cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-13-2012, 11:50 PM   #1
realtall
Senior Member
 
realtall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Krum, TX
Posts: 891
realtall is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to realtall
Default A very interesting perspective on the gay marriage debate

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...rriage-editors
__________________
http://realtall.blogspot.com/
realtall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 04:43 AM   #2
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
We have already gone too far, in both law and culture, in weakening the link between marriage and procreation. To break it altogether would make the institution of marriage unintelligible. What possible governmental interest is there in encouraging long-term commitments with a sexual element, just as such?
So what should be rolled back?

Marriage is failing as an institution, esp. among the poor, long before gay marriage came on the scene.

This might be called "the nail in the coffin" argument. Maybe they ought to marshal their resources towards saving marriage, and not just fighting gay marriage and civil unions.

I am no huge backer of gay marriage. But I'm still waiting for more convincing arguments against it.

I like to say things like "Not only do I favor marriage for gays, I intend to make it compulsory." It gets a nice reaction (for my level of comedy, a chuckle is fabulous success).
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 07:42 AM   #3
realtall
Senior Member
 
realtall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Krum, TX
Posts: 891
realtall is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to realtall
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters View Post
So what should be rolled back?

Marriage is failing as an institution, esp. among the poor, long before gay marriage came on the scene.

This might be called "the nail in the coffin" argument. Maybe they ought to marshal their resources towards saving marriage, and not just fighting gay marriage and civil unions.

I am no huge backer of gay marriage. But I'm still waiting for more convincing arguments against it.

I like to say things like "Not only do I favor marriage for gays, I intend to make it compulsory." It gets a nice reaction (for my level of comedy, a chuckle is fabulous success).
Of course it could be argued that part of saving marriage is fighting gay marriage. But I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant.

I've stewed a long time about this issue. Usually when I approach problems such as this one this way I can break things down logically and a clear answer presents itself in the end. This issue is particularly difficult as it depends largely on one's worldview and somewhat on religion(although there are those who argue the latter). I do not believe it to be a civil rights issue as I am hearing more now from the pundets, et al. I lean more towards the arguements that point out the basic function of the human body and how it was designed to procreate. I know that there are many legions of people who choose not to view it that way, though.
__________________
http://realtall.blogspot.com/
realtall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 02:59 PM   #4
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Gay marriage doesn't get a rise out of me.

But I can't see that advocates have justified the need for the new transaction. Why does society need it?

Does the cost of gay marriage reward society enough? I don't see sufficient societal benefit.

If gays represent 1 to 2 percent of society, and if that is a constant, neither growing nor shrinking, should historical institutions be changed to accommodate sector of society for its aberration?

Heterosexual orientation represents standard orientation and behavior. Aberrant behavior to justify new transaction costs should be required to show societal benefit. I don't believe gay marriage has shown the requisite benefit to justify its existence.

There are two motives to its existence, first those legal and benefits attendant marriage and second legitimacy. The first is obvious. The second is a form of requiring legally those in society that don't view the transaction as legitimate as legitimate.

Does gay marriage and do gay rights deserve this status?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 03:42 PM   #5
Tex
Senior Member
 
Tex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
Tex is on a distinguished road
Default

__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?"
"And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..."

- Cali Coug

"Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got."

- Brigham Young
Tex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 06:23 PM   #6
ute4ever
I must not tell lies
 
ute4ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,103
ute4ever is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Obama should have announced he was against gay marriage, just to force Romney to support it. In fact Obama should intentionally "evolve" on every political issue out there over the next five months, just to frustrate Romney to the point that he can't keep up.
ute4ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2012, 03:14 PM   #7
Tex
Senior Member
 
Tex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
Tex is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ute4ever View Post
Obama should have announced he was against gay marriage, just to force Romney to support it. In fact Obama should intentionally "evolve" on every political issue out there over the next five months, just to frustrate Romney to the point that he can't keep up.
Simple translation: "Obama flip-flops good; Romney flip-flops bad."
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?"
"And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..."

- Cali Coug

"Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got."

- Brigham Young
Tex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 12:42 AM   #8
realtall
Senior Member
 
realtall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Krum, TX
Posts: 891
realtall is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to realtall
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex View Post

I suppose if Clinton can be the first black president, then Obama can be the first gay one.
__________________
http://realtall.blogspot.com/
realtall is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.