Modified GOP platform

[jerseyart]

More empty rhetoric and hyperbole

Disagree on the issue and one is a homo phobe

Typical of the left.

 

[bluepeter]

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

Children are another topic entirely. Answer the question.

 

[ChefWide]

More empty rhetoric and hyperbole

Disagree on the issue and one is anti american.

Typical of the right.

 

[Robert Jan]

The entire debate about homosexual couples adopting kids is entirely flawed, because it's based on the question whether its better for a child to be raised by a hetero couple or a homo couple.

This is stupid, because that's not the question we're dealing with. There are always more children up for adoption than adoptive parents. The real question, is whether we want a kid to live without parents, or with a homosexual couple.

 

[bluepeter]

The entire debate about homosexual couples adopting kids is entirely flawed, because it's based on the question whether its better for a child to be raised by a hetero couple or a homo couple.

This is stupid, because that's not the question we're dealing with. There are always more children up for adoption than adoptive parents. The real question, is whether we want a kid to live without parents, or with a homosexual couple.

There have been studies done that indicate that there is absolutely no difference between being raised by two men, two women or one of each. However, that is still a separate issue. I'm still waiting for Jersey to pony up and admit that homosexuals are people.

 

[Robert Jan]

Oh I know

but even IF, it's not the issue. That's how stupid anti gay marriage people are. Double dog-dare-stupid.

 

[MAX 300]

Check out what Rudi Giuliani had to say:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/30/gop.main/index.html

On Sunday, Giuliani said that he opposes portions of the party platform drawn up last week.

"I agree with the core philosophy of the party the way I define it," Giuliani said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

The platform calls for a constitutional amendment banning abortion and the appointment of judges who oppose abortion rights; Giuliani said he's against those positions.

The platform rejects not only same-sex marriage but also benefits for same-sex couples. Giuliani said he supports civil unions for same-sex couples.

It also rejects Giuliani's position that licenses should be required for gun owners.

"I'm a very loyal Republican," Giuliani said. "I'm very, very close to the president. It doesn't mean that I'm in total agreement with every single policy of the party."

 

[jerseyart]

Children are another topic entirely. Answer the question.

Blue

I've explained it ad nauseum. Which part dont you understand?

 

[Y_lifter]

I wouldn't mind being raised by Lesbians of course, but not by 2 gay dudes.
Who would teach me to throw a baseball right ??

The issue of a Federal description of Marriage and another one for Same Sex unions
is needed for only one reason IMO.. And it's not a moral one..

If we allow the States to have varying descriptions of what Marriage is, vs Same Sex Unions, there will be major legal battles and confusion. When people move from Same Sex Marriage States to States with other laws, they will damand that their union be recognised and get the same benefit as they got in the previous State they lived in..

Also, without a definition of what Marriage or Unions means, it leaves open holes allowing anyone to legally challenge them wanting to be married to 4 people(group marriage) or 2 women and a man could be married and demand benefits.

Even as silly as it sounds, someone could legally marry their pet and demand life insurance etc unless a definition is made of Unions of the agreed to standards of 1
Man and 1 Woman or 1 Woman and 1 Woman or 1 Man and 1 Man..

 

[jerseyart]

Who has done that on this thread?