• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

An idea regarding Marriage in the U.S.

RecoveringPunk

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Here's an idea on how to solve the marriage (specifically gay marriage) issue in the United States.

I propose that we completely remove the word "marriage" from our law books, and replace it with the word "Civil Union". This way, everyone has the same rights. I don't know exactly how the system works, but it seems to me it would be relatively easy to make this conversion. This way, we completely remove any sort of religious ties or personal feelings people may have to the word.

Marriage then becomes a spiritual ceremony that people have the right to do outside of the government. They should leave the decision of who gets married to the church(or other institution I suppose), since marriage itself originates from spirituality. The government should have no say in who the Church/Other Institution can marry. After all, the only reason it's in the law book is for tax benefits. Right?

This should solve anyone's qualms with gay marriage, unless they are just flat out homophobic. In that case, those arguments are complete moot points(similar to arguments for segregation).

Any ideas/feelings/comments?

-Punk
 

iMasticateDaily

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I like it! :smile:

It sounds good because its another push to separate church and state. Good luck getting everyone on board though...it's tough to get people to consider changing a law they don't see as broken. As it is, some people do not want homosexuals to have the same rights as heterosexuals, so in a mostly conservative country, the people will never change a law that already represents their feelings. :(

-mast
 

Willoughby

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
not sure about the use of marriage in UK law but i know that you are a civil wedding ceremony in this country and then if you choose a marriage in church/religious building. you can have a civil service without wedding in church but not other way round..is that what u are proposing...of course this in a country which have brought in cilvil partnerships..not technically marriages but it gives gay couples the same rights in terms of pensions etc
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
"Marriage" is NOT a religious term, therefore, the argument of "separation of church and state" is invalid...

I have no problem with Civil Unions, but to remove a word from law simply because certain individuals want to push political correctness is sad...

Just because you call a cat a "dog" doesn't mean it's gonna start barkin'...:shrug:
 

RecoveringPunk

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
You're right, "marriage" is not a specific religion's term. But if it isn't a religious term , why are ALL of the arguments against gay marriage coming from conservative churches? Their only excuse is that it "desecrates the term marriage". Then they begin using extreme examples such as, "If we legalize this, when does it stop? People will start to marry animals!". That is why i'm voting to remove marriage from the law books, so that the word won't be "desecrated" if two men or two women decide they want to spend the rest of their lives together.

-Punk

P.S.: Since when is allowing certain people the same rights as everyone else political correctness?
 
Last edited:
F

FallingPianos

cnredd said:
I have no problem with Civil Unions, but to remove a word from law simply because certain individuals want to push political correctness is sad...

Just because you call a cat a "dog" doesn't mean it's gonna start barkin'...:shrug:
well, the idea isnt just to change the terminology. there's no point of replacing marriages with civil unions if gays still cant get civil unions. the idea is to eliminate civil marraige, and replace it with civil unions.
 

iMasticateDaily

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
star2589 said:
well, the idea isnt just to change the terminology. there's no point of replacing marriages with civil unions if gays still cant get civil unions. the idea is to eliminate civil marraige, and replace it with civil unions.
Well played! :2razz:
 

craigfarmer

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
175
Reaction score
6
I have a great idea about Marriage:

We should resolve to make it stronger. This can be done by making divorce tougher. Also, we can more clearly delineate the benefits of marriage in our public policy in terms of taxes, and legal rights.

For example, every Married couple should be able to have universal healthcare through a refundable tax credit for their family. We can use the marketplace to support marriage and reduce health-care costs.

Also, people who divorce, absent some horrible exceptions or mitigating facts, should have to forfeit any public benefits they accrued as a married couple.


We as a society absolutely have the right to determine what is normal, right, and correct. Therefore we can and should state clearly that:

Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. Period.

All other relationships should be second-class and Marriages should be preferred.

As a newliberal democrat, I believe my party should stand up to the "gay is ok" sub-culture that consistently tries to "persuade" America that we are wrong or bigoted. The MSM both the news and enterntainment divisions continue their closed-minded march of cultural nazism: where those who disagree are bigoted or worse, and don't deserve to be heard.

Every argument they use can and should be answered. If we allow this trend of normalizing homosexuality to continue, we will hasten our journey at defining deviancy downward.

Democrats should stand up for what is right no matter the special interest group.

We should not become cowards because the militants will call us names, rather than debate the ideas fairly.

America is the greatest country in the world, because we, better than any other country, have ultimately chosen open debate to resolve crucial issues.

I'm a pro-choice, pro affirmative action (for all under-represented groups in any relevant area), pro market place reforms in education and health-care, against the death penalty,against free-trade, open-minded Democrat.

Every idea I espouse is supported by logic and facts rather than emotions and insults. I'm open to change if presented with better logic or more convincing facts.

This "Marriage" issue should be a way for Democrats to come back to our senses.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!
www.newliberals.org
 

The Pi Pirate

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I'm going to respond to the above, trying to go through point by point

craigfarmer said:
I have a great idea about Marriage:

We should resolve to make it stronger. This can be done by making divorce tougher. Also, we can more clearly delineate the benefits of marriage in our public policy in terms of taxes, and legal rights.
OK, I'm not really sure how i feel about making divorce tougher. I mean, you don't want people to be forced to live together/be "married" if they don't want to. As for the second part, I'd like to see more specifics on that.


craigfarmer said:
For example, every Married couple should be able to have universal healthcare through a refundable tax credit for their family. We can use the marketplace to support marriage and reduce health-care costs.
I dont understand this. If there is a tax credit, the marketplace isn't paying for marriage, the government is, right? And why only universal healthcare for married people?


craigfarmer said:
Also, people who divorce, absent some horrible exceptions or mitigating facts, should have to forfeit any public benefits they accrued as a married couple.
What public benefits would those be?


craigfarmer said:
We as a society absolutely have the right to determine what is normal, right, and correct. Therefore we can and should state clearly that:
I would say that we each have the right to determine for OURSELVES what is normal, right, and correct. Obviously, I can't decide that it is normal, right, and correct to go rob a bank, so the line is, I think, if I decide something is normal, right, and correct, then I should be able to do it if it doesn't hurt anyone.


craigfarmer said:
Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. Period.

All other relationships should be second-class and Marriages should be preferred.
I'd like to hear more reasoning behind why a) You personally think that this is normal, right, and correct (which you have a right to think, of course), and b) why society as a whole should enforce this on everyone else. You were speaking before about tax - the reason we give married couples tax breaks is because they are supporting each other financially (I think). This is also true of hoomosexual couple.


craigfarmer said:
As a newliberal democrat, I believe my party should stand up to the "gay is ok" sub-culture that consistently tries to "persuade" America that we are wrong or bigoted. The MSM both the news and enterntainment divisions continue their closed-minded march of cultural nazism: where those who disagree are bigoted or worse, and don't deserve to be heard.
I have never heard of a newliberal anything - but this doesn't sound like the liberalism I know..... are you saying that gay is /not/ ok? I'm not sure. Also, can you give MSM examples of this? I don't follow the MSM much, so I'm not familiar with it.


craigfarmer said:
Every argument they use can and should be answered. If we allow this trend of normalizing homosexuality to continue, we will hasten our journey at defining deviancy downward.
OK, please answer the preliminary ones I've made here.


craigfarmer said:
Democrats should stand up for what is right no matter the special interest group.
I would venture to say that all people shoul stand up for what is right no matter the special interest group.


craigfarmer said:
We should not become cowards because the militants will call us names, rather than debate the ideas fairly.
I'm a little confused on this one.


craigfarmer said:
America is the greatest country in the world, because we, better than any other country, have ultimately chosen open debate to resolve crucial issues.
Well, ok. I guess that's not a statement I can take too much issue with but... other countries debate and have democracies too, ours is just... better?

craigfarmer said:
I'm a pro-choice, pro affirmative action (for all under-represented groups in any relevant area), pro market place reforms in education and health-care, against the death penalty,against free-trade, open-minded Democrat.
I agree on most of this.


craigfarmer said:
Every idea I espouse is supported by logic and facts rather than emotions and insults. I'm open to change if presented with better logic or more convincing facts.
Great, let's have debate on this marriage issue then.


craigfarmer said:
This "Marriage" issue should be a way for Democrats to come back to our senses.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.

-TPP
 
Top Bottom