• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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?

It is fiscally irresponsible to either have two differently named contracts/licenses for the same thing (marriage for opposite sex couples, civil unions for same sex couples) or to change the current marriage license to civil unions/domestic partnerships for everyone. That is the main reason I am against it.

Just allowing same sex couples to get legally married has little to no effect on the fiscal situation of the government, particularly if you are planning on giving them the benefits under another name anyways. But changing the legal word/license/contract to "civil union" or "domestic partnership" or anything else will cost the government money to do, as would setting up some other named license/contract for same sex couples.
 
OscarB63 said:
read the context of my comment at the time it was made. I never said "current" civil unions are equal. I said "a" civil union. my point was that even if civil union = marriage, many gays still would not be satisfied because they want the name and the societal acceptance it implies. basically they want to force the church to recognize their lifestyle.

but hey...keep on focusing on the wrong things. and, as always...thanks for playing :thumbs:
Click to expand...

In bold. You made the statement. Show us some proof. Go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom