Modified GOP platform

[bluepeter]

Calls for constitutional amendments to ban same sex marriage and abortion. Also rejects benefits for same sex couples. Amongst other wonderful ideals. Nice.

 

[jerseyart]

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

 

[bluepeter]

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

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.

 

[jerseyart]

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.

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]

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

You're avoiding the issue. Nobody mentioned children here. Are children considered a 'benefit'? Answer the question without your GOP goggles on, are homosexuals not entitled to the same benefits as heterosexuals?

 

[jerseyart]

You're avoiding the issue. Nobody mentioned children here. Are children considered a 'benefit'? Answer the question without your GOP goggles on, are homosexuals not entitled to the same benefits as heterosexuals?

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]

Those are important issues BP homosexuals are a big threat to the safety of our women and children.

 

[ChefWide]

Those are important issues BP homosexuals are a big threat to the safety of our women and children.

You know, if those homosexuals don't like it,maybe they should go back to Homoland where they came from.

 

[coverguy]

Calls for constitutional amendments to ban same sex marriage and abortion. Also rejects benefits for same sex couples. Amongst other wonderful ideals. Nice.

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.

 

[ChefWide]

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.

He was wrong, too.

 

[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?

 

[Robert Jan]

How about a definition of it being two legal adults who want to marry?

BTW gays marry here in Holland and it didn't kill anybody

Most homo's don't actually use this right. But they appreciate having it. You'd expect Americans to understand that sort of thing from the way they usually speak.

 

[jerseyart]

Robert

Why not 2 or more adults? Why are you asking to restrict their rights.

Is Holland the country that now has like 80% of its children born in single parent homes? Its one of your neighbors if not you.

 

[bluepeter]

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..

and I have no problem with that.

Jersey, you have explained your position but you haven't answered the question. Fine, marriage isn't a right. But every person, man or woman, heterosexual or homosexual should have the opportunity to enter into a lifelong relationship. As for your assertion that having children is the sole purpose of marriage, that is preposterous. So now you are saying that couples that get married and choose not to have children shouldn't be eligible for marrital benefits either? So, I repeat. Do you admit that homosexuals are people and deserve the same opportunity as heterosexuals?

 

[Robert Jan]

Robert

Why not 2 or more adults? Why are you asking to restrict their rights.

Is Holland the country that now has like 80% of its children born in single parent homes? Its one of your neighbors if not you.

I have never heard that statistic and find it most unlikely, and directly opposite to my own experience. My parents are together and both my neighbours are "whole" homes and the vast majority of my friends come from such. It's not a fair representation of my nation but 80% seems way, way out there.

You know what? what's the big problem with bigger marriages? I don't see how it hurts anybody when 3 people get married.
It's also not a good comparison. a homosexual and heterosexual relationship are about 100 times closer in likeness than a polygamous marriage relationship

 

[bluepeter]

I have never heard that statistic and find it most unlikely, and directly opposite to my own experience. My parents are together and both my neighbours are "whole" homes and the vast majority of my friends come from such. It's not a fair representation of my nation but 80% seems way, way out there.

You know what? what's the big problem with bigger marriages? I don't see how it hurts anybody when 3 people get married.
It's also not a good comparison. a homosexual and heterosexual relationship are about 100 times closer in likeness than a polygamous marriage relationship

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..........

 

[Y_lifter]

The sole reason I believe there needs to be a seperate Federal "LEGAL" decription of
unions vs: adding in Same Sex unions into Marriage is when Children eventually will be involved with SS unions.

As one example, think about 2 men or 2 women following the LEGAL surname guidelines in place today. Which name are they given ? Do they get a choice? How confusing will this be for Society ?

With a new FEDERAL 2 person Same Sex union desciption, laws and guidelines for this unique and Deserved benefit, these issues and others can be kept seperate from the current Marriage description/laws allowing flexibility..

 

[jerseyart]

and I have no problem with that.

Jersey, you have explained your position but you haven't answered the question. Fine, marriage isn't a right. But every person, man or woman, heterosexual or homosexual should have the opportunity to enter into a lifelong relationship. As for your assertion that having children is the sole purpose of marriage, that is preposterous. So now you are saying that couples that get married and choose not to have children shouldn't be eligible for marrital benefits either? So, I repeat. Do you admit that homosexuals are people and deserve the same opportunity as heterosexuals?

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)

 

[Robert Jan]

The sole reason I believe there needs to be a seperate Federal "LEGAL" decription of
unions is needed vs: adding in Same Sex unions into Marriage is when Children eventually will be involved with SS unions.

As one example, think about 2 men or 2 women following the LEGAL surname guidelines in place today. Which name are they given ? Do they get a choice? How confusing will this be for Society ?

With a new FEDERAL 2 person Same Sex union desciption, laws and guidelines for this unique and Deserved benefit, these issues and others can be kept seperate from the current Marriage description/laws allowing flexibility..

lol. you don't oppose gay marriage because of the name problem

there also isn't any. hetero couples can pick which of the two names they want now anyway.

I refer back to my second post in this thread about the children...

 

[AAP]

You know, if those homosexuals don't like it,maybe they should go back to Homoland where they came from.

We would. But everyone wants to come to Manhattan.

 

[Robert Jan]

George Walter Bush just came out of the closet. It's on CNN, he's a homosexual.

 

[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?

 

[ChefWide]

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

Easy son, I didn't even use the word MARRIAGE or mention children at all. Try answering the question based upon what I wrote, not all that other stuff, caffeine man!

You can call it marriage, or you can call it tunafishtennisshoes, I don't care. If you have a life partner, and want to affirm the comitment to their continued well being in the event of tradgedy, that should be allowed.

Next: You conservatives are so gung ho about all these single parent homes and unwanted kids being the end all nightmare of society?... how about making some birth control available to teenagers.. or how about making reproductive education a mandatory in our schools? Oh, no, can't do that.

Go figure.

I love it. Neocons demand no abortion, no sex ed and no condoms to the most sexually active segment of the U.S. population but at the same time condem single parent house holds. Brilliant.

 

[jerseyart]

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.

Blue,

Our discussion has become uniquely pointless. You have yet to address a single point I have made, and your argument is easily summmed up by stating "your a blind republican that doesnt care about human rights, especially those of gays"

Abouit what I've come to expect from the "intellectual" left. One day I might actually meet one capable of articulating a position more substantive than "I feel...."

 

[Y_lifter]

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

None as long as:

The agreed to legal description and laws are Federally mandated vs State to State.

There are no Adopted Children involved.. (this one is an individual debatable personal belief so I won't argue it)

 

[bluepeter]

Blue,

Our discussion has become uniquely pointless. You have yet to address a single point I have made, and your argument is easily summmed up by stating "your a blind republican that doesnt care about human rights, especially those of gays"

Abouit what I've come to expect from the "intellectual" left. One day I might actually meet one capable of articulating a position more substantive than "I feel...."

When you have no leg to stand on, make sure to retreat into insults. Answer my question and the example that Chef gave you.

 

[Y_lifter]

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.

Even Bush agrees that this is wrong, and that SS Unions should be created giving everyone the opportunity and protection that it affords..

Just don't call it Marriage..

 

[bluepeter]

Even Bush agrees that this is wrong, and that SS Unions should be created giving everyone the opportunity and protection that it affords..

Just don't call it Marriage..

Then his beliefs run contrary to the GOP's stated platform. The newly modified platform specificly calls for no benefits for same sex couples........

 

[jerseyart]

Easy son, I didn't even use the word MARRIAGE or mention children at all. Try answering the question based upon what I wrote, not all that other stuff, caffeine man!

You can call it marriage, or you can call it tunafishtennisshoes, I don't care. If you have a life partner, and want to affirm the comitment to their continued well being in the event of tradgedy, that should be allowed.

Next: You conservatives are so gung ho about all these single parent homes and unwanted kids being the end all nightmare of society?... how about making some birth control available to teenagers.. or how about making reproductive education a mandatory in our schools? Oh, no, can't do that.

Go figure.

I love it. Neocons demand no abortion, no sex ed and no condoms to the most sexually active segment of the U.S. population but at the same time condem single parent house holds. Brilliant.

For the umpteenth time, as I have stated repeatedly to Blue, whether you wish to mention them or not, children are the issue. Absent children, there is no purpose or societal interest to marriage. I understand its necessary for you to attempt to divorce the two, because they dimninsh your case. But there is no point to discussing marriage without outlining the prime reason for its existence.

Marriage , or tunafishness, isnt about affirmation. That is the simple premise you and he fail to grasp. It isnt a feel good instituion. Your premise requires that the entire instituion be redefined to suit your purpose, one which was never intended. Along the lines of "marriage exists for personal affirmation, therefore why shouldnt homosexuals be allowed to feel affirmed." The premise is flawed so the rest is irrelevant to a sensical discussion.

Stated in the reality it would be phrased "Marriage is a societal construct inetnded to encourage mothers and fathers to form lifelong commitments for the proper raising and rearing of children, why then should homosexuals not be allowed to marry." Properly stated, the answer is self evident.

Finally, you glibly assume that sex ed or widely distributed birth control in any way will lowewr teen pregnancy. How many more decades of such failed policy assumptions will it take for you and those who think like you to recognize the obvious. The problem was never birth control. You would have to be a functional idiot not to understand its purpsoe, or find free forms readily available. The problem is that once you removed the stigma, and changed societies attitude towards sex, the rest was inevitable and predictable.

I recall seeing reruns of Bishop Sheen from the early 50's predicting everything that would occure, inclusive of substantively increased divorce rates once birth control was introduced. It was jeered as paranoia, and superficially his detractors make sense. How could more birth control lead to higher rates of pregnancy. But thats because you divorce your analysis from any substantive understanding of human behavior. People arent robots. Remove the stigma and consequences, and human beings alter their behavior to adjust to the new possibilities, which lead to the very consequences he warned about.

 

[Y_lifter]

Then his beliefs run contrary to the GOP's stated platform. The newly modified platform specificly calls for no benefits for same sex couples........

Actually he stated that they should not have the SAME legal protections
afforded to Married couples.. Not that they should not have ANY legal protections..

Below copied from several News agencies.. This one from the post


They added a second proposed constitutional amendment, to bar same-sex marriage, which President Bush embraced this year. At the urging of conservative groups such as the Family Research Council, the platform committee went further in tone and detail than the GOP staffers who wrote the draft.

The marriage section condemns "a few judges and local authorities" who presume to change "the most fundamental institution of civilization." It says same-sex couples should not receive legal benefits set aside for married couples, and it calls on the Senate to join the House in voting to strip federal courts of the authority to overturn state laws banning gay marriage.

 

[Y_lifter]

Then his beliefs run contrary to the GOP's stated platform. The newly modified platform specificly calls for no benefits for same sex couples........

Actually he stated that they should not have the SAME legal protections
afforded to Married couples.. Not that they should not have ANY legal protections..

Below copied from several News agencies.. This one from the post


They added a second proposed constitutional amendment, to bar same-sex marriage, which President Bush embraced this year. At the urging of conservative groups such as the Family Research Council, the platform committee went further in tone and detail than the GOP staffers who wrote the draft.

The marriage section condemns "a few judges and local authorities" who presume to change "the most fundamental institution of civilization." It says same-sex couples should not receive legal benefits set aside for married couples, and it calls on the Senate to join the House in voting to strip federal courts of the authority to overturn state laws banning gay marriage.

 

[ChefWide]

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MARRIAGE. Does that clear it up a bit? You can keep the requirements for your 'institution' whatever you like. Mazel Tov.

I am talking about legal rights of comonlaw partners. These rights WILL be extended to same sex partners, it's just a matter of time, so complain all you like.

 

[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?