Modified GOP platform

[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well intentioned, enlightened among us who imagine every critical institution or practice has now become superflous and outdated.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.