emdash

I see no reference whatsoever to sexual orientation in the passage you have quoted.

burn.

oh please.

Wessexman

This is not an argument. You aren't constructing an argument, you are only vaguely and dangerously appealing to some general equality.



The whole point is we don't what it might do hence caution is needed. If we knew exactly what the consequences of any change would be then my argument would be meaningless. What aren't you understanding about that? You aren't refuting my position.

That is far from clear. It will change the meaning of marriage and the ideas that are associated with it. Most functions and institutions have a complex web of ideational factors that accompany them, as marriage does. This change will effect that hence it should be treated cautiously.


So? It is normal and reasonable to be cautious when approaching the unknown.

Well firstly it is most important to have a mindset that embraces the need for caution. Unless we have that then the next step is rather meaningless.

The obvious answer though would be introducing civil unions and gradually giving gay couples the rights of straight ones.


I also find it interesting that the so called "Conservative" Bodhisattva thanked you post seeing as it was a weak attempt to dismiss one of the two key planks of Conservatism. The argument that society is complex and should not be rashly remade is where the idea of the importance of tradition and the whole idea of conserving comes from in Conservatism. Along with the importance of intermediate associations between the central gov't and the individdual it makes up the two twin main pillars of Conservatism.

__________________
The Wessex society.

“I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I despise equality.”
John Randolph of Roanoke.

Bodhisattva

The Marriage License Laws for a man and a woman to marry vary from state to state. Although there are differences between the requirements in the various states, a marriage between a man and a woman performed in one state must be recognized by every other state under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

Both man and woman are 18 or older, or have the consent of a parent or a judge if younger.

It is obvious that they are referring a heterosexual man marrying a heterosexual woman.
Be as obtuse as you like, it looks foolish...


Just how it is...
I like your childish little look at it though...
Telling.



Begging?



Also, since homosexual marriage is illegal in most places throughout the United States, for this NATIONAL site to not mention it indicates that they are talking about heterosexual relationships. Since it does not say a man and a man or a woman and a woman ANYWHERE in the site, along with the absense of mentioning homosexuality as well as heterosexuality is the point, and the fact that they list "man and woman" repeatedly solidifies the very obvious and simple fact that they are referring to heterosexual relationahips between a man and a woman only, excluding homosexuals.

__________________
"Only pompous idiots have a quotation as their signature" - Agnapostate

Bodhisattva

I thanked him because the "space-time continuum" comment was funny...
How does this make me a fake conservative?

Also, conservatives and liberals alike should first be thinkers and embrace common sense...
Clinging desperately to some archaic position is not what makes a person conservative or liberal,
It is their ability to think independently and arrive to a rational and cohesive position that reflects their values...

__________________
"Only pompous idiots have a quotation as their signature" - Agnapostate

Wessexman

Because you seem to be attacking one of the two major pillars in Conservatism.

Do you belief in the importance of tradition and caution?

Who is clinging to that position? I'm saying caution and gradualism should be used. This is basic Conservative stuff.

__________________
The Wessex society.

“I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I despise equality.”
John Randolph of Roanoke.

emdash

oops, looks as though you have confused gender with sexual orientation.

they are referring to a man and a woman. the sexual orientation of the couple is not specified. that would be discrimination.

they are talking about heterosexual relationships, in that the relationship includes a member of either gender, but they are not talking about heterosexual individuals. I have known plenty of homosexual people in heterosexual relationships, and the other way around. if you do not understand the difference I can see no point in discussing this further.

Bodhisattva

I am not sayin that you are clinging to anything, but to attack me for something as simple as thinking a person is lame...

Tradition and caution are important, but not to the exclusion of common sense.

__________________
"Only pompous idiots have a quotation as their signature" - Agnapostate

Bodhisattva

Oooops, nope. Nice try though doofus.

The fact that it is already illegal is the discrimination.
The fact that this site does not differentiate between the existing discrimination and non-descrimination is the entire point.



I rephrased my lst paragraph while you were responding apparently...
Hopefully it helps you understand better...

The fact is that your, and my, homosexual friends in heterosexual relationships can NOT get married to a person of the same sex, that is so simple and again, that is the discrimination...

Like I said... obtuse. Perhaps head in the sand? Who cares really...

__________________
"Only pompous idiots have a quotation as their signature" - Agnapostate

Wessexman

It isn't just that, I have yet to see you make a proper Conservative argument. That is not particularly unusual amongst Conservatives on this site, or anywhere in this day and age, but at least they support Conservative policies and rhetoric even if they can't make a decent Conservative argument to back them up. Your position seems to be indistinguishable from the liberal position in this argument though. This is all I'm saying.


They are common sense.

__________________
The Wessex society.

“I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I despise equality.”
John Randolph of Roanoke.

emdash

the fact that it is not illegal proves you don't know what you're saying. there is a difference between gender and orientation, and it is extremely important in this discussion. I'm not just playing with words here.


I'll be sure to revisit it.