Talk:Civil union

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"it has the effect of elevating them above unmarried heterosexual couples" - In much of the United States a marriage license is required for heterosexual couples to have rights reserved for marriage. Civil unions, in those states that him them and give the rights of marriage, obviously give preference to the homosexual unmarried state over the heterosexual one. This is not a comment about the "rightness" or "wrongness" of that position, only that it exists. I seem to recall reading in Massachusetts that IBM was mulling over what to do with their medical coverage policies since they used to allow homosexual employees the right to carry a partner just like married couples, but now that marriage was allowed in the state for homosexuals, would they continue to give this preferrential accommodation to homosexuals that heterosexuals could not have short of marriage?

I also hope you are using fact citations for the good of Conservapedia. If you feel an entry is in error because you have knowledge that would go contrary to what is written, then a fact citation or, better yet, a discussion in talk is appropriate. If you merely want to see a reference, then a fact citation is counter productive to article readability for those students who use this site as a source for their work or just their common reading.

You may also wish to consider article improvement by adding information or sources or possible rewording in areas where it is not clear. Thanks. Learn together 15:54, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't follow your reasoning. The government refuses to allow homosexuals to get married. Then when gays apply for civil unions because their marriages are not recognized, you say 'Aha! Their unmarried unions are elevated over heterosexual unions!' That's like telling someone they are not allowed to use the main entrance to a building, only the service entrance; then chastise him because he's using a door off limits to the public. You can't refuse someone the right to get married and then condemn him for living with an unmarried partner.

As for adding to the article, I wrote the original article, but my citations and clarifications were removed because I did not write like homosexuality was an abomination. I leave it to you. Maestro 16:06, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Please refrain from using the innuendo that opposition to gay agenda is like racism, i.e. "using the service entrance" or "riding the back of the bus." This is incivil behavior, and a blockable offense. Rob Smith 16:14, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
I was clear I was not writing about the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the situation, but only the obvious nature of the issue that under civil union conditions extra rights are afforded to non-married homosexual couples over heterosexual couples. That was what you put a fact citation on was it not? If you wished me to debate the merits of civil unions with you I think you will find that I did not take up that mantle, nor do I have any intention to do so. Learn together 16:20, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm not trying to make this a racism parallel. I added the fact citation because I did not (and do not) see how granting a civil union is superior to a heterosexual marriage. This is your cite, not mine. Maestro 17:22, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

I am assuming that with the back and forth nature of this conversation, that you may have typed something that you didn't mean to. In case it was accurate, where do you believe the article states that a civil union is superior to a heterosexual marriage? You will find that was never mentioned. Learn together 17:34, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, paraphrasing. The article state "it effectively elevates the legal standing of unmarried homosexuals above those of unmarried heterosexual couples". Since partners in a civil union don't have nearly the rights of a legally married heterosexual couple, that's why I included the {{fact}} citation. Maestro 18:12, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Maestro I don't like what I'm hearing. Basically you put a fact citation to a section that that didn't deserve it because you didn't like that the article left out other information that you felt should be considered. This entire conversation that we have had was completely unnecessary. Please apply fact citations sparingly to areas where you feel an error exists in the sentence where you are applying the citation. Other uses are counter-productive. Learn together 02:15, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

I did feel an error existed...still do. But let's just agree to disagree. Maestro 22:09, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Rob, he can say that homosexual rights activists make the argument that, etc. - if he supplies a citation. Although conservatives reject the "homosexuality = race" equivalence, it is one of the most common arguments floated by partisans. It's actually good to include it (somewhere, maybe not here) - because then it can be rebutted.
For example, race is immutable, while sexual behavior (for adults) is 100% a matter of choice. (It may be difficult to remain celibate, or chaste, or faithful, but there's no doubt that it can be done.) --Ed Poor Talk 22:52, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
I was refering to the incivil manner he made the point; he used "you" and "your" twice, in a pointed and personal manner: "I don't follow your say 'Aha! ....That's like telling someone they are not allowed to use the main entrance to a building..."
This is a quit typical debating technique. Rather than address the merits of the issue, shame your opponent with vieled innuendo that his POV is racist. This should never be tolerated under any circumstance, even in a place like WP, but we know the masters of the technique reside there. Rob Smith 00:51, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I meant the third person plural you (you all, ie, people who believe homosexuality is immoral). Poor phrasing. And I still swear i wasnt' trying to draw a racist comparison. Maestro 10:06, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that is plausible. I'm merely suggesting that line of alleged "reasoning" be disclaimed. As Ed points out, something like, "some people say", or "liberals are known to maintain," etc. Elsewise that type of argumentation and discourse will be construed as personal attacks on other good faith users. We do not wish to get into the habit of slander and intimidation, as Wikipedia discussion pages now are known globally for. This is one big reason this site was created.
You can simply layout the argument, then interested editors can examine it for any logical or rational basis. The manner in which it is phrased above is indeed a personal attack, a slight, an effort to shame, silence, and intimidate criticism of the homosexual agenda, and most troubling of all, an effort to quash rational public discourse--the key element of living in a free and democratic society. Rob Smith 12:48, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Again, I apologize if anyone took my comments as a personal attack. Maestro 15:47, 10 August 2007 (EDT)