Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Modified GOP platform
- Thread starter bluepeter
- Start date
Wouldn't want to deprive people of their right to kill children. Messy little buggers and always in the way. The republicans almost snuck that one in Blue. Good job in ferreting out that secret agenda.
There are legitimate issues with marriage both ways. Once the courts divorced marriage and procreation the damn burst and it was only a matter of time before many issues came front and center.
Marriage was never a right. It is an institution established by society for the proper care and raising of children. It was never intended asa "feel good" measure. It has demonstrably proven itself to be a key factor in the successful perpetuation of a society. When you weaken the institution by obfuscating its singular purpsoe, your intents, however noble, become self defeating. Already in Europe we can demonstrate how the watering down of marriage laws has helped lead to a decrease in heterosexual marriage and an increase in single parent homes. If the government treats as if it doesnt mean anything, so will the populace
There are legitimate issues with marriage both ways. Once the courts divorced marriage and procreation the damn burst and it was only a matter of time before many issues came front and center.
Marriage was never a right. It is an institution established by society for the proper care and raising of children. It was never intended asa "feel good" measure. It has demonstrably proven itself to be a key factor in the successful perpetuation of a society. When you weaken the institution by obfuscating its singular purpsoe, your intents, however noble, become self defeating. Already in Europe we can demonstrate how the watering down of marriage laws has helped lead to a decrease in heterosexual marriage and an increase in single parent homes. If the government treats as if it doesnt mean anything, so will the populace
bluepeter
New member
JerseyArt said:
Weak. As if single parent homes could go any higher in the US of A.
Anyway, I can see peoples arguments against abortion and same sex marriage (while I don't agree) but how can anyone agree with denying those same sex couples benefits? What, they aren't human? You want to call their union something else to preserve the 'sanctity' of marriage, go ahead. You cannot, however, deny them the same rights that every other 'couple' gets. That is discrimination. Government sponsored discrimination.
bluepeter said:
They can go a lot higher bor. We dont lead the world in that statistic.
As to same sex benefits, it is a touchy issue. The problem is that too many have come to view the institution as a right, something they are "entitled" to as a human being. It isn't. It a social construct whose sole purpose was to properly raise and rear children. Nothing more.
Society noty only has the right, but the obligation, to structure its laws in such a way that allows for the proper functioning and continuation of that society. The only demonstrably evidenced and proven method of raising children is heterosexual marriage. Denying that privelege to homosexuals isnt a knock on homosexuals, it is recognition that society has greater worries than making everyone feel good about themselves all the time. It's the same reason we disallow close relatives from marrying. Its against our interests. The same with polygamy. What reason should allow you or anyone else to make three or more people who wish to be united in marriage less "human."A much better argument could be framed to allow for polygamy than gay marriage with respect to societal benefits.
The special priveleges associated with marriage were intended as an enticement to encourage heterosexual couples to marry and raise children in that institution. Hetersosexuals who failt to marry are no less "human", they simnply have chosen not to partake of those benefits
bluepeter said:
No sir, you are missing the point. I've stated repeatedly that marriage isn't a right. No one is entitled to be married. It is a priveleged instittuion created by society for its own benefit. It was established for a specific subset of people with a specific intent in mind, namely raising children.
Neither homosexuals or heterosexuals are entitled to marry, and thereby obtain the benefits specific to that institution. A hetersoexual man cannot marry his sister or first cousin. He cannot marry more than one person. He does not have a right to marry whomever he chooses. Similarly, a man or a woman cannot currently marry someone of the same gender.
You conveniently wish to withdraw the mention of children from the discussion, but they are the singular overriding purpose for the institution. When you ask "what would it hurt" keep in mind that you begin the discussion with the premise that you wish to redefine the purpose for the whole institution in order to make your case. That represents more than just mild tampering
Robert Jan
New member
Those are important issues BP homosexuals are a big threat to the safety of our women and children.
coverguy
New member
bluepeter said:
Ammending the constitution may be a little bit out there; i'll admit this.
But, don't forget that it was the LIBERAL Clinton who proposed legislature to make same sex marriage illegal across the country; thus negating same sex spouses ability to receive benefits from most of the country's employers.
Similar threads
