, personally, am an atheist and do not care for a religious title, although I would still vote for other gays to get it because they deserve that right and it obviously has meaning to them.
 
I have two ideal situations:

A) Marriage for all. Gay and straight.

B) The government stops issuing marriage licenses. They simply issue civil unions with all the legal benefits they offer in marriage, and you obtain the 'marriage' title from your place of worship. That way if your church is not on the pro-gay side, it doesn't have to recognize a gay marriage, and that couple doesn't have to suffer any legal consequences for that church's refusal to recognize their validity as a couple.

The problem with civil unions is that some of them offer the same legal benefits as marriage, and some only offer some. And there's no way to tell from the name.

And if we have civil unions with equal benefits to marriage for same-sex couples, and marriage for opposite-sex couples, then that means organizations can discriminate by offering certain services for "married couples only, not civil unions" and basically we'll have a whole series of lawsuits over that... let's just solve everything all right now instead of sweeping it further under the carpet until it comes out the other side.
 
Back
Top