3
   

GOP weighs anti-gay plank for '04 platform

 
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 09:24 am
Another door opens...
0 Replies
 
the prince
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 09:26 am
Sofia wrote:
Gautum--
Illuminate the phunny, please! Love to hear your perspective.

(20% may be an exaggeration... I'm curious. Going to see if I can find a stat.)


Having never been to the US - I really cant comment Sofia.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 09:27 am
um... ok.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 09:29 am
HBob - Are you bisexual? Hmmm. So, if they had a marriage license and a partnership license, could you have one of each with 2 different people?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 09:30 am
Two spouses might lead this little hobbit to the big bottle! Shocked
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 09:30 am
hahaha
0 Replies
 
the prince
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 09:35 am
lucky hobitbob !
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 11:14 am
If nothing else, hobitbob will never lack dating oportunities on a Saturday night.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 12:48 pm
I do not see "promoting the traditional notion of marriage" as being "anti-gay".
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 12:51 pm
Sofia wrote:
Allowing these people the right to marry doesn't have to signify our personal approval-- It just means we won't expend any energy denying them equal rights under the law.


Take a bow Sophie.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 02:55 pm
Lest my terse response above lead anyone to draw the wrong conclusion about my position on the issue, I support the creation/recognition of some form of civil union analagous to marriage and available to any number of consenting adults without regard to their gender, and likewise support the right of the members of any church to choose to recognize whatever unions the church chooses.

I also recognize and support the right of others to promote the traditional "notion" of marriage.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 02:56 pm
I agree with what scrat said above.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 03:10 pm
Sofia wrote:
Allowing these people the right to marry doesn't have to signify our personal approval-- It just means we won't expend any energy denying them equal rights under the law.


I missed this first time around.

For some reason I am distracted when reading your boobs....ahhh...posts.

But since Craven called it to our attention, I would like to say: Well said!
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 03:54 pm
Scrat wrote:
I do not see "promoting the traditional notion of marriage" as being "anti-gay".


Scrat - why is it that you - and, it seems, so many others, believe the "traditional notion of marriage" (which is, in its modern form, a fairly new tradition, but anyways...) needs promoting?

I may be wrong in your case, but this thought always seems to co-exist with a belief that only heterosexual sex/love is "natural" - if something is natural, why would it need to be promoted?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 04:18 pm
How about promoting a traditional get married and don't get divorced campaign? Oops, some politicians have also decided that was the governments business, too. Why would the 50% who stay married need to promote what they already have? I'm afraid with the clery and their political counterparts that it isn't easily camoflauged -- it is not promoting traditional marriage, it's promoting denying marriage to those who are gay.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 10:19 am
perhaps we should return to the practices of early Massachusetts and Connecticut. In the 1630's and 40's marriage was a civil contract and was arranged by lawyers and approved by a judge (usually a JP). The clergy, who dominated the society at that time, complained, and they were finally given equal standing to conduct marriages. They now claim that by "tradition" they have the only right. Returning marriage to a civil contract would not only be a revival of early American "tradition", but would solve a lot of this problem.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 11:35 am
Eggsactly, Acquiunk -- everyone that is so hell bent on tradition better trace those traditions carefully.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 12:17 pm
dlowan wrote:
Scrat wrote:
I do not see "promoting the traditional notion of marriage" as being "anti-gay".


Scrat - why is it that you - and, it seems, so many others, believe the "traditional notion of marriage" (which is, in its modern form, a fairly new tradition, but anyways...) needs promoting?

Did I write that? I don't recall writing that. What I recall writing was that I don't think doing so is anti-gay, and (in a subsequent response) that I recognize the right of individuals to promote it if they choose.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 12:40 pm
Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem as though there's a lot disagreement here. How refreshing!

As to the question: The GOP would be making a big mistake to add an anti-gay plank in their platform. I don't think Rove would permit it. Why alienate one group (gays) to placate another group (The Christian right) who will vote for Bush anyhow?
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 12:42 pm
Scrat you point is well taken, but marriage comes with a number advantages such as work benefits, reduced insurance costs, inheritance rights etc. A legally recognized marriage makes those benefits available.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/24/2021 at 04:55:38