Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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

To: greenspirit who wrote (17597)	4/26/2000 10:03:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Monkeys have been trained in sign language and could give their consent to marriage. It would be a bit difficult to confirm that they knew what they were consenting to. Supporting interfamily marriage between mother/son, father/daughter is far less dangerous to society than male on male sex, given the horror of AIDS. Given that the horror of AIDS is by no means exclusive to homosexuals, this argument could be used to ban marriage altogether. Is a monogamous gay couple any more likely to contract AIDS than a monogamous straight couple? The health risks involved with incest are imposed on the offspring, who have no opportunity to give consent. Homosexual activity is a health risk, but I don't think it's the government's job to tell adults what risks they can choose to take, as long as they are risking only themselves. 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? Why can't you just leave them alone and let them get married if they want to? What's it to you? What business is it of yours, mine, or the governments? 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. The analogy is closer than you like to admit. The "culture" issue is precisely the argument that segregationists used to justify their position. The only difference is that you feel more comfortable with prejudice and government restriction based on sexual preference than you do with prejudice and government restriction based on race. I just don't see what business the government has telling people who they can and can't marry, unless someone aside from the two people involved is going to be adversely affected. And if the idea of gay people marrying offends some, well, wasn't it you that said people don't have the right not to be offended? If they wanted to do it in a school, of course, or any other environment where attendance is compulsory, that would be an entirely different matter...