[MD] Quality decline in U.S. politics

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [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"?

If not the voters, who do you think should decide?   
 
> [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?

To many minds who see a general degeneration of society it hasn't.     

> 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.

Says you. What's necessarily "violent" about drug abuse, prostitution, pornography
and lawlessness? And as usual, you introduce a personal attack. 

> [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.

Another attack. By implication, Platt is insane. 

> 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?

I was answering Keith's argument. Your question is nonsensical. 






-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/