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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bald Eagle who wrote (1786)	1/19/2001 9:33:18 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

<<So, are we to start changing the meanings of words >> I don't think your problem is really a resistance to the evolution of language. Of course if there are legal restrictions on who gets to marry whom, the dictionary is going to reflect this. Change the law, the next edition of the dictionary gets updated. If I can find a dictionary definition of marriage that doesn't stipulate the sex of the participants will you open your mind to a new paradigm? You ask "Why are homosexuals so eager to take part in a heterosexual tradition?" I think many homosexuals have explained why they want to be able to marry. I think if I take the time to convey the explanations I've heard to you, it won't make a bit of difference, because you don't care why. There are homosexuals to whom it is deeply important. They believe it will make their lives happier. They feel sentimental about it. They see it as a sacramental thing. They want their friends to celebrate their union and commitment under God and/or the state with them. They feel that the very ritual, or sacrament, of marriage will deepen and intensify their commitment as it has that of so many heterosexual couples. They think it will make their lives easier in various practical or financial ways. They see no reason they should be disadvantaged financially over you in our society because they love a person of their own sex and you love one of the opposite. They want to be treated like everyone else, and have their partnership respected, and not feel lesser and excluded. They want to be permitted to stand by the bedside when their beloved partner is dying just as you will be permitted to do that if your partner dies instead of being told they are not family members and thus have no legal status. I haven't made a study of it, but off the top of my head, that's what occurs to me or what I recall. The reasons are sentimental, financial, practical, psychological and deeply personal. And you still haven't told us why you are ready and willing to deny to others the right to marry whom they wish.

To: Bald Eagle who wrote (1786)	1/19/2001 10:47:14 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 82486

When I say I'm someone's "slave" now, I probably mean something different than the word meant originally, no matter how different the definition's details. In fact, you can find the new meaning right along side the old one. How many times have you called, or someone else called a "whiteboard" a "chalkboard"? I think you know by context what they meant. If a man introduces you to the man he married, I doubt you'd be confused. Actually, that is probably why it is called "domestic partners" instead of "gay marriage" to reduce the culture shock to some dictionary purists. It is an equivalent institutional relationship like a GED and a high school education. Would a completely different name for the new institution bother you (that is, if you think too many people will be confused by the new relationship)?