- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I've only ever seen you mouthing off on conservatives and based on actions, I have my reservations about the veracity of your claim.
However, in answer to your question, I believe extreme right-wingers are dangerous. I suspect that like most progressives, your idea of extreme conservative is probably quite expansive in scope and would include anyone that feels strongly that the progressive movement is bad for our society. Just a guess but I'd wager it is a good one.
Can we agree that poll introduced in yesterday's blogs of this thread by, I believe, C.Courtesy, which attempted to show a majority of Americans favored SSM was inconclusive?
Not the 2012 poll introduced by, I believe, Captain Courtesy. Show me a poll (I won't ask for a propensity) where it's so. Where SS partnerships is a viable choice.
I consider myself a moderate. I suspect many rabid lefties wouldn't.
Well, it wouldn't be the first time you weren't the only one wrong about something.
Not only did I post a poll where SSM vs. NO legal standing for gay unions had SSM winning, but I posted a poll where SSM vs. civil unions vs. no legal standing had SSM winning. So, no, you are wrong.
Still, the underlying FACT without the false dilemma is that more people would approve of civil unions than would approve of gay marriage. Granted, some activist ninnies do, in fact, reject civil unions because they're holding out for gay marriage but for the most part, those who favor legal regonition support BOTH civil unions and gay marriage even if they prefer "marriage". Argue that's not true at your own risk. It's a stupid argument and one that you would have no supporting facts for, but far be it from me to tell you not to try a stupid argument if you wish.
It doesn't really matter at all when it comes to you. You oppose any form of legal recognition of same sex relationships so I don't think people are going to be too inclined to listen to your suggestions on the matter. As you stated yourself, you are happy your state forbids civil unions.
As for what most people approve, that doesn't really matter. Most states that forbid same sex marriage also forbid civil unions and I'm not sure why the states that support same sex marriage should be inclined to move to civil unions when it is clear that the states that oppose civil unions are not going to move toward allowing them. In the end it is best left to the states.
I'm actually inclined to want to support civil unions for the sake of compassion, but obnoxious rhetoric of militant homosexuals on this issue has put a serious damper on my compassion.
I don't think you need to support civil unions. If you can't think of any reason aside from fickle "compassion" to support them, then you may be better off just opposing any legal recognition of same sex relationships. The reason those militant homosexuals act as they do is because they have principles, reasons, and vested interests in their views. If you can't see the conservative argument for recognition of same sex relationships then I don't really see the point of you trying to straddle the fence on the issue, aside from maybe a vain attempt to pretend to be more moderate on the issue than you actually are.
Why can't we just let churches decide if they want to marry two people regardless of sex. It really doesn't matter who pay's their taxes with who. This is a moral debate that shouldn't be. If a church is willing to marry two people regardless of sex, then the state should recognize that right.
I know I am not versed in the bible, and I know all the bible quotes that believers and non-believers like to forum fight with, but I don't see why people who are really against this can't just go to a different church or just ignore it.
Why can't we just let churches decide if they want to marry two people regardless of sex. It really doesn't matter who pay's their taxes with who. This is a moral debate that shouldn't be. If a church is willing to marry two people regardless of sex, then the state should recognize that right.
I know I am not versed in the bible, and I know all the bible quotes that believers and non-believers like to forum fight with, but I don't see why people who are really against this can't just go to a different church or just ignore it.
There is no reason but compassion.
That is where you are mistaken and why you never truly supported any legal form of same sex relationships.
Bret Stephens: A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage - WSJ.com
1. Sham marriages.
Conservative case for gay marriage: Column
2. Responsibility and Obligation.
Former Bush Aide Pushes 'Conservative Case' For Gay Marriage : NPR
3. Family values.
American Academy of Pediatrics Supports Same Gender Civil Marriage
4. Children.
If you can't find reasons aside from fickle compassion to support legal recognition of same sex relationships, whether they are "marriage" or "civil unions" then you never really supported them. You just didn't want to appear prejudiced. And frankly, if you can't see the reasons, then I would prefer that you don't support legal recognition of same sex relationships, because at least then you are standing on some sort of principle.
I'd prefer you'd drop your support of homosexual marriage unless you could explain why it's a suitable biological pairing per the purpose of marriage in this country, but I don't expect what I want to be what drives your opinion any more than what you want should drive mine.
Over 30 years of evidence obtained by mental health and child welfare organizations across the world has found that same sex couples are just as capable at raising children as opposite sex couples. Same sex couples, as a result of their biological situation, have the additional benefit of generally CHOOSING when they have children (adoption, surrogate, in vitro) and are often more ready to raise children than their heterosexual counterparts as a result. Marriage or other such legally recognized unions support the cohabitation and prolonged relationship necessary for many same sex couples to take on such relationships and when they do raise children those children benefit from stability and protections that such legally recognized relationships afford their family. Furthermore, legally recognized relationships can establish cultural norms which over the long term could reduce promiscuous sex and promote monogamous relationships thereby reducing the associated health costs to society. Same sex couples that build families will have a support network into old age that they would not otherwise have and enjoy longer, better lives and can continue to contribute to society.
But that is just for starters. I honestly don't think you support civil unions or any form of legal recognition of same sex relationships. No offense, your entire line of reasoning comes off disingenuous at best. The fact that you didn't take any time to read any of the articles I posted is also indicative that you have no interest in understanding any point of view other than the one you already possess. You have made up your mind on this issue, and it has nothing to do with compassion. You just want to blame the leftists for why you oppose legal recognition of same sex relationships rather than simply admit you see no reasons to support them and you don't want to support them. If you were as moderate as you claimed you were you would at least understand the reasons why most conservative moderates who support same sex marriage do so, but you clearly don't. This is a game for you to see if you can convince people that you at some point in time ever truly supported such unions, and frankly I am not biting. You never did and never will.
I think people that support same-sex MARRIAGE either don't understand the purpose of marriage or think that homosexual marriage should be created as an option even though it doesn't further the purpose of marriage. What is disingenuous is to deny that acceptable biological pairings was ALWAYS the foundation of marriage law in this country with all else being support for that foundation. Even Loving vs. Virginia was meaningful because it included a reasonable and logical biological pairing that was only denied due to issues of race. The real purpose of marriage was already satisfied by their biological male/female coupling.
It makes sense to afford any two (or more people) who want to form a legally bound committed domestic partnership certain sets of rights such as hospital visitation and disposal of property in the event of a partner's death (among others).
But what is clear is that you don't support ANY form of legal recognition for same sex couples
Why does it make sense? Provide your rational.
I'll just cut you off right there without further deviation from propriety via your specious reasoning for the position you assigned me. It is at this point that we are no longer engaged in reasonable discussion since you are not listening.
I'm glad this state not only doesn't allow homosexual marriage but forbids civil unions or anything resembling them and won't recognize them in this or any other state.
It makes sense because people should be able to enter into contracts and agreements with each other that include things such as power of attorney. This right to contractual agreement among people should support some sort of boiler plate civil union agreement, in my opinion.... or for that matter, some customized form of agreement. The bottom line is that I think it is reasonable to afford a boilerplated agreement for domestic partnerships as a point of freedom to enter into contracts with others.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?