[Platt to Keith on "gay marriage"] But, neither of us is going to argue the other out of his position on this issue. The voters will decide.
[Arlo] I'm curious, should the voters also be able to decide whether or not to allow "interracial marriage"? [Platt earlier] When "marriage" comes to mean something other than socially approved union of a man and women, another moral code of society is weakened. For example, we have seen over the years a weakening of codes regarding out-of-wedlock births, prostitution and pornography, violence, drugs, profane language, discipline, upholding the law, etc., etc., all of which undermine the bonds that hold a society together. [Arlo] The same argument was made when "interracial marriage" became an issue. We were told that allowing "blacks and whites" to wed would undermine social values, erode society away and lead to all sorts of social ills. Why has that changed? Also, I note sadly the rhetorical association here between a loving relationship between two adults and the "ills" of drug abuse, prostitution, pornography and lawlessness. By saying that "gay marriage" is akin to "violence" (as you do above), you commit the most atrocious of rhetorical tactics. [Keith] By allowing homosexual couples to share medical insurance, have recognized communal property, and accrue other economic benefits, as well as by decreasing their alienation from the rest of society, same-sex unions incentivizes long-term committed relationships, leading to a more stable family-unit. I see this as a boon to social cohesion. [Arlo] A voice of sanity. Thanks, Keith. The bottom line is this: gays are going to be gay whether or not there is homosexual marriage, and straights are going to be straight whether or not there is homosexual marriage. Granting the same basic social rights to committed gays does nothing to the infrastructure of rights already established for commited straights. Because John down the street gets the same tax status as myself (me being married to a woman, and him being married to a man), or is able to legally inherit, or make end-of-life decisions, or a plethora of other social rights granted to me makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to my life, marriage or social life. [Platt] I know of nothing inherent in marriage benefits that would encourage gay partnership into "long-term committed relationships." I would wager the "divorce rate" among married gay couples would at least equal those of heterosexual couples. [Arlo] Likely so. So if heterosexual marriage fails at encouraging long-term committed relationships, should we let the decides whether or not to sanction these as well? moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
