Quoting Arlo Bensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [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"?
If not the voters, who do you think should decide? > [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? To many minds who see a general degeneration of society it hasn't. > 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. Says you. What's necessarily "violent" about drug abuse, prostitution, pornography and lawlessness? And as usual, you introduce a personal attack. > [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. Another attack. By implication, Platt is insane. > 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? I was answering Keith's argument. Your question is nonsensical. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
