Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

Are you sure about this, one family I mean? Seems to me that in addition to the victim's family the murderer's family is also affected in an adverse way.

It is? Yet this is one of the aruments given by homosexuals, that they want to be able to have the same legal and financial benefits as married couples.

They are primarily family related. Quite simply, children need mothers and fathers and marriage is the most practical way to get them for children. This nonsense that a single parent or a homosexual couple is just as good is, well, nonsense. Heterosexual marriage also provides for a strong bond between men and women, provides a vehicle for the birth and rearing of children, provides a good environment for the bonding between men and their children, encourages some form of healthy masculine identity for children, and fosters the transformation of adolescents into responsible adults.

What is gained by homosexual marriage? As I have pointed out not all Americans are treated the same under our tax laws already, so that inequality still exists. What other arguments are used? To be able to visit their partners in the hospital? Exists. To be able to leave estates to their partners upon death? Exists. Joint ownership automatically falls to the surviving partner. Remainder of an estate is left to whomever he wishes, including his partner, in a will. So what is gained by altering marriage, which is not a government institution? Marriage predates governments, governments simply recognize it.

gryphon wrote: Now that's where this thread started. Did you read J.A.'s article? If not, please do, and comment. If you HAVE already read it, please comment on it in light of your contention above. Pretty please?

That requires proof - especially considering that the article is sitting smack dab at the beginning of the thread. Starting the thread!

Ariel

Gryphon: In the US would a gay man or woman be entitled to receive, if applicable, the equivalent of a widow's or widower's pension upon the death of a partner?

The reason I ask is that this has not been the case in Canada and gays have been deemed ineligible for survivor benefits particularly with government pension plans as well as certain tax benefits resulting from the loss of a spouse or Common Law partner. Here it is quite clear- a set of rules for Straights and a set of discriminatory rules for Gays.

Uh, no Gryphon.
You have an outside and an inside.
A public stance and a private conscience.
When you vote in the next presidential election nobody will know if you vote against Bush.
That is what I mean.

I think a lot of righties vote what they really know to be right in the privacy of the voting booth.

You can even keep your conservative front up here, in your church, at work and in your family.
But when you pull that lever or touch that screen you are alone with your conscience.
I think you will do the right thing and vote this lunatic out of office.
Thanks for listening.

Yes.

The easing of divorce laws have allowed 100,000's of abused women to get out of marriages that were destructive to themselves and their children.

Where in the world has there been a similar issue? In other words, give me the name of a country that changed from traditional male/female to total equality for gays in the redefinition of the word marriage

I'd like to take a look at the country, and see if there are/were any effects from the change, and whether those effects (if any) might be on the horizon if the U.S. followed suit.

Thanks for again trying to get these conservatives to comment on the article, Ariel. They have all totally ignored it.

Why?

Because they are not true political conservatives, but don't want to admit it. They do not apply conservative principles to their stands on issues. They apply traditional religious and political values to them -- not conservative values. Traditionalism does not equate with conservatism.

There is nothing wrong with them doing this. Each of us can develop our own parameters to use in developing our views.

As an example, I have been called a Liberal and I reject that title because I do not use politically liberal standards to develop my views. I use my religious beliefs as the basis for most of my opinions. Even my views on civil liberties come from my religious beliefs. If anything, I am a religious progressive and as focused and centered on religious values as the traditionalists on this Board are.

I do not, though, view myself as a political liberal, even if many of my views parallel politically liberal positions. This is why many of my views are not politically liberal.

The so-called conservatives on this board would do better referring to themselves as traditionalists. It better describes the bases of their views than the term political conservative does.

John Andrew said: I have a less generous explanation for it, John. They DO NOT WANT TO BOTHER BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR MINDS MADE UP. Why bother to read an article with a title which is so challenging to their "paradigm" that it must ipso facto, be false - especially since a "Liberal" posted it? Better (and easier) then, to merely comment on assumptions about the content based on the title alone...Or even just free-associate from the mere topic.

Some dialogue!

Ariel

SaneKenny said: "In their hearts they know he's wrong", huh, SaneKenny?

Ariel

You are dating yourself Ariel! But then, so am I. I recall where that comes from!

Gryphon said: Cool. And I share some of your general thinking about the formation of sex role identification, and more. These are IDEAL heterosexual families, but yes.

Thing is, what about all the many many people who marry either post child-rearing intent or biological capability (or having never planned to become parents)?

Many if not most second marriages and many first marriages fall into this category. Heterosexuals may traditionally marry in order to procreate (Murphy Jones - name? - notwithstanding). But that's NOT THE ONLY REASON HETEROSEXUALS MARRY!

Furthermore, most of the civil distinctions between the married, unmarried, widowed and divorced status have nothing to do with the presence or absence of children.

Should marriage then only be a synonym for "parenting license"?

Ariel

Ariel and JA, could you answer the above? It's not a loaded question. You two have passed judgement on how many of us can't read or think - I'm just looking for some facts instead of opinions. Of course, "do your own research" comes to mind, but I figure those that jump right in and support gay marriage must certainly have at their fingertips some examples of other countries where society was improved. Consideration of facts and data would be a most convincing argument, at least to me.

rvaga,

I asked much the same thing earlier as you did, in connection to France. I would like to know how the distinction drawn there between civil and religious ceremonies and the rights attached thereunto have worked out. Doesn't have to have anything to do with gay unions/marriages etc. Just what do they call things and so on?

That certainly is an uncalled for snipe, if you ask me. And if that's your opinion, why don't YOU comment on the article J.A. posted? Then we'll know for sure you can read and think! Or more to the point, that you're WILLING to...About something to which you have a native antipathy.

God knows I read all your links and gryphon's and most of Jolly's (he has so many) etc.

Ariel

And by the way, when you say I "jump right in and support gay marriage", it just reminds me for the umpteenth time that you don't have the faintest foggiest clue what I thnk about that or much of anything. A growing gripe.

JA

"You are dating yourself Ariel! But then, so am I."

If you are talking about what I think you are, it is bettter than gay marriage, but be sure to wash your hands after.

lb

Sorry for the "snipe" against:

lb,

Now THAT was a good one!

Worse, he's talking about carbon dating, lb. (Hey, that slogan is only twenty years old, John!)

Ariel

Excuse me, I've never dated a carbon. I wouldn't even know which end to start on. But I'm sure JA has and could explain it.

lb

Since the Ariel/J.A. tagteam won't, or can't answer your question, I'll take a stab at it - Sweden.

Take a good look at how families are doing there.