Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: DMaA who wrote (86977)	11/22/2004 11:14:15 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) of 793592

Marriage is a foundational institution. It's impossible to predict the consequences of radically redefining the parameters of it. What exactly are you afraid of? Surely you can give some little hint? Two individuals want to establish a formally recognized union, one that has no demonstrable impact on anyone but themselves. How does an adjustment in race, gender, or sexual preference “radically redefine” that basic parameter. But at least it should be incumbent on the radicals to make the argument that the benefits of the change outweigh the risk. Why? I would say that one of the basic principles of a free society is that the burden of proof should be on those who wish to restrict freedom, not those who wish to assert it. It's fair and we want it isn't an argument any more than a tantrum is a negotiation tool. How about “we think it’s yucky so you can’t do it”? Is that an argument?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next