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: Poet who wrote (21526)	8/11/2001 6:49:49 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Go pull your Lasagna and enjoy it. When you do get back, here's intellectual food to go with your nicely filled stomach. I feel most comfortable with the idea of two people. I think a lot of people would agree. But then, a lot of people feel most comfortable with male-female marriage only. You're promoting a view of marriage which makes a lot of people uncomfortable. So I think you're not on the strongest ground using personal comfort as a valid basis for deciding what relationships should and should not be recognized and supported. Anything larger is, I would think, inherently unstable in an emotional sense. Again, a lot of people would think that same sex relationships are inherently unstable emotionally. Isn't it really up to the individuals to decide what is emotionally stable for them? If one man and two women believe they can live together in an emotionally stable relationship, why should society deny them the right to try? I sense that you are relying on justifications for your position opposing plural marriage which you would reject if others relied on them to justify their position opposing same sex marriage. Or am I wrong here?