• 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!

What if even opposite-sex couples had to settle with domestic partnership?

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm not interested in whether or not LGBT and their straight supporters would accept even heterosexual relationships being legally classified as "domestic partnerships." I'm asking if the heterosexual homophobes - who don't want gays to have equal marriage rights - would be willing to give up the name of their relationship if it would mean that gays and lesbians would be equal.

For the straights, this would be taking an approach of "I'd rather no one have it then for me to have to share."

Churches can call it whatever they want. Individuals can call it whatever they want. But, at a secular level, it is a domestic partnership, regardless of the reproductive systems of the people involved.


"My name is John Smith. My domestic partner is Mary Smith."
"My name is Jane Carson. My domestic partner is Robert Carson."
"My name is David Martinez. My domestic partner is Jose Martinez."
"My name is Emily Johnson. My domestic partner is Linda Johnson."

Homophobes, if you are not willing to give up the fact that your relationship is legally (as opposed to privately and religiously) called marriage, give detailed reasons why you won't be content with it.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Not addressed to me, but that's my ideal scenario. The state grants domestic partnerships to couples and churches are free to grant marriages to whoever they want.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Not addressed to me, but that's my ideal scenario. The state grants domestic partnerships to couples and churches are free to grant marriages to whoever they want.
What about inter-compatibility?

Would a church-ordained wedding be recognized as a domestic partnership for government purposes?

Let me put it this way: When you sue someone from a different country, you have to get it domesticated in their country, before you can forcefully collect. If you do this in the UK, any punitive damages that you collect will be called "exemplary damages," but no further red tape is needed to actually domesticate it; they just know that "punitive damages" is the American term for "exemplary damages."

Likewise, if a priest declares two people as married, for the purposes of that particular religion, should the government automatically give them their domestic partnership license, without any further red tape?
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If the Supreme Court ruled that legal marriage would henceforth be known as "civil unions" for everyone, whether opposite sex couple or same sex couple, then I would be fine with that decision. The government has no place in the sanctification of marriage.

It really comes down to whether everyone has the same rights and status under the law.

I prefer "civil union" to "domestic partnership" purely for semantic reasons.
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
What about inter-compatibility?

Would a church-ordained wedding be recognized as a domestic partnership for government purposes?
If you got a domestic partnership license, then sure. That's how it already works.

Likewise, if a priest declares two people as married, for the purposes of that particular religion, should the government automatically give them their domestic partnership license, without any further red tape?
No, they should have to fill out a form, like they already do.
 

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
This is what I've wanted all the while. Marriage should be abolished outside of a church setting.

I consider marriage to be a religious institution. I'm just as much against atheists getting married as I am gays.

Problem is that gays want "the word". They'll sit there and whine about modern-day Jim Crow crap until they get "the word".
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is what I've wanted all the while. Marriage should be abolished outside of a church setting.

I consider marriage to be a religious institution. I'm just as much against atheists getting married as I am gays.

Problem is that gays want "the word". They'll sit there and whine about modern-day Jim Crow crap until they get "the word".

bingo. they don't give a rat's ass that a govt sponsored "civil union" would give them all the rights and responsibilities of a marriage. they want the word and the social acceptance that comes with it.

The govt can force homophobes to accept gay unions, but they can't force them to like it and that is what the gays really want. they want everyone to accept them and tell them that their lifestyle is OK.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
bingo. they don't give a rat's ass that a govt sponsored "civil union" would give them all the rights and responsibilities of a marriage. they want the word and the social acceptance that comes with it.

The govt can force homophobes to accept gay unions, but they can't force them to like it and that is what the gays really want. they want everyone to accept them and tell them that their lifestyle is OK.
I'm one of "the gays" and that isn't what I want.
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
42,993
Reaction score
14,727
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
bingo. they don't give a rat's ass that a govt sponsored "civil union" would give them all the rights and responsibilities of a marriage. they want the word and the social acceptance that comes with it.

The govt can force homophobes to accept gay unions, but they can't force them to like it and that is what the gays really want. they want everyone to accept them and tell them that their lifestyle is OK.
They already have the word "marriage" on a personal level. The legal contract the state issues should be named the same thing for everyone. I doubt very many same sex marriage proponents would have that big of a problem with all civil marriages being called "civil unions" or even "domestic partnerships", as long as it was all marriage contract, opposite sex and same sex. The biggest complaints would most likely come from some of those against same sex marriages, those who want two separate names for the same thing.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
bingo. they don't give a rat's ass that a govt sponsored "civil union" would give them all the rights and responsibilities of a marriage. they want the word and the social acceptance that comes with it.

The govt can force homophobes to accept gay unions, but they can't force them to like it and that is what the gays really want. they want everyone to accept them and tell them that their lifestyle is OK.
Problem with that argument is that currently the government is the arbiter of the "word". As long as you give it that power, it has to be applied equally. I would be pissed if the government declared that atheists have to get civil unions instead of marriage for the same reason. The government shouldn't be in the business of sanctioning marriage beyond the basic legal requirements because it creates the kind of problems we see today.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Problem with that argument is that currently the government is the arbiter of the "word". As long as you give it that power, it has to be applied equally. I would be pissed if the government declared that atheists have to get civil unions instead of marriage for the same reason. The government shouldn't be in the business of sanctioning marriage beyond the basic legal requirements because it creates the kind of problems we see today.
"a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" who gives a **** what you call it as long as the benefits and responsibilities are the same?

Let the govt issue "civil union" decrees and then if you want to get "married", find a church that will marry you and then the church can issue a "marriage decree" (a document that would have no value as a govt document)
 

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever with treating marriages and civil unions equal in every fathomable way.

Same tax breaks, same legal powers, same everything.

However, if a church does not want to "marry" them and use the term proper, I'm all for it. I don't blame them. Homosexuality is still a sin if you're a follower of that book you find in motel nightstands. It may be hard for clergy to unite people that push a lifestyle that, according to that book, was one of the chief reasons behind the destruction of two ancient cities by rain of fire.

But hey, I'm not here to spark a holy war. Just change it to where you can go to City Hall and all you are offered is a civil union - whether you're a man marrying a woman, another man, or a cutout of Jessica Alba from this week's People magazine.
 

The Baron

Knight in Shining Armor
DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,881
Reaction score
818
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
“I'm asking if the heterosexual homophobes - who don't want gays to have equal marriage rights - would be willing to give up the name of their relationship if it would mean that gays and lesbians would be equal.” - middleagedgamer

It’s not even a realistic question worth debating.

It’s been said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

But this is not true.

If it were then beauty could be ugly or repulsive or freakish or evil. “Beauty” could become the very antithesis of what is beautiful. This is the problem with trying to change the definition of “something” to mean “everything”…it ceases to mean “anything”.

And “marriage” means the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others till death do they part.

Changes to marriage laws like “no-fault divorce” have only succeeded in cheapening the institution and creating great pain for all family members when divorce occurs.

Intelligent people will take a lesson from the past and prevent the “social tinkering” with this tried-and-true institution.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,901
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Not addressed to me, but that's my ideal scenario. The state grants domestic partnerships to couples and churches are free to grant marriages to whoever they want.



exactly, the government should be out of the marriage business.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,901
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm not interested in whether or not LGBT and their straight supporters would accept even heterosexual relationships being legally classified as "domestic partnerships." I'm asking if the heterosexual homophobes - who don't want gays to have equal marriage rights - would be willing to give up the name of their relationship if it would mean that gays and lesbians would be equal.

For the straights, this would be taking an approach of "I'd rather no one have it then for me to have to share."

Churches can call it whatever they want. Individuals can call it whatever they want. But, at a secular level, it is a domestic partnership, regardless of the reproductive systems of the people involved.


"My name is John Smith. My domestic partner is Mary Smith."
"My name is Jane Carson. My domestic partner is Robert Carson."
"My name is David Martinez. My domestic partner is Jose Martinez."
"My name is Emily Johnson. My domestic partner is Linda Johnson."

Homophobes, if you are not willing to give up the fact that your relationship is legally (as opposed to privately and religiously) called marriage, give detailed reasons why you won't be content with it.



troll much....... Nice loaded question. :thumbs:
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
42,993
Reaction score
14,727
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
It may be hard for clergy to unite people that push a lifestyle that, according to that book, was one of the chief reasons behind the destruction of two ancient cities by rain of fire.
Then maybe the clergy should reread that book, because I read the story of Sodom (the story of Gamorrah is not actually given, only mentioned as a city destroyed along with Sodom for the same basic reasons). God was going to destroy the cities for turning away from him (nothing about homosexuality). Whoever he told about it (don't remember at the moment and my Bibles are still waiting to be shipped with my personal property), begged him to reconsider. It went back and forth til God agreed that if someone (maybe it was 5 someones) in the city was essentially "good", then he would reconsider. Lot was the guy's nephew? and agreed to house the angels. The men of the city then came to rape the angels and God destroyed the city. Now somehow, I don't think it was because the men were homosexuals. Do you think that if the angels were female, the men wouldn't have tried to rape them? Or perhaps you believe that God would have not cared if they had raped female angels. Honestly, I don't really know if angels even have genders. Some of the Pagan beliefs of those days included a belief that sexual intercourse with a powerful being, no matter what gender the being or the mortal is, would transfer or at least bestow some of the beings powers to the person. If the men believed that Lot had angels in his house, it is quite easy to believe that many of them (although I find it truly hard to believe that all of them) would try to get some of those powers. Homosexuality is never mentioned anywhere in that story as a reason for why Sodom is destroyed.
 

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Open to interpretation though, plus you can't spell sodomy without s-o-d-o-m.

It's not my bag, though. I personally view the Bible as a collection of morality tales meant to "scare people straight". I'm just speaking about the foundation of Judeo-Christian values. Much like the law, as I stated, everything about it is open to interpretation.

Religion is chock full of hypocrisy. For negative views toward homosexuality, Catholic priests sure do love spending time impersonating NAMBLA.

Take it for what you will.
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,604
Reaction score
22,182
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Not addressed to me, but that's my ideal scenario. The state grants domestic partnerships to couples and churches are free to grant marriages to whoever they want.
Personally, I don't care what you call it as long as the meaning is there. I.E. a long term commitment, love, certain tax breaks, a feeling of forever, etc. We can call it floogle, demikurk, marriage, domestic partnerships, william shatner, whatever, as long as it used to describe the same sort of relationship.

I don't understand all the fuss over a mere word.

I wonder if this is one of those purely symbolic things (like flag burning), I don't really understand why people think symbolic crap is important when its the meat of whatever the matter happens to be that gets actual stuff done and changes reality.
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I wonder if this is one of those purely symbolic things (like flag burning), I don't really understand why people think symbolic crap is important when its the meat of whatever the matter happens to be that gets actual stuff done and changes reality.
I think that's exactly what it is. When pollsters ask people whether they think there should be no gay marriage, full gay marriage, or "civil unions" with all the benefits of marriage, civil unions always garners a substantial amount of support, usually enough to create a majority when considered alongside full gay marriage. Many of those people are simply opposed to the concept of it as marriage, or believe that it would force churches to recognize particular types of marriage.

If people are looking to get gay "marriage" enacted democratically, I think the most practical way would be to sidestep that opposition by trying to get the government out of the business of "marriage." From there, I think it would be a short walk to winning majority support for gay domestic partnership.
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,183
Reaction score
4,819
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
This would be my preferred solution to the whole gay marriage issue.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Right now it is about 50/50 on gay marriage across the country.

Majority support for gay marriage appears to stick | Opinion L.A. | Los Angeles Times

Civil Unions gains us about 7-10% more support.

A lot of people who say they support civil unions are actually people who are just adamantly opposed to same sex marriage. They usually don't vote for candidates who support civil unions and if given a vote who knows how they would swing.

Currently 19 states have Constitutional amendments against civil unions and 31 states have amendments or statutes against same sex marriage.
 

The Baron

Knight in Shining Armor
DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,881
Reaction score
818
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
“If people are looking to get gay 'marriage' enacted democratically, I think the most practical way would be to sidestep that opposition by trying to get the government out of the business of "marriage." From there, I think it would be a short walk to winning majority support for gay domestic partnership.” - RightinNYC

When it came to the issue of illegal sodomy and the Lawrence vs. Texas court decision, gay-folks never stood on firmer ground when they said that the government had no business when it came to regulating their relationships.

Now they want the government to do that very thing.
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Now they want the government to do that very thing.
Baron, either you are against the government being involved in marriage or you are for it. You don't get to have it both ways like you are trying to do in this thread.
 

The Baron

Knight in Shining Armor
DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,881
Reaction score
818
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
"Baron, either you are against the government being involved in marriage or you are for it. You don't get to have it both ways like you are trying to do in this thread." - CriticalThought

If you'd stop being so boring for long enough you'd realize that I wasn't trying to have it both ways.
 
Top Bottom