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: Dayuhan who wrote (17641)	4/27/2000 8:38:00 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Steven, Culture is like a wool blanket which surrounds a nation. When you tug on one string, it can have broader reaching effects then what you see on the surface. A nation of people is a system codified by laws. A nation has an obligation and right to standardize our culture through laws which support what it see's as positive behavior to survive and prosper. Marriage between a man and a women has been viewed in this light. Having children grow up with two parents of different sexes helps give the next generation a balanced experience of life. We have not always been successful in this quest, and we struggle with a high divorce rate and out of wedlock births constantly. But the goal is there nevertheless. Changing the law to allow homosexual couples to marry could have a rippling effect where marriage loses some of it's special meaning. This in turn might cause the the divorce rate or cohabitation without marriage levels to rise. On balance though, I could accept a change in our culture and allow same sex marriage if the majority of Americans desired it. However, whenever the issue has been brought to a vote, it has been turned down by a relatively large majority of people. You say you're against animal and human marriage. And are also against interfamily marriage. Yet, the reasons you give are just as debatable as the reasons I am against same sex marriage. When cultural changes of this magnitude take place, it is wise to have the consent of the people. Rather than force the people to accept cultural change against their will. Getting married isn't a right. It's a ceremony, (recognized by the state) which is largely built around the principles of religious doctrine. How you decide to behave in the sexual realm is your choice. You can choose to behave anyway you wish. But you don't have a right for others to recognize that behavior as equal to an already ingrained cultural norm. The race card you keep tossing out in an effort to support your position is completely different. Race isn't a choice. Although gays have a strong desire for a certain type of sexual behavior, as do heterosexuals. It's still a choice. In the same way as I have a choice to be monogamous, to become a priest, engage in anal, oral, beasteality or incest. Sexual behavior is a choice. Now, you could argue degrees of choice, and that it is extremely difficult to control the urges we have to engage in sexual ways. And I would agree with that. But in the final analysis, it is a choice. That's why attempting to use the race card is a red herring. Now, let's look at some real world practical applications which are likely to occur if same sex marriage is adopted throughout the land. There are laws on the books which support marriage in it's current form. Tax laws, medical benefits, the passing on of social security, child custody, college dorm privileges and many more. When you reward a behavior, then loosen the strings regarding how to define that behavior, abuse will likely occur. How many slick college kids do you think will claim they're homosexual and get married just to obtain the privileges of dorm married life? (Then simply divorce when it's convenient). How many will do it for health care benefits, to obtain housing in the case of the military. To receive social security etc. The answer is; we don't know, but I will bet abuses will occur. Defining a man and a women is relatively easy at it relates to law and marriage. Defining law based on the type of sexual act you engage in is not. Marriage is an important construct which binds a nation by supporting families made up of both sexes. To suggest otherwise, is to ignore the "system" around which we live. Michael