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 (132558)	3/20/2001 8:31:12 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

From a legal standpoint, it may be discrimination to not allow for a legal union to occur. ~SB~

To: Neocon who wrote (132558)	3/21/2001 1:35:43 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

There are already legal means by which two parties may construct these bonds. When we allow simple declarations to replace the law in the instances you mention, we simply are creating a brand of marriage, one based on whim. That is a fundamental perversion of marriage. Ten men should be able to “marry” in your version of “civil union” and there is absolutely no reason at all why they ought not have this right. Again, if two widows want so much to bind themselves legally, they have the right to do it and ought not seek a de facto redefinition of marriage to exercise that right. Marriage is directly linked to human biological identity. It is a reflection of who we are, every one of us.