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: Johannes Pilch who wrote (132665)	3/21/2001 2:32:16 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Actually, the greater danger comes from your method of argumentation. Legal discrimination must have a rational basis that recognizable within a framework of religious neutrality. If I say that the state has a compelling interest against normalization, to avoid the further erosion of sexual norms, with more obvious harmful social consequences, that is the sort of rationale that is kosher. Even supposing homosexuality is a perversion, we do not outlaw all perversions, so long as they are socially harmless. If the marriage contract is indistinguishably a means of establishing a household, we have, in fact, no basis for discrimination merely on the assertion of perversion, any more than we make intimate inquiries into the habits of heterosexual couples. I want to set aside that purely "secular" aspect, and raise marriage to a higher level, affirming the privileged status of heterosexual union as encouraging the foundation and maintenance of families, particularly those originating from the original union.

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (132665)	3/21/2001 7:35:06 PM
From: Little Joe	Respond to of 769667

Johannes: "So then homosexual unions and practically any other perversion of human identity are made possible by the logic that makes your civil unions possible. It is just another Pandora's box opening upon society." Interesting. Suppose people want to practice polygamy, which is illegal in every state. Suppose that they are engaged in loving realationships and suppose that they raise their children in a loving and caring environment? Should society accomodate this? Suppose, you are discriminated against by people and they express moral disapproval because you and your spouse engage in sado masochistic sex and you choose to let people know about it. Should society protect you from discrimination? After all, who is hurt but the parties involved? Suppose you are into spouse swapping. Again consensual with all concerned. Suppose friends and neighbors disapprove of your conduct. Should the government validate your choice of lifestyle. I am sure there are lots of examples I haven't thought of. But I think we could be going down a slippery slope. Littlejoe