Re: Little Johnny -- Sexuality Issues Discussion Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Wednesday, April 23, 06:00:57am

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

Subject: Re: Little Johnny

Author:
Perry

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Tuesday, August 24, 04:19:55am
In reply to: Brenton Clutterbuck 's message, "Little Johnny" on Sunday, August 22, 03:52:39am

Shouldn't a true conservative position on gay marriage actually be:

1. Families are the bedrock institution of society ("the family is the greatest institution society has ever known": Howard, Sydney, May 2004).
2. Marriage is the best basis upon which to establish families.
3. Gay and lesbian relationships exist and these people want to have families.
4. They should be allowed to marry to ensure that the family environments they create are as stable as possible.

I'm not saying that these steps are unquestionable, just that they represent a true conservative position.

Why should conservatives support "marriage-lite" (i.e. de facto status) for gays and lesbians - surely they should be against de facto couples full stop? If you're looking for the things that weaken marriage, surely the fact that you don't need to get married to get its legal benefits would be a prime candidate.

Why is it that Britney Spears - who can get married and annulled within 24 hours - represents no threat to marriage, but people of the same sex who want to stay together for life represent one of the greatest threats to marriage since the invention of the vibrator?

In an article in the features section of the Age on Saturday ("Being John Howard"), Howard is quoted as saying in 1994: "The Liberal Party must always be seen as the party of individual freedom and personal rights. It should always prefer the aspirations of the individual ... to the interests of the group." In May 2004 he similarly said that the ties that bind the party were the "belief in the importance of the individual, the belief that personal association is a matter of individual choice and not compulsion". Why, then, is the Liberal Party not willing to treat gay and lesbian people as individuals rather than as members of a group? Why has Howard banned all gays and lesbians from marriage when the truth is that the suitability of gays and lesbians for marriage and family life is as individual as it is for straight people?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Cheney opposes gay marriage ban (Washington Post, 25 August)	Perry	Wednesday, August 25, 02:41:16pm