Someone who supports civil unions but opposes gay marriage

[they don't love you like i love you]

Is there anyone here who holds this position and if so can they explain how it makes a lick of sense?

(Before the "OMG OBAMA!" responses: No I don't believe he is really opposed to gay marriage. No I do not care in the slightest that is therefore lying.)

[Lief 🗽]

I don't think it's that ridiculous of a position. You can believe that gays and lesbians should be able to have the same legal contracts as two straight people who love and commit to each other, but at the same time believe that the label "marriage" is by definition only a thing between a man and a woman.

[they don't love you like i love you]

It seems like the textbook example of a position of Moderate Heroism for the sole sake of Moderate Heroism.

[courts]

I don't think it's that ridiculous of a position. You can believe that gays and lesbians should be able to have the same legal contracts as two straight people who love and commit to each other, but at the same time believe that the label "marriage" is by definition only a thing between a man and a woman.

I would agree with that except you don't get the same federal benefits or recognized everywhere so it's inherently inferior to regular marriage. Of course having government get out of marriage entirely and let us decide whatever lifestyle arrangement we want to without having to ask for a permission slip from them would be far better.

[phk]

John Edwards.

[Lief 🗽]

It seems like the textbook example of a position of Moderate Heroism for the sole sake of Moderate Heroism.

And yet something like 20 to 30% of the American public has that position.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Republican trying to get more votes in a traditional liberal state.

[Hatman 🍁]

Sounds like my parents. Or at least a few years ago when it was actually an issue here.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

That's my parents position. They don't think being gay is a sin and believe they deserve equal civil rights but are still uncomfortable enough with homosexuality that they don't support marriage rights. I'd say they marginally support marriage rights if pushed in one direction but don't care either way.

Anyways this is definitely a position for olds who grew up in an era where being gay was taboo and still aren't comfortable enough to support the idea of "queers getting wed" or whatever. Obviously hardly anyone under the age of 30 or even 40 has this position.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Gay couples deserve the same rights, as married couples do. But dont take marridge, which was designed for men and women and shouldnt be changed. DOMA is wrong though, and should be repealed. Its a states right issue, really.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't think it's that ridiculous of a position. You can believe that gays and lesbians should be able to have the same legal contracts as two straight people who love and commit to each other, but at the same time believe that the label "marriage" is by definition only a thing between a man and a woman.

My take on the issue. And I doubt BRTD can argue with a straight face that I'm interested in being a Moderate Hero.

[Holmes]

It's a position for people with no integrity, really. At least gay marriage opponents have an actual stance on the issue.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I was thinking mostly of benconstine, though I don't know if he still holds that position, some of his posts lately imply he has moved away and to supporting gay marriage.

[they don't love you like i love you]

The main thing is, I have a tough time seeing how someone could sincerely advocate for civil unions and yet vote for prop 8 if they lived in California in 2008. Obama also spoke against prop 8, but everyone knows his position isn't sincere anyway.

[Holmes]

Kids were gonna learn to be gay, churches were gonna get burned down, and everyone in the state was going to get sued. Of course it had to pass.

[Torie]

I don't think it's that ridiculous of a position. You can believe that gays and lesbians should be able to have the same legal contracts as two straight people who love and commit to each other, but at the same time believe that the label "marriage" is by definition only a thing between a man and a woman.

The concept that definitions are and should be immutable as an a priori concept seems to conflate semantics with fashioning sensible public policy.  Just why anyone would find that in and of itself as persuasive of anything escapes me.

[patrick1]

I used to take this position, but it really is a matter of semantics. If you feel your marriage is a sacrament, then you should able to stand on its own merits. It shouldn't need to be blessed or "cheapened" by the state.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I hold this position.

I support civil unions for all couples because if we're going to provide state recognition to people who choose a monogamous sexual relationship, it makes no sense to limit said sanction to heterosexual couples.

I also support marriage for male-female couples because those are the only type of couple that is naturally capable of producing a child and thus replenishing our country with another generation of citizens.  

I'm not advocating a change in the law per se, but just for discussion -- why does the state even recognize or sanction heterosexual marriages that do not produce children (through birth or adoption)?  Congratulations, you've decided to f**k only one person.  Here's a pretty certificate and some tax breaks!

[Torie]

Gays adopt kids you know, and there are a lot of kids out there that need good homes.  And I would prefer that gay adoptors be "married" myself. Yes, married.

[Holmes]

When, exactly, did marriage change from a property and good sharing contract to a child producing prerequisite?

[they don't love you like i love you]

I used to take this position, but it really is a matter of semantics. If you feel your marriage is a sacrament, then you should able to stand on its own merits. It shouldn't need to be blessed or "cheapened" by the state.

That too I've never understood. The hardcore fundamentalist crowd used to also be opposed to having state marriages, many felt that having their marriage recognized by that godless state would actually be what cheapened it. I suspect some still do, but keeping the homos down has become more important to them.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

When, exactly, did marriage change from a property and good sharing contract to a child producing prerequisite?

I'm not sure, since both strike me as vaguely feudal, but the first strikes me as a bit more feudal, so maybe that has something to do with it.

(I'm not necessarily using 'feudal' as a pejorative here. The transition to money rents was historically hard on a lot of folks, even though it was eventually for the best. See 'The Old and Young Courtier' in Percy's Reliques. But I digress.)

[Gustaf]

I think I might support the state only recognizing civil unions that would apply the same way to straight and gay couples.

Marriage can be left to churches or anyone else who wants it. The latest development in Sweden where gays are getting married in churches I don't totally get, to be honest (unless they're actually Christian, but rather few seems to be).

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think I might support the state only recognizing civil unions that would apply the same way to straight and gay couples.

Marriage can be left to churches or anyone else who wants it. The latest development in Sweden where gays are getting married in churches I don't totally get, to be honest (unless they're actually Christian, but rather few seems to be).

Wait, in Sweden the State mandates churches to celebrate gay marriages even if they don't want to ? That makes no sense.

[Gustaf]

I think I might support the state only recognizing civil unions that would apply the same way to straight and gay couples.

Marriage can be left to churches or anyone else who wants it. The latest development in Sweden where gays are getting married in churches I don't totally get, to be honest (unless they're actually Christian, but rather few seems to be).

Wait, in Sweden the State mandates churches to celebrate gay marriages even if they don't want to ? That makes no sense.

I'm not sure what the current legal status is, but I think they lose their marriage license if they refuse to wed gay couples. I'd have to check though, that might have been withdrawn due to protests from the churches.

However, the Church of Sweden, in its never-ending endeavour to be modern and progressive and not scare anyone away with actually standing for anything (beyond being opposed to racism) has decided to wed gay couples.

Before anyone jumps on me, I wouldn't mind them doing that if I thought it was based on some sort of reasoning with at least some theologiclal elements to it, but I sort of doubt that it is. It's a bit of a joke church, to be honest.