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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (18519)	6/18/2003 6:22:52 PM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21614

<< always suspected that people who were married by a Justice of the Peace, or a Captain of a ship weren't really married. Does that also mean that atheists can never get married?>> Regardless of who gives the ceremony, Marriage has both its inception and basis in religion. Now the inception of my marriage actually took place in a bar <g> but the very concept and foundation of marriage is a religious one. Can atheists marry? Sure, why not. That doesn't detract from the the fact that religion is the inception of the concept of marriage. With that in mind I can't think of a religion (mainstream) that sanctions same sex marriages. <<You must have a significant number of persons that live as same sex couples. 50%?>> Madison is higher than average but not even close to 50%. The problem is that it wont take 50% more participants to devastate the system financially. States are already slashing budgets and much in the form of medical benefits in an effort to recover from the party we had in the 90's. Adding more participants will do nothing but fuel more cuts and layoffs. <<I would find a way around it I'm sure you would give it your best effort>> Oh I would....and in the end I'd win. I have every reason to discriminate during the hiring process. The very act of taking applications and doing interviews is discriminating. You are trying to make a gut call based on who you believe the best fit for YOUR business is. The definition of discriminate does a part that says Using Good Judgement. So one could call me a discriminating employer and not have it be a negative term. Maybe hiring a cross dressing transvestite to work our front desk isn't what I believe is in the best interests of the company. Maybe not hiring that person made me a discriminating employer in a good way meaning I hire people who I feel can relate to my customers and advance the company the most. Now if I lived in San Francisco (from what I've heard) I don't have the right to use that (clearly an appearance issue as well as a distraction for at least a while) during the hiring process which is a process based on discriminating the best candidate for your company. In two words - Thats fcked <<If you believe that "sharing DNA" is the only defining part of marriage relationship>> Clearly I don't. I've been married for almost 15 years now and I've never been divorced nor has my wife. I know what a relationship (and making it work) is all about and its not always a picnic. Wedlock is work but it has it rewards too (though off the top of my head I can't think of any at the moment <g>). The point is its still marriage or wedlock right? Main Entry: mar·riage* Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer- Function: noun Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry Date: 14th century 1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family I see no mention of horn yodeling <g>