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: Neocon who wrote (132553)	3/20/2001 6:41:54 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Neo and thread, here's a handy tool. Add a google toolbar to your browser. I've found it very convenient. toolbar.google.com

To: Neocon who wrote (132553)	3/20/2001 6:51:19 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Well, Neocon, I am arguing against the notion implicit in your acceptance of Nadine Carroll’s post wherein she stated What matters is that people could legally form a household with another person and grant that person legal rights in inheritance and medical decisions that have been traditionally associated with marriage. I aimed to show you that there is a reason why these decisions have been “traditionally associated with marriage” and why society has no logical basis to ipso facto create, by default, marriage that has no basis in human biology. There is a reason why this sort of relationship is accepted only between one man and one woman such that when two people are thus joined, benefits that accrue to one automatically accrue to the other. Marriage (whether called "marriage" or anything else) is but a civil recognition of human biological fact. There is no basis to construct a “marriage-like” legal entity based on homosexual whim. And were we to do such a thing in order to accommodate homosexuals, then we may as well accommodate polygamists and those oriented toward coupling with animals. (ding)