Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction 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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Cogito who wrote (53115)	11/7/2006 12:20:54 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) of 90947

I'm against changing the definition of marriage period, but I do think it could be legitimately changed by legislation and if it were to be changed thats the way it should be done. The imposition of changes by judicial fiat I am totally opposed to, though the gay marriage proponents don't care how it gets forced on society. The gay marriage proponents should be trying to get referendums passed on its behalf instead of trying to coerce society. I still haven't figured out how gay marriage is a threat to anybody, though. It wouldn't be compulsory. It wouldn't stop heterosexuals from getting married. I keep hearing that we need to defend the institution of marriage, but I don't see how expanding it would really harm it. Among objections - in no particular order: 1) It's a primarily bogus issue affecting a tiny sliver of society, most of whom really just want to game the system and extend spousal insurance/retirement benefits to a good friend/lover. It's bogus because most gay people don't have any desire to marry - I base that on public expressions I've heard. Most gay people who "want" to marry have no intention of observing marriage the same way the majority does - that is by being faithful to a partner. Gay marriage would lead to large numbers of sham marriages for the sake of insurance/retirement benefits - in fact most gay marriages would be sham marriages. 2) Changing the traditional definition of marriage opens a door wide to polygamy, group marriage, and down the slippery slope, trans-species and child marriage. Most supporters of gay marriage acknowledge this and display hostility to the institution of marraige (that's one of the reasons they like the idea - they know its a mockery of the institution), though hypocritically they don't act on their beliefs and renounce their own marriages. 3) I think gay marriage proponents intend down the line to use gays as a club against traditional religious teachings - denoucing the Bible as hate literature, attacking churches tax exemptions, charitable deductions, use of public property (banning for example the use of parks for church picnics) etc. Just as the Boy Scouts are being targeted for not allowing an unmarried young gay guy to be a scoutmaster.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next