[QUOTE=Brian-E;144387]I like the idea. We would need to be disciplined about waiting the week each time (which I also agree with) so I suggest that the person who takes on the task of initiating step 1 and later step 3 literally writes the date in that posting on which he/she will go further.

We need someone to act as this moderator who carries out steps 1 and 3 each time. As someone with unequivocal views in favour of opening marriage to same sex couples, I am not suitable. I cannot even begin on step 1. While I know you have strong views on the other side, Zeta-Flux, I do however think you might be able to take on the function because you have good skills at summarizing arguments. Other contributors here also have good skills. Who shall it be? :smile:[/QUOTE]

Since this would be an exercise in trying to understand the other position, how about we modify it as follows:

Those who are *for* gay marriage do step 1. Those who are *against* then (after a full week) do step 3. In other words, we put ourselves in the others' shoes.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;144389]Since this would be an exercise in trying to understand the other position, how about we modify it as follows:

Those who are *for* gay marriage do step 1. Those who are *against* then (after a full week) do step 3. In other words, we put ourselves in the others' shoes.[/quote]
This goes against our natural instincts I think, but I would be willing to try this for one. However, I [B]do[/B] think that those who are genuine proponents for the cause (for or against gay marriage) that is in any given week currently being advocated should also be allowed to participate in that week. If they are not, I think the arguments used will be largely "straw men" and the real proponents will be frustrated to see their point of view inadequately portrayed.

The exercise in understanding the other point of view is a good one though. So we must try to make sure we contribute just as much to our opposing point of view in the given weeks as to our real one in the other weeks.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;144393]This goes against our natural instincts I think, but I would be willing to try this for one. However, I [B]do[/B] think that those who are genuine proponents for the cause (for or against gay marriage) that is in any given week currently being advocated should also be allowed to participate in that week. If they are not, I think the arguments used will be largely "straw men" and the real proponents will be frustrated to see their point of view inadequately portrayed.

The exercise in understanding the other point of view is a good one though. So we must try to make sure we contribute just as much to our opposing point of view in the given weeks as to our real one in the other weeks.[/QUOTE]

Ok, let's try it and see if it works. I will be gone for a few days, so I won't be able to participate until next week. You might find a "moderator" who can keep things on track.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;144394]Ok, let's try it and see if it works. I will be gone for a few days, so I won't be able to participate until next week. You might find a "moderator" who can keep things on track.[/quote]
Alright. One other suggestion: let's start a new thread in the soap box, titled something like "Gay marriage: weekly alternating viewpoints" with the groundrules as first posting so that everyone understands the unusual set-up. I am willing to do that myself but am waiting for at least 48 hours in case there are further suggestions from anyone.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;144389]Since this would be an exercise in trying to understand the other position, how about we modify it as follows:

Those who are *for* gay marriage do step 1. Those who are *against* then (after a full week) do step 3. In other words, we put ourselves in the others' shoes.[/quote]Thank you for suggesting this! :smile:

I'm reminded of a general dispute resolution technique (that I need to recall more often), which I'd generalize as:

1. Each side states the other side's position in the dispute as accurately and fairly as possible.

2. Each side critiques (fairly) the other side's statement of their position, and requests corrections to it.

3. Each side then incorporates the other's requested corrections to best of their ability. Sincerely try to make the corrections suggested by the other side, while stating them in a way you can agree with.

4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until both sides agree that the other side's statement of their position is fair, correct, and adequate for proceeding to the next step. (Failure to achieve this goal probably means the original dispute wouldn't have been resolved either, if the sides had discussed the original dispute without this preliminary.)

5. Proceed to discuss resolution of the original dispute.

Hmmm... this is probably on the Web somewhere, better explained than I did. I'll search sometime.

[quote=Brian-E;144401]Alright. One other suggestion: let's start a new thread in the soap box, titled something like "Gay marriage: weekly alternating viewpoints" with the groundrules as first posting so that everyone understands the unusual set-up. I am willing to do that myself but am waiting for at least 48 hours in case there are further suggestions from anyone.[/quote]Great!

[quote=cheesehead;144418]Thank you for suggesting this! :smile:

I'm reminded of a general dispute resolution technique (that I need to recall more often), which I'd generalize as:

1. Each side states the other side's position in the dispute as accurately and fairly as possible.

2. Each side critiques (fairly) the other side's statement of their position, and requests corrections to it.

3. Each side then incorporates the other's requested corrections to best of their ability. Sincerely try to make the corrections suggested by the other side, while stating them in a way you can agree with.

4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until both sides agree that the other side's statement of their position is fair, correct, and adequate for proceeding to the next step. (Failure to achieve this goal probably means the original dispute wouldn't have been resolved either, if the sides had discussed the original dispute without this preliminary.)

5. Proceed to discuss resolution of the original dispute.

Hmmm... this is probably on the Web somewhere, better explained than I did. I'll search sometime.[/quote]
Thanks, I'll start the new thread in (at least) 24 hours time and incorporate these ideas in the description assuming no objections between now and then. I suggest maintaining the week-by-week alternation of which position is being argued as suggested by Zeta-Flux. If we ever reach the point when we can implement your stage 5 we will have done extremely well. :smile:

If there are no further suggestions, the new thread will start in 24 hours or as soon as possible thereafter depending on how busy I am. If people make further suggestions between now and then (which I hope does happen!) I will postpone starting the "Gay marriage: weekly alternating viewpoints" thread until the discussion has reached general consensus. Please post further ideas in this thread!

Congratulations to the inhabitants of the state [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/10/connecticut-gay-marriage_n_133605.html"]Connecticut[/URL]! Good luck with the wedding plans! Three states of the USA now allow same sex marriages. :smile::smile::smile:

[QUOTE=Brian-E;145132]Congratulations to the inhabitants of the state [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/10/connecticut-gay-marriage_n_133605.html"]Connecticut[/URL]! Good luck with the wedding plans! Three states of the USA now allow same sex marriages. :smile::smile::smile:[/QUOTE]

I live in Connecticut and have mixed feelings about this. Our state legislature created Civil Unions for gay couples a few years back, making Connecticut the only state that had created gay marriage or equivalent through legislative rather than judicial means. I was looking forward to another seven or eight years when it would be obvious to everyone that this was a distinction without a difference and the legislature would combine marriage and civil union. In my opinion, doing it through the legislature would make it clearly the will of the people and there would never be a serious political challenge. Having done it through our courts, I fear the issue will remain politically viable for decades. I fear a close parallel to abortion, an issue "settled" several decades ago through judicial discovery of previously unknown rights hidden in the darkest shadows of our constitution (seriously - the decision speaks of peering into the penumbra of constitutional articles). That "settled" issue is still today a hot political issue in the United States, having an impact on our upcoming presidential election, whereas abortion has no political legs in countries where it was settled legislatively.

Like you, I'm pleased for gay couples in Connecticut, but I fear this decision has greatly delayed the death of controversy on the issue.

[quote=wblipp;145148]I live in Connecticut and have mixed feelings about this. Our state legislature created Civil Unions for gay couples a few years back, making Connecticut the only state that had created gay marriage or equivalent through legislative rather than judicial means. I was looking forward to another seven or eight years when it would be obvious to everyone that this was a distinction without a difference and the legislature would combine marriage and civil union. In my opinion, doing it through the legislature would make it clearly the will of the people and there would never be a serious political challenge. Having done it through our courts, I fear the issue will remain politically viable for decades. I fear a close parallel to abortion, an issue "settled" several decades ago through judicial discovery of previously unknown rights hidden in the darkest shadows of our constitution (seriously - the decision speaks of peering into the penumbra of constitutional articles). That "settled" issue is still today a hot political issue in the United States, having an impact on our upcoming presidential election, whereas abortion has no political legs in countries where it was settled legislatively.

Like you, I'm pleased for gay couples in Connecticut, but I fear this decision has greatly delayed the death of controversy on the issue.[/quote]
An interesting view, and as a resident of the state you have a much better idea than I as a non-American of how views of people there would have evolved in time with the continuation of the civil union legislation. I do question, though, whether many people who are opposed to same sex marriage would change their views by observing civil unions in practice over time, particularly when religion still plays such a dominant role in so many lives. On the subject of religion you mention the "Welcoming Congregations" earlier in this thread, but despite your experience of the number of churches which have alligned themselves with this movement I seriously doubt that it can be dominant even in Connecticut. My experience in Europe, for so far as that is comparible with your area of the USA, is that the first step of legalising civil unions between same sex couples has no noticable effect in altering what people think if it doesn't affect them directly. The attitude I see, if people bother to think about the issue at all, is then typically "now the queers have the same legal rights as the rest of us, what on Earth are they still whining about?". Denmark, the first country in the world to open civil unions to same sex partners back in 1989, did nothing further. Quite a number of other European countries have followed with civil partnership since then, but so far only The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and (from 1/1/2009) Norway have opened up marriage to gay couples from that springboard of civil union legislation. Portugal's parliament rejected the motion of converting its recognised co-habitation to marriage a few days ago. To cut a long story short, converting Civil Unions to marriage is in itself a process which requires huge political will and most certainly does not happen easily: I don't believe waiting for public attitudes to change is the right thing to do because that doesn't really happen like that and the whole issue merely gets forgotten.

[QUOTE=wblipp;145148]I was looking forward to another seven or eight years when it would be obvious to everyone that this was a distinction without a difference and the legislature would combine marriage and civil union.[/QUOTE]

William,

This statement confuses me for a few reasons. First, most pro-SSM and pro-traditional marriage advocates do find common ground in recognizing significant differences. They both recognize that there are social, as well as legal, impacts for broadening the definition of marriage to include SSM. So when you say that in a few years people would see that it has no distinctions, I think you are quite mistaken. But secondly, even if that were the case, then there would be no need to expand the definition of marriage. Nobody would really gain anything, while those still not convinced that there isn't a difference would lose out to an apathetic public opinion.

Are you simply dismissing the argument from the SSM camp that creating a distinct class of unions puts them on an unequal social level? Are you disagreeing with the judges in the Supreme Court of your state (and that of California) that civil unions are inherently socially unfair?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;145173]I do question, though, whether many people who are opposed to same sex marriage would change their views by observing civil unions in practice over time,[/QUOTE]

Political change doesn't happen because the minority of people with strongly held opinions change their minds. It happens because the majority of people now find the arguments on one side more persuasive than the arguments on the other side. At this time the argument that "it will devalue marriage, leading to the destruction of families and the downfall of society" gets a lot of traction. I've talked before about school friends of my child raised in families with homosexual parents - these families have the same concerns and the same issues and same love as the heterosexual families and the single parent families. Most people haven't shared school meetings and birthday parties with such families yet, so they are susceptible to arguments that this is dangerous. When more people have lived with such families as neighbors and friends, the "dangerous slippery slope" argument will lose traction.

[QUOTE=wblipp]but I fear this decision has greatly delayed the death of controversy on the issue.[/QUOTE]

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on Friday. Sunday's paper contains news of a push for a state Constitutional Convention. There was already a collection of special interests with pro-convention agenda, but it was a dead horse. This may breathe new life into the issue.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux]So when you say that in a few years people would see that it has no distinctions, I think you are quite mistaken.[/QUOTE]

In Connecticut, civil unions have the same rights and privileges as marriages. So there are already no distinctions in the matter of law. As mentioned above, such de-facto families without legal standing have been my friends and neighbors all through the raising of our children - most of these children are recent college graduates now. In my experience, they are just families. I stand by my "no distinction" analysis based on limited but long term personal experience.