[MD] Quality decline in U.S. politics

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt to Keith on "gay marriage"]
But, neither of us is going to argue the other out of his position on 
this issue. The voters will decide.

[Arlo]
I'm curious, should the voters also be able to decide whether or not 
to allow "interracial marriage"?

[Platt earlier]
When "marriage" comes to mean something other than socially approved 
union of a man and women, another moral code of society is weakened. 
For example, we have seen over the years a weakening of codes 
regarding out-of-wedlock births, prostitution and 
pornography,  violence, drugs, profane language, discipline, 
upholding the law,  etc., etc., all of which undermine the bonds that 
hold a society together.

[Arlo]
The same argument was made when "interracial marriage" became an 
issue. We were told that allowing "blacks and whites" to wed would 
undermine social values, erode society away and lead to all sorts of 
social ills. Why has that changed?

Also, I note sadly the rhetorical association here between a loving 
relationship between two adults and the "ills" of drug abuse, 
prostitution, pornography and lawlessness. By saying that "gay 
marriage" is akin to "violence" (as you do above), you commit the 
most atrocious of rhetorical tactics.

[Keith]
By allowing homosexual couples to share medical insurance, have 
recognized communal property, and accrue other economic benefits, as 
well as by decreasing their alienation from the rest of society, 
same-sex unions incentivizes long-term committed relationships, 
leading to a more stable family-unit. I see this as a boon to social cohesion.

[Arlo]
A voice of sanity. Thanks, Keith. The bottom line is this: gays are 
going to be gay whether or not there is homosexual marriage, and 
straights are going to be straight whether or not there is homosexual 
marriage. Granting the same basic social rights to committed gays 
does nothing to the infrastructure of rights already established for 
commited straights. Because John down the street gets the same tax 
status as myself (me being married to a woman, and him being married 
to a man), or is able to legally inherit, or make end-of-life 
decisions, or a plethora of other social rights granted to me makes 
absolutely no difference whatsoever to my life, marriage or social life.

[Platt]
I know of nothing inherent in marriage benefits that would encourage 
gay partnership into "long-term committed relationships." I would 
wager the "divorce rate" among married gay couples would at least 
equal those of heterosexual couples.

[Arlo]
Likely so. So if heterosexual marriage fails at encouraging long-term 
committed relationships, should we let the decides whether or not to 
sanction these as well?