SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Neocon who wrote (72001)8/7/2003 8:51:59 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 82486
 
I think that is legitimate.

I think the argument that produced your rule is legitimate, too. Not necessarily, better, but legitimate. :)

I just have a problem with the rule. I don't see why it is necessary to establish the rule given that it is hurtful to some while being unnecessary. After all, for want of a rule, it's not like billions of people are going to rush off to fill the vacuum by becoming homosexuals. Insisting on a rule to codify the supremacy of one over the other seems like piling on to me. It legitimizes and gives aid and comfort to those who would bully and suppress. That may not be your intent, but it's the natural effect. We don't go around making the point that it is better to be sighted than blind or ambulatory rather than confined to a wheelchair. It's not nice and it's unnecessary.

the electorate prefers to reserve marriage to heterosexuals, even while trying to accommodate homosexuals with civil union

Do you not see a conflict between supporting the Constitutional amendment while supporting the establishment of a civil union option? I realize that, in practice, they can coexist. I have no problem with having separate institutions of marriage and civil union. In fact, I proposed that way early in this discussion. But there is a big difference in the tenor of the messages. I doubt that many of those who advocate the amendment want to also create civil unions or that many of the proponents of civil unions would also endorse the amendment. You could probably count the number who advocate both without taking off your shoes. Is your read of that different from mine?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News