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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dayuhan who wrote (17591)4/26/2000 10:06:00 AM
From: greenspirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Monkeys have been trained in sign language and could give their consent to marriage. Supporting interfamily marriage between mother/son, father/daughter is far less dangerous to society than male on male sex, given the horror of AIDS.

Why you would be against these groups marrying is out of alignment with your stated "rights of any individual infringed upon" philosophy.

Marriage has always meant between man and women. Why can't gay couples simply live with one another without marrying? Or signing some other type of document describing their commitment to one-another?

I won't address the "race card" thing you keep trying to drag into every cultural issue. It goes deeper than being a cultural taboo. But you know that.

If the INS is busting down doors and shoving automatic rifles in the fact of law abiding citizens, we should end the practice.

Michael



To: Dayuhan who wrote (17591)4/26/2000 3:10:00 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
<<Are the rights of any individual infringed upon by a same-sex marriage?>>

How about a no sex marriage. I have heard it said that so and so is married to his business. Why not redefine marriage to include a man or woman who is committed and devoted to a business entity. It seems like that person should get some of the benefits society affords to opposite sex marriages and wants to afford to same sex marriages. Or not?