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: RON BL who wrote (132987)	3/23/2001 1:34:02 AM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

Let's see, you seem to imply a direct link from homosexuality to promiscuity to child/family abandonment to child pornography to pediophilism. You should be a long jumper! You'd surely set world records. Some of the most stable, loving, long term relationships I've seen have been between gay partners. Some of the most loving, giving, open people I know are gay. To equate a link between homosexuality and the problems you cite (abandonment, pediophiles, child explotation) is as presumptively and offensively generalistic as those who assume that blacks are lazy, stupid, and welfare-bound. All the gay community is asking is to be treated with the same rights and privileges that are extended to the rest of America. In CA, there is a topical case of the woman who was mauled to death by a lawyer's dog in her apartment building. To me, it seems clear that a wrongful death claim is merited versus the scummy lawyer couple who tried to weasel out of their responsibility by claiming the woman attacked first. However, the dead woman's parter now needs to fight for her ability to pursue this claim, because of our ludicrous laws preventing equal rights for partners. They had been in a relationship that spanned a number of years, I think at least 7. Why can't these couples enjoy the same rights as heterosexual married couples? Because you and/or others are uncomfortable with homosexuality? It's funny how the most judgemental people are supposed followers of Jesus Christ. Did they 'get' His message at all? And this 'WWJD' (What Would Jesus Do?) - I know what he would do; he'd kick the ass of every judgmental, bigoted, hypocritical supposed 'Christian' who practices this dogma of hate. I don't know you, Ron, and am certainly not putting you into the above categories, but I have seen their existence. Signs like 'God Hates Fags' and 'AIDS is God's Retribution' are sure to lead some people to a pretty big surprise come Judgement Day.

To: RON BL who wrote (132987)	3/23/2001 9:14:48 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Marriage has also existed for the protection of society at large. Marriage was considered a taming influence on the male to help curb the lecherous beast. I agree with you that that was probably part of the intent. I included only the two--children and family mergers--that seem to be to still remotely viable as marriage has evolved. Certainly it's in society's interest to deal with the power of that particular "beast." I just don't see how marriage is a particularly effective tool in that regard. By marriage I'm talking about the legal state that results from the formalities of a civil process. I'm not talking about the relationship between two people that may or may not coincide with that legal state, only the legal state. Nor am I talking about the love, tradition, religiosity, and character that the parties bring to the relationship. I'm just talking about the legal state. I think that it has been distorted badly even before we throw in the complications of homosexual marriages. My point is not to advocate or deny them, only that the institution of marriage is already hopelessly screwed up. What does the legal state of marriage mean in this time and place? It means a difference in income and estate taxes. It means a difference in insurance and credit rating. It means that a breakup takes more effort than one person moving his or her stuff out of the house. That's all it means legally. Anything else a couple values in a marriage is brought to the relationship by the parties and could exist with or without the legal process. Ron, you could be living on the same block with couples who are not legally married. If they present themselves to society as a married couple, how would you ever know they weren't legally married? They could have some legal documents drawn up to handle their assets, their children's support, power of attorney, etc. independent of any marriage certificate. When was the last time that anyone required you to produce a marriage certificate? Ever? The law treats unmarried couples and unmarried parents much the same. There's palimony on a break-up. There's custody judgment by a court whether or not the parents are married. The only real difference the legal certificate makes is with a couple of business transactions. The loveliness we associate with marriage can exist totally independent of that legal state. The ugliness you talk about--the rapes, promiscuity, disease, absent fathers, etc. can also occur where there is a marriage certificate. Perhaps it's less likely, perhaps not, but the certificate is no defense against those things. I think it's about time we realize the rift between our ideal of marriage and the legal considerations and figured out what, if anything, to do about it. The rift is permanent, at least as far as the eye can see. Pretending it's not there or that it can revert is playing the ostrich. Karen