DiscussMormonism.com

What if civil unions were treated as first-class across the nation while marriage was treated as second-class? What if those in civil unions had all the rights of marriage (insurance, property, visiting, etc.), but also paid no taxes while those that were married paid taxes as usual.

Would this method be agreeable to all? Then religion can keep marriage while anyone who wants a tax break could get a civil union, but could not call their relationship marriage.

Could I ever support it, you ask?

I could, just so long as I could have a civil union with a woman.

Dr. Shades wrote:I could, just so long as I could have a civil union with a woman.

As long as it's not Sarah Palin.

asbestosman wrote:What if civil unions were treated as first-class across the nation while marriage was treated as second-class? What if those in civil unions had all the rights of marriage (insurance, property, visiting, etc.), but also paid no taxes while those that were married paid taxes as usual.

Would this method be agreeable to all? Then religion can keep marriage while anyone who wants a tax break could get a civil union, but could not call their relationship marriage.

abman,

I don't quite understand what you're getting at here. I think you're attempting to "turn the tables" or something, but it's not clear enough to me. Why are you taxing marriages? Do hetero's have to be even further consequenced for their decisions? [/sarcasm]

Firstly, I think it's only the terminology that is hard for me to accept and that's only because of what I'm used to. You're reading the words of someone who remembers when the term "Ms" was adopted! I still don't use the word "Ms" verbally (don't like the way it sounds), but I do use it sometimes in my writing. I like the philosophy behind the term, I just don't like how it sounds. Change in thinking takes time, at least for me.

Secondly, why can't everyone have a civil union, gays and straights? Have all the same rights, including paying taxes or whatever.

Thirdy, why can't everyone have a marriage ceremony, gays and straights? I'm thinking in terms of religious ceremonie or social ceremonies.

I'm moving towards wanting to adopt the term "life partner" or some such thing that will cover all the bases.

What about you?

Jersey Girl wrote:I don't quite understand what you're getting at here. I think you're attempting to "turn the tables" or something, but it's not clear enough to me.

Yes, I am turning the tables of "separate but 'equal'".

Why are you taxing marriages? Do hetero's have to be even further consequenced for their decisions? [/sarcasm]

Nah, it just has to do with asking if anyone would be okay with separate but unequal as long as marriage was protected from gays, but if gay unions had more privileges.

Secondly, why can't everyone have a civil union, gays and straights? Have all the same rights, including paying taxes or whatever.

In my hypothetical, everyone could have a civil union, but those in civil unions could not call their relationship a marriage. Pick one or the other and live with the consequences. The reason my hypothetical didn't do away with legal marriage altogether was because apparently the LDS church wanted to protect marriage from gays. Hard to protect something that doesn't exist. Hence I had to allow people to marry, but make it the sucker's deal compared to civil unions which all could enjoy.

Thirdy, why can't everyone have a marriage ceremony, gays and straights? I'm thinking in terms of religious ceremonie or social ceremonies.

You can have any ceremony you want for whatever occasion you wish. If you wish to celebrate the potty training of your child with pomp and circumstance, go for it. Again, I wasn't going for the word marriage because of the whole battle against that word.

What about you?

I'm having fun coming up with creative loopholes against Prop 8 and DOMA, while simultaneously trying to satisfy those who supported such things on religious grounds.

I find it odd that the LDS church says it doesn't oppose rights and benefits for gay couples, but opposes the use of the word marriage. I find that strange. That's why I'm exploring the issue from unorthodox angles. I hope such questions will get people thinking about whether it's really an issue of the word "marriage" and protecting family, or whether it's actually about trying to make homosexuality illegal again since many churches see it as a dirty, vile sin which destroys family. What is the real issue these religions have? Is it with the word marriage as sacred, or is it that they want to keep homosexual unions second-rate? If the latter, they would never approve of my idea which makes such unions superior to marriage while yet defending the word itself.

Would this method be agreeable to all? Then religion can keep marriage while anyone who wants a tax break could get a civil union, but could not call their relationship marriage.

What is the compelling resason one should get a tax break for marrying the same sex? Why would society want to incentivize that?

bcspace wrote:

Would this method be agreeable to all? Then religion can keep marriage while anyone who wants a tax break could get a civil union, but could not call their relationship marriage.

What is the compelling resason one should get a tax break for marrying the same sex? Why would society want to incentivize that?

Why to let the point sail right over your head, you bigoted moron. He didn't say anything about all civil unions having to be homosexual in nature, just that civil unions would have the bulk of the federal and state granted rights while traditional, religious marriage would not. In that way the bigoted morons could have their "sanctity of marriage" crap protected and stop bothering the others by trying to force their retardedly outdated religious morality on the rest of us.

Of course, being the massive bigoted asshole you are, you saw "civil unions" and immediately thought "FAGGOTS"...

bcspace wrote:

Would this method be agreeable to all? Then religion can keep marriage while anyone who wants a tax break could get a civil union, but could not call their relationship marriage.

What is the compelling resason one should get a tax break for marrying the same sex? Why would society want to incentivize that?

Why not?

If two people are in a committed relationship together, and want to share their lives, their property, etc., what is the big deal?

How is that same sex couple going to affect me any differently than a married couple receiving the same tax break?

Frankly, if the same sex couple are both wage-earners, which is normally the case, they are going to be pouring more money into the economy, which, in the long run, is going to help me, as a consumer.

Isn't that, after all, the American way?

;)