Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Same Sex Unions and the RNC

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism


The old guard GOP continues to show why they are a dying breed and will ultimately be extinct within the party. What this old independent conservative is really waiting for is Sarah Palin to make her position clear on gay rights in general, and her position on the repeal of DADT specifically.

The view of those vying for Chairmanship of The RNC as reported by TMP.
It seems increasingly clear that embracing some changes in the way gays and lesbians interact with society will be necessary for political viability in the future. That is, unless you're running to be the next chair of the Republican National Committee. At their debate yesterday, the major candidates running to lead the RNC through the 2012 presidential race pledged to hold the line on gay rights, expressing concern over the repeal of DADT and vowing to keep the Republican Party in the sanctity of marriage business.

I understand the definition of marriage has always been the union of a man and a women and in fact support maintaining the classical definition of marriage on philosophical and rational grounds. Words have meaning and should not be revised just to satisfy the whim of a minority.

Having said the forgoing: all rights and benefits afforded to heterosexual married couples must be afforded to couples of same sex unions. The nation at large still has a bit of a way to go. The RNC has an ocean to cross before it gets there, if it ever does.

Read the rest here.

Via: Memeorandum

5 comments:

  1. Well, I applaud the consistency of your rationale. Buffet libertarians are living breathing oxymorons. Here you show a genuine honesty in your philosophy. That's why though I probably only agree with Ron Paul 20% of the time, I like him and appreciate his honesty. The same goes for other conservatives and libertarians as well. I only wish their were more like them around today.

    The California Supreme Court is going to decide the standing of opponents to gay marraige in California. It is THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ARGUMENT AGAINST DOMA: who does it hurt? If our rights end at each others noses, then why can't gay people get married? If anything, we are harming them and restricting their rights, and not they ours.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It amazes me that no one sees a bigger picture here, regardless of which side you're on. If marriage no longer means a man and a woman and same-sex couples get the same privileges as opposite sex couples, then any relationship must rightfully be honored. That means that ANY two or more friends or family members who live together should get the same services, tax breaks, treatment, etc. from not only government, but from insurance companies and other private interests as well. And why SHOULDN'T siblings or other family members (or friends sharing a house) get those benefits? If (when) that idea gets accepted, don't be surprised if someone doesn't bring pets or even bestiality into the picture eventually. I'm not trying to use this line of reasoning against gays; I've got two gay first cousins whose company I thoroughly enjoy. I'm just saying that it's the logical progression of loosening the definition about what constitutes a legally acceptable relationship.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gorges - I see your point and have considered tham. I have simply decided that same sex unions deserve the same considerations. As I said the definition of marriage should remain unchanged.

    Homosexuality is not a choice and therefore the human rights of happiness and contentment are every bit as much a right for gays and lesbians as they are for heterosexuals.

    Same sex unions simply will not destroy our society as we know it. I am from MA. Nothing has changed since their laws changed.

    Polygamy has been practiced at various time and in various societies. It has never become widespread for practical and I presume moral reasons.

    The idea of bestiality and or pets is to my mind a bogeyman argument. There has always been a very small number of people who engage in such practices but society has always found bestiality to be repugnant and repulsive. On moral as well as practical grounds.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Les, I understand your feelings on the pet and beastiality remark, but perhaps you don't realize the fanaticism of some of the "animal rights" zealots.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.