Local Politics - Maryland
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2012, 04:39 PM
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(10-02-2012 02:00 PM)Jeff Wrote:  Marriage has been a very important institution in our society. If we're changing it, it needs to be done with forethought. Do you really disagree with this statement? I know you want what you want but don't you think that proposing a significant change demands some analysis for unintended consequences? Your (the pro-gay-marriage side) current case appears to be "We want this and what could go wrong?" I think that demonstrates a complete lack of seriousness about consideration for the change.

On the whole, I feel that both sides of this issue have demonstrated abyssmal behavior - your side for focusing solely on the religious objections, and simply asserting but not making a reasoned case for why this poses no harm - the other side for its infuriating "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" and side-stepping the obvious desires of so many same-sex couples. That's why my current position is to create a new institution that can develop its own set of precedents.

Civil marriage is not a religious institution, it is a civil contract. Religion should not enter into the discussion of civil marriage.

As for forethought, how could same-sex marriage be worse that what we have today?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
12-02-2012, 12:15 PM
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(10-02-2012 02:00 PM)Jeff Wrote:  Not that you asked, but I think you're also making a strategic blunder by not having this case already. It leaves you fighting it on just the religious issue.... my position has always been that if gays want to marry it's fine with me. However I've always thought that the best solution would be a new institution of gay marriage, which I call "garriage" or getting "garried."

Not that you asked, but you consider it a strategic blunder to extend existing rights the rest of the populace currently enjoys to creating an entirely new institution of "garriage?" Pardon me, but I find that laughable.

By the way - I'm not the one fighting this on religious grounds - that would be those in opposition. There have been precious few cogent arguments put forth by opponents of marriage equality that are not based on religious grounds. My argument is nothing more than extending equality to all citizens. What would your proposal have been back in 1960 and segregation?

(10-02-2012 02:00 PM)Jeff Wrote:  Marriage has been a very important institution in our society. If we're changing it, it needs to be done with forethought. Do you really disagree with this statement? I know you want what you want but don't you think that proposing a significant change demands some analysis for unintended consequences? Your (the pro-gay-marriage side) current case appears to be "We want this and what could go wrong?" I think that demonstrates a complete lack of seriousness about consideration for the change.

There has been forethought aplenty on this issue. 6 states (soon to be joined by Washington and California, again) and the District of Columbia currently marry same-sex couples. Marriages conducted in these states are recognized by another three states - so you have ample sample data to analyze just how extending marriage to same sex couples has ruined your marriage...The same can be said when the US Military prepared for and integrated homosexuals openly into the ranks. It was thought out and determined that it does not disrupt our lives...

(10-02-2012 02:00 PM)Jeff Wrote:  On the whole, I feel that both sides of this issue have demonstrated abyssmal behavior - your side for focusing solely on the religious objections, and simply asserting but not making a reasoned case for why this poses no harm - the other side for its infuriating "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" and side-stepping the obvious desires of so many same-sex couples. That's why my current position is to create a new institution that can develop its own set of precedents.

Again, I would think that your new institution idea is the one that requires some "strategic thought..."

"Like" my Facebook page
Brain Droppings Blog
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT16Rq3dAcHhqiAsPC5xUC...oR0pEpxQZw]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2012, 01:23 PM
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(12-02-2012 12:15 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  By the way - I'm not the one fighting this on religious grounds - that would be those in opposition. There have been precious few cogent arguments put forth by opponents of marriage equality that are not based on religious grounds.

If your opposition is fighting you on religious grounds then you are fighting on religious grounds. The blunder is in not opening a new front, which is to positively demonstrate that there's no harm to the institution of marriage.

(12-02-2012 12:15 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  My argument is nothing more than extending equality to all citizens. What would your proposal have been back in 1960 and segregation?

Ah yes, toss out the racist card, it's not possible that anyone disagreeing with any part of your position could have any merit to their position - they must be a racist, or maybe a homophobe!

(12-02-2012 12:15 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  The same can be said when the US Military prepared for and integrated homosexuals openly into the ranks. It was thought out and determined that it does not disrupt our lives...

Exactly. The US military studied the issue in advance and determined that it was a manageable change. See Report of the comprehensive review of the issues associated with a repeal of don't ask don't tell. Where is your study?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2012, 05:05 PM
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(12-02-2012 01:23 PM)Jeff Wrote:  Where is your study?

Buddy - you're barking up the wrong tree and looking for a fight that is frankly not worth getting into with you...if you have something to argue then state it - right now you're playing a game of I know you are but what am I? and it's boring ...

"Like" my Facebook page
Brain Droppings Blog
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT16Rq3dAcHhqiAsPC5xUC...oR0pEpxQZw]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2012, 05:51 PM
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(12-02-2012 05:05 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  Buddy - you're barking up the wrong tree and looking for a fight that is frankly not worth getting into with you

I give it as I get it

(12-02-2012 05:05 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  ...if you have something to argue then state it

I did...in my first post in this thread..."I think it would be irresponsible to support same-sex marriage (as opposed to garriage) without knowing if this issue has been examined. Do you know if it has?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2012, 05:59 PM
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(12-02-2012 05:51 PM)Jeff Wrote:  
(12-02-2012 05:05 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  Buddy - you're barking up the wrong tree and looking for a fight that is frankly not worth getting into with you

I give it as I get it

(12-02-2012 05:05 PM)Seasbury Wrote:  ...if you have something to argue then state it

I did...in my first post in this thread..."I think it would be irresponsible to support same-sex marriage (as opposed to garriage) without knowing if this issue has been examined. Do you know if it has?"

Examined in what respect? Financial? Legal? Religious? Social? Ethical? Moral?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2012, 06:20 PM
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(12-02-2012 05:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  Examined in what respect? Financial? Legal? Religious? Social? Ethical? Moral?

I think it was clear in my first post:

"Our legal system is based on time-tested precedents as it relates to finances, alimony, child custody, child support etc. Have you seen anything that examines the effect of same-sex partners within the context of existing marriage case law? My concern is primarily around child custody and care, however there may be other issues I haven't thought of."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2012, 06:24 PM
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(12-02-2012 06:20 PM)Jeff Wrote:  
(12-02-2012 05:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  Examined in what respect? Financial? Legal? Religious? Social? Ethical? Moral?

I think it was clear in my first post:

"Our legal system is based on time-tested precedents as it relates to finances, alimony, child custody, child support etc. Have you seen anything that examines the effect of same-sex partners within the context of existing marriage case law? My concern is primarily around child custody and care, however there may be other issues I haven't thought of."

I don't think there's much to examine there. Why do the sexes of the two parties matter? Child custody is determined by the court, not by black-letter law, so - if anything - judges would actually have to do their jobs to determine custody instead of falling back on just giving custody to the wife.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
12-02-2012, 07:24 PM
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(12-02-2012 06:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't think there's much to examine there. Why do the sexes of the two parties matter?

I don't find that the "what could go wrong?" approach gives me the confidence I want when making a public policy decision that potentially affects so many people. Don't you agree that people advocating for a policy change bear the burden of demonstrating to their fellow citizens that it will do no harm? Especially on matters related to children? This is just basic due diligence. I'm still assuming it has been done, and exists somewhere, I just haven't found it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2012, 09:29 AM
RE: Local Politics - Maryland
(12-02-2012 07:24 PM)Jeff Wrote:  
(12-02-2012 06:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't think there's much to examine there. Why do the sexes of the two parties matter?

I don't find that the "what could go wrong?" approach gives me the confidence I want when making a public policy decision that potentially affects so many people. Don't you agree that people advocating for a policy change bear the burden of demonstrating to their fellow citizens that it will do no harm? Especially on matters related to children? This is just basic due diligence. I'm still assuming it has been done, and exists somewhere, I just haven't found it.

I have not been too concerned about the effects primarily because I see this as a human rights issue. If there are negatives they are outweighed by the positive.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: