Modified GOP platform

[digger]

Whoa, guys -- you're talking past each other.

Jersey, I'm a big-time Heinlein fan and know exactly what you're trying to say... but your last post in this thread was beneath you. Please argue with the position, not the person.

Blue, you figure that as soon as Jersey says "gays are people too" you get to complete your syllogism and the argument's over. Well, Jersey's point is that some people aren't arguing about that -- and by refusing to argue anything else, you're just frustrating him and yourself.

 

[jerseyart]

My apologies digger, and I include Chef and Blue as well. In retrospect the phrasing was harsher than I intended. Im easily frustrtaed when typing, and some of that comes across in my posts.

Chef. I am far more sympathetic to your position than you might imagine. I am far more libertarian by inclination and only a republican by default. Embracing the notion of a constituional amendment denying benefits to a group, instead of expanding them, hits at my core.

I do think however that the ramifications of these policies are more profound than the surface examinations would readily support. It isn't a matter of gay coupling being wrong, or that there are no justifications for a change in policy. Ideally I would wish for gay partners to receive the same benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.

I think the significant difference is that I am far more cautious when it comes to overturning and redefining established institutions that have survived millenia of refinement and proven performance even for a well intentioned cause. The road to hell as they say.............

In short it isnt your intentions I disagree with, I share them. Its the mechanism you choose to carry them forward. Unintended consequences play strongly here, ironically enough you mentioned an apt comparison with birth control.

Already our societal understanding of marriage has degraded to the point where we have come to view it as something which exists to make people feel good. This is true of heterosexuals as well. We marry when it feels good, and divorce when it doesn't. We have removed all stigma and most of the significant consequences of breaking up. And we are paying the price, which will continue to increase, of such failed reasoning. It isnt about morality, but practical concerns and consequences

 

[bluepeter]

Whoa, guys -- you're talking past each other.

Jersey, I'm a big-time Heinlein fan and know exactly what you're trying to say... but your last post in this thread was beneath you. Please argue with the position, not the person.

Blue, you figure that as soon as Jersey says "gays are people too" you get to complete your syllogism and the argument's over. Well, Jersey's point is that some people aren't arguing about that -- and by refusing to argue anything else, you're just frustrating him and yourself.

I don't imagine any such thing. It is much more complex than that and Jersey has every right to include children into the equation. It's just that we're not talking about that and it is the standard response by anyone against gay marriage. 'What about the children?'

Never mind that there is no evidence that a child being brought up in a same sex family doesn't turn out perfectly OK.

Anyway, throw all that shit out the window because the basic argument remains the same. All people, regardless of gender or sexual orientation are entitled to the same opportunities. You want to call a same sex couple something else? Go for it.

Amending the constitution to essentially exclude homosexuals from having the same opportunity to have a life partner and enjoy the same benefits of that is discriminatory and it is wrong.

Now, if we want to talk about such couples raising children? I could say there are studies already out there indicating that children raised in such environments are no worse off than those raised in 'traditional' families. There are but I'm not completely convinced.

 

[digger]

I don't imagine any such thing.

Okay. Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth. Sometimes it helps to restate the other side's opinion in your own words, as long as both sides agree that you're doing it to explore the other guy's position and reduce confusion, not to turn the other guy's case into a straw man.

Still with me?

You've been defining marriage (if I understand you correctly) as a "permanent relationship between two consenting adults."

I'm taking "consenting adults" as a legal term of art that takes care of the various arguments about incest, pedophilia, and so forth. We can set those aside for now, though we might want to come back to them. ("Do gays have a right to 'consent' to homosexual activity?" is the crux for some people. Set that aside for a moment, I say again.)

Let's look at "permanent."

What do you think of the current state of affairs (no pun intended) where (plain, one-man one-woman) marriage has become a sort of serial polygamy? Get married, get a divorce, marry someone else. Is that a bad thing?

(Not posting this as an admin, by the way; just another interested party.)

 

[bluepeter]

Okay. Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth. Sometimes it helps to restate the other side's opinion in your own words, as long as both sides agree that you're doing it to explore the other guy's position and reduce confusion, not to turn the other guy's case into a straw man.

Still with me?

You've been defining marriage (if I understand you correctly) as a "permanent relationship between two consenting adults."

I'm taking "consenting adults" as a legal term of art that takes care of the various arguments about incest, pedophilia, and so forth. We can set those aside for now, though we might want to come back to them. ("Do gays have a right to 'consent' to homosexual activity?" is the crux for some people. Set that aside for a moment, I say again.)

Let's look at "permanent."

What do you think of the current state of affairs (no pun intended) where (plain, one-man one-woman) marriage has become a sort of serial polygamy? Get married, get a divorce, marry someone else. Is that a bad thing?

(Not posting this as an admin, by the way; just another interested party.)

I don't like it but it would be impossible to stop and in many cases, it would not be a good idea to stop it (i.e. a woman has a child with a man in an abusive relationship, she musters the courage to leave and later meets the perfect guy. He is great with the child and the woman feels the need to have a father figure in his life, they get married).

The incest and pedophilia stuff is covered off in existing law I believe so shouldn't be an issue (although aren't there some states down there where you can marry your cousin? eeewww ).

The 'deviant' sex that homosexuals engage in. That can be a tough one for many people due to the religious overtones in that argument. This is precisely why it's a non-issue. In my view, you should never allow religious conviction to interfere with the affairs of state. Otherwise, you're not much better than the middle eastern societies you currently have issue with right?