Validity of Left-Right Divide Concerns

[ShadowArxxy]

So segregation wasn't a dead Democrat issue in 1980? Given that a huge chunk of Democrat politicians at the time had been so in the 1960s?

Excuse me? There's a huge difference between "twenty and forty years ago" and "current official platform that they just voted to reiterate."

 

[ShadowArxxy]

The fundamental point that stay the same between the two platforms is that the decision of what constitutes marriage is a not a matter for courts to decide, and the 2016 platform largely shifted away from the DOMA stuff or calls for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The main change was the additional section about religious liberty, which reads more like a shift from "you can't get married, and we'll fight to stop you" to "you can get married but not like that, and you can't make us like it". I don't think you can honestly say the 2016 version is the more hostile/confrontational of the two.

That's a fair point, but that's also not the only section that talks about it:

Preserving and Protecting Traditional Marriage
The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.

Defending Marriage Against an Activist Judiciary

Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court's lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a "judicial Putsch" — full of "silly extravagances" — that reduced "the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie." In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent. We, therefore, support the appointment of justices and judges who respect the constitutional limits on their power and respect the authority of the states to decide such fundamental social questions.

Whereas the 2012 platform can be argued to be saying that traditional marriage is optimal and only tacitly attacks marriage equality, the 2016 platform explicitly condemns, attacks, and calls for the repeal of marriage equality.

 

[Bacle]

That's a fair point, but that's also not the only section that talks about it:







Whereas the 2012 platform can be argued to be saying that traditional marriage is optimal and only tacitly attacks marriage equality, the 2016 platform explicitly condemns, attacks, and calls for the repeal of marriage equality.

It points out that this is something that should be addressed by Congress, not the courts.

And while I am bisexual myself, I'm not gonna deny that gay marriage is...more about progressive re-imagining of the world, rather than how the world actually works.

I'm not going to condemn people for wanting marriage to remain between a man and a woman, but I also won't fault gays/lesbians for wanting the legal perks that come with state recognized marriage.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

It points out that this is something that should be addressed by Congress, not the courts.

And that's something I strongly disagree with. Civil rights advances have consistently come from the courts; if it was up to Congress or worse yet individual state legislatures, interracial marriage would still be illegal and schools would still be segregated.

On the other hand, I don't think it's inherently bigoted, as some would argue, to prefer different process.

I'm not going to condemn people for wanting marriage to remain between a man and a woman, but I also won't fault gays/lesbians for wanting the legal perks that come with state recognized marriage.

That's why I'm much more copacetic with the 2012 statement than the 2016 one. It's a vastly more moderate argument in my eyes to say that traditional marriage is a proven social institution, versus explicitly saying that alternatives should be actively suppressed because they "undermine" its primacy.

 

[Bacle]

And that's something I strongly disagree with. Civil rights advances have consistently come from the courts; if it was up to Congress or worse yet individual state legislatures, interracial marriage would still be illegal and schools would still be segregated.

On the other hand, I don't think it's inherently bigoted, as some would argue, to prefer different process.



That's why I'm much more copacetic with the 2012 statement than the 2016 one. It's a vastly more moderate argument in my eyes to say that traditional marriage is a proven social institution, versus explicitly saying that alternatives should be actively suppressed because they "undermine" its primacy.

The simple fact is one man and one woman being the primacy for marriage and child rearing is because it is primary, and is how humanity got where we are.

Gay marriage getting so much support is more about granting gays/lesbians the legal perks that come with it, rather than denying the primacy of one man/one woman marriages.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

From my understanding, I have heard that marriage rates are down and leftism seeks to destroy the family unit. Marriage will be fundamentally dead sooner or later. This argument about it is pointless.

If you believe certain youtubers, its always been a leftist position to destroy marriage and gay marriage was done cause "muh equality" and to further destroy marriage. Now that they have the equality, its time to destroy it utterly.

 

[Battlegrinder]

And that's something I strongly disagree with. Civil rights advances have consistently come from the courts; if it was up to Congress or worse yet individual state legislatures, interracial marriage would still be illegal and schools would still be segregated.

That's largely wrong. Most states legalized gay marriage via legislation or constitutional amendments, not courts. And on the federal level, you overstate the importance of court decisions.

Yes, schools are integrated because of the courts. That's about all they did. Everything else came from the Civil rights act and voting rights act, which came from congress and not the court system.

You also forget that the court system has been and still is responsible for all manner of civil rights infringements too (pop quiz, what branch of government created Plessy vs Ferguson?), and unlike the legislature, reversing a bad court decision is a decades long process.

 

[Cherico]

From my understanding, I have heard that marriage rates are down and leftism seeks to destroy the family unit. Marriage will be fundamentally dead sooner or later. This argument about it is pointless.

If you believe certain youtubers, its always been a leftist position to destroy marriage and gay marriage was done cause "muh equality" and to further destroy marriage. Now that they have the equality, its time to destroy it utterly.

The extreme left values equality over everything else.

They assume that any difference in outcome between individuals is because some body has cheated (aka privalige) instead of life decisions, savings or other personal choices or even luck. People who are in intact families do better then those raised in single family homes. This has been well known for generations now and the statistics bear this out.

Some one who values stability would say well then we should obviously support families because they have a superior outcome.
Some one who values freedom would say let people fail and they will learn from their mistakes and go with what works.
To the extreme left the solution is to destroy the family because it gives people a 'unfair' advantage.

This kind of thinking Is why communist and socialist states end up going on murder sprees and why eventally the very same socialist government the revolutionaries put in power invitably start murdering their own. Its because they have to, if left unchecked these revolutionaries will murder entire percetages of your population until said government collapses and is replaced by a much much more conservative government.

This is why historically we have restrained this kind of value system with religion with all its rules and edits, that's gone now and we see the results.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

The extreme left values equality over everything else.

They assume that any difference in outcome between individuals is because some body has cheated (aka privalige) instead of life decisions, savings or other personal choices or even luck. People who are in intact families do better then those raised in single family homes. This has been well known for generations now and the statistics bear this out.

Some one who values stability would say well then we should obviously support families because they have a superior outcome.
Some one who values freedom would say let people fail and they will learn from their mistakes and go with what works.
To the extreme left the solution is to destroy the family because it gives people a 'unfair' advantage.

This kind of thinking Is why communist and socialist states end up going on murder sprees and why eventally the very same socialist government the revolutionaries put in power invitably start murdering their own. Its because they have to, if left unchecked these revolutionaries will murder entire percetages of your population until said government collapses and is replaced by a much much more conservative government.

This is why historically we have restrained this kind of value system with religion with all its rules and edits, that's gone now and we see the results.

We need a cold war. prince and pauper alike kept more in line when they feared being blown to heck by nukes. Tarken may have been right. Fear keeps people in line. I'll say no more.

 

[ATP]

Marriage by definition could be only between man and woman - so people who want "gay marriage" are fighting biology,not Republican or even God.

 

[GoldRanger]

Marriage by definition could be only between man and woman - so people who want "gay marriage" are fighting biology,not Republican or even God.

I'm pretty sure that "marriage" just means "a group of people that are committed to an exclusive relationship as formalized by the state". The fact that it "usually" meant two people, man and woman, doesn't mean it absolutely has to be.

 

[Aldarion]

I'm pretty sure that "marriage" just means "a group of people that are committed to an exclusive relationship as formalized by the state". The fact that it "usually" meant two people, man and woman, doesn't mean it absolutely has to be.

Marriage is a social formalization of a bond necessary to produce and raise a child. Which means, yes, man and a woman.

What you are describing is less marriage and more mafia.

 

[GoldRanger]

Marriage is a social formalization of a bond necessary to produce and raise a child. Which means, yes, man and a woman.

What you are describing is less marriage and more mafia.

Say wat?

No. What I'm describing is the formalization of romantic relationships. Not "mafia". Marriage does not necessarily imply children, given the fact that people could get married and never have children, whether by choice or not

 

[Cherico]

Marriage is a social formalization of a bond necessary to produce and raise a child. Which means, yes, man and a woman.

What you are describing is less marriage and more mafia.

Gay people can adopt which more or less takes care of the raise a child requirement.

 

[Aldarion]

Say wat?

No. What I'm describing is the formalization of romantic relationships. Not "mafia". Marriage does not necessarily imply children, given the fact that people could get married and never have children, whether by choice or not

Gay people can adopt which more or less takes care of the raise a child requirement.

Family as a unit came across due to need to provide stable relationship for children to be raised. Romantic relationship is not, in and by itself, necessarily stable, and it is unlikely that a same-sex couple can, by its very nature, provide necessary developmental models for a child. I know (from personal experience) that a child growing up with just a mother will seek fatherly figure / role model anywhere - grandfather, teacher etc. So it is quite clear that same-sex couple, by nature of being same-sex, is automatically an inferior choice in raising children (at least when averages are compared).

@Gold Ranger What you wrote is this:

I'm pretty sure that "marriage" just means "a group of people that are committed to an exclusive relationship as formalized by the state". The fact that it "usually" meant two people, man and woman, doesn't mean it absolutely has to be.

Bolded part can describe a mafia, a Parliament etc.