Modified GOP platform

[Y_lifter]

You have to understand that same sex marriage opponents always fall back on analogies with polygamy when they are backed into a corner with nowhere to go. "well if we allow homos to marry, why not have 2 or 3 wives!" Sounds eerily like the Southern bigots in the 50's and 60's who were against giving blacks equal rights and opportunity..........

It's not an bigit analogy, its a fact that polygamy causes major issues..

Look into one of the few times the goverment interfered with religious beliefs in Utah and why.

I don't oppose same sex unions. I oppose these different SS unions with different Legal issues and concerns being tacked onto the current LEGALLY stable Federal marriage laws.

Any time you leave a loophole in a mandate or law, people will abuse it for
monetary gain.. hence the reason laws are as legally long and detailed as they are.

Bring up the Separate but equal invalidity with minorities and I will counter that these 2 issues are NOT equal as they are very different in nature IMO. And therefore have different issues and concerns that must be addressed for the benefit of the people involved. Such as Children

 

[Robert Jan]

It's in the interest of children to allow gay marriage and gay marriage child adoption as I have explained earlier.

 

[bluepeter]

No everyone shouldnt have the opportunity. Nor has that ever been the case.

Further I stated at the beginning of our discussion that the courts divorcing marriage from the act of procreation as a condition of marriage is responsible for this mess. It was a birth control case, but the point is nonetheless valid. It was the first time that the two were deemed unrelated.

And homosexuals do have the same opportunity to marry, just not to those of the same gender. They aren't denied entry because of their orientation, but because of the choice in a potential spouse that oreintation leads them to make. Whatever tax and proerty benefits that are specific to marriage should remain spoecific to marriage as an enticement for heterosexual couples to raise and rear children. Otherwise, why should the institution not be done away with completely. Why should any couple that chooses to join together be forced to marry in order to receive those benefits. Why should the state be defining the relationship at all?

Your case is based on the premise that this social construct should be equally available to all. But without the original intent of procreation, there really is no reason for the construct to even exist. It is inherently biased against anyone who chooses not to marry. We have it because it is in our interest to encourage heterosexual couples to commit to lifelong relationships to raise children, and for no other reason. There is no other purpsoe to the legal institution.(seperate from religious ceremonies and practices)

Your entire argument is based on the misguided fact that marriage is needed for procreation. The birds and the bees anyone? Marriage is for 2 people to express their love and commitment to one another, whatever gender they may be.

It all comes down to the rights reluctance to accept someone different than they are and afford them the same rights and opportunities. Why don't we take away their right to vote and make them drink from different water fountains while we're at it. They aren't people anyway right?

Y Lifter made an excellent point. Define it as something between 2 adults regardless of gender and be done with it. You are advocating discrimination and shame on someone of your intelligence for doing so.

 

[bluepeter]

It's not an bigit analogy, its a fact that polygamy causes major issues..

Look into one of the few times the goverment interfered with religious beliefs in Utah and why.

I don't oppose same sex unions. I oppose these different SS unions with different Legal issues and concerns being tacked onto the current LEGALLY stable Federal marriage laws.

Any time you leave a loophole in a mandate or law, people will abuse it for
monetary gain.. hence the reason laws are as legally long and detailed as they are.

Bring up the Separate but equal invalidity with minorities and I will counter that these 2 issues are NOT equal as they are very different in nature IMO. And therefore have different issues and concerns that must be addressed for the benefit of the people involved. Such as Children

Fair enough. As long as they are afforded the same rights and opportunities, I could give a shit what it is called. What I cannot stomach are the blind right-wingers who are for government endorsed discrimination and actually see no problem with it being written in their parties official platform. It's sickening.

 

[jerseyart]

Your entire argument is based on the misguided fact that marriage is needed for procreation. The birds and the bees anyone? Marriage is for 2 people to express their love and commitment to one another, whatever gender they may be.

It all comes down to the rights reluctance to accept someone different than they are and afford them the same rights and opportunities. Why don't we take away their right to vote and make them drink from different water fountains while we're at it. They aren't people anyway right?

Y Lifter made an excellent point. Define it as something between 2 adults regardless of gender and be done with it. You are advocating discrimination and shame on someone of your intelligence for doing so.

Blue,

No insult intended, but you are being particularly dense this morning. I hope its on purpose, and not because you are truly having difficulty grasping the concepts being discussed.

No one suggested that it was biologically impossible to become pregnant outside of marriage. Where the fuck did that come from?

What was actually said is that marriage is the means of raising and rearing those children. That has been proven time and again.

The rest of the stupidity blah blah blah the right hates (insert miniority group) is nothing more than a manifestation of your frustration at being unable to articulate a sensical response.

Don't be angry with me that you make no sense. Maybe its a sign that you should reconsider your opinion

 

[ChefWide]

Two couples, the exact same scenario for both:

Two people fall in love and spend their lives together. One of the pair assumes the role of house manager, the other assumes the role of bread winner. For forty years they share their lives. The bread winner dies.

The straight 'homemanager' retains the property, the insurance and all the associated rights of a wife/husband.

The gay 'homemanager' gets nothing.

This is ok with you, Jersey?

 

[Robert Jan]

So, what are the negative effects of two people of the same sex getting married?

 

[jerseyart]

Two couples, the exact same scenario for both:

Two people fall in love and spend their lives together. One of the pair assumes the role of house manager, the other assumes the role of bread winner. For forty years they share their lives. The bread winner dies.

The straight 'homemanager' retains the property, the insurance and all the associated rights of a wife/husband.

The gay 'homemanager' gets nothing.

This is ok with you, Jersey?

What's "ok" with me is irrelevant bor. Your argument is based on the premise that I somehow hate homosexuals, or wish they would simply go away or learn to be straight. I think this is the point where I am supposed to profess that I have many gay friends.

Really, it has nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with societal interest. My only interest is in preserving the institution and encouraging its purpose and intent at every turn.

No society without a strong instituion of marriage survives for very long. It isnt homosexuality I object to, but the short sighted, albeit well intentioned, enlightened among us who imagine every critical institution or practice has now become superflous and outdated. They fail to recognize that their utopian ideals are not new, that they have been practiced repeatedly throughout history, and only appear novel because none of those societies flourished long enough to merit mention now.

Societies all share more or less common marriage institutions not because they are inate to the human condition, but becauser those that didnt failed or were defeated and absorbed by those that did.

So what I "want" is irrelevant. All things being equal I would want for homosexuals to be allowed marriage rights. I would "want" any individual to be allowed to marry any consenting adult they chose, even if it involved a polygamous relationship. I have no desire to tell anyone they cant marry, even if that marriage involved 3 of one gender and one of another. All things being equal its none of my business, and of very little import to me.

But all things arent equal, and I believe whatever benefit of the doubt exists should be given to the status quo. Not because homosexuals are involved, but because the societal interest is so great. Single parent homes are a societal nightmare. They produce the vast majority of the crimes and poverty inherent in our societ, along with a pluthora of other pathologies, including education, health, drug use etc

 

[bluepeter]

Blue,

No insult intended, but you are being particularly dense this morning. I hope its on purpose, and not because you are truly having difficulty grasping the concepts being discussed.

No one suggested that it was biologically impossible to become pregnant outside of marriage. Where the fuck did that come from?

What was actually said is that marriage is the means of raising and rearing those children. That has been proven time and again.

The rest of the stupidity blah blah blah the right hates (insert miniority group) is nothing more than a manifestation of your frustration at being unable to articulate a sensical response.

Don't be angry with me that you make no sense. Maybe its a sign that you should reconsider your opinion

I'm not angry with you at all. I know you have to blindly support your parties platform and that you are not allowed to consider anything else as possibly being right. See Chef's example of how inequitable your beliefs are since you obviously either don't understand what I am saying or are deliberately obfuscating because you have no other recourse.

 

[Robert Jan]

What's "ok" with me is irrelevant bor. Your argument is based on the premise that I somehow hate homosexuals, or wish they would simply go away or learn to be straight. I think this is the point where I am supposed to profess that I have many gay friends.

Really, it has nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with societal interest. My only interest is in preserving the institution and encouraging its purpose and intent at every turn.

No society without a strong instituion of marriage survives for very long. It isnt homosexuality I object to, but the short sighted, albeit well intentioned, enlightened among us who imagine every critical institution or practice has now become superflous and outdated. They fail to recognize that their utopian ideals are not new, that they have been practiced repeatedly throughout history, and only appear novel because none of those societies flourished long enough to merit mention now.

Societies all share more or less common marriage institutions not because they are inate to the human condition, but becauser those that didnt failed or were defeated and absorbed by those that did.

So what I "want" is irrelevant. All things being equal I would want for homosexuals to be allowed marriage rights. I would "want" any individual to be allowed to marry any consenting adult they chose, even if it involved a polygamous relationship. I have no desire to tell anyone they cant marry, even if that marriage involved 3 of one gender and one of another. All things being equal its none of my business, and of very little import to me.

But all things arent equal, and I believe whatever benefit of the doubt exists should be given to the status quo. Not because homosexuals are involved, but because the societal interest is so great. Single parent homes are a societal nightmare. They produce the vast majority of the crimes and poverty inherent in our societ, along with a pluthora of other pathologies, including education, health, drug use etc

So who even mentioned single parent homes?