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: Augustus Gloop who wrote (18524)	6/18/2003 7:47:19 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21614

Regardless of who gives the ceremony, Marriage has both its inception and basis in religion. Now that's substantially different than what you said earlier. The fact you seem to miss is that marriage is not just another contract, it's a religious contract. And I'm still not sure what you said in either case is true. Marriage can be a religious ceremony, but I certainly don't know whether or not, dragging the female into the cave with club in hand constitutes marriage. It seems reasonable to expect that a form of common law marriage existed prior to the religous ceremony. But what difference does that make in any event? We're talking about ceremonial/common practice/legal inceptions in excess of 3,000 years ago. There were all sorts of religious practices that have generally been discarded. Can atheists marry? Sure, why not. Because you originally said that marriage is a religious contract. It's a civil contract. There is no religious meaning in two atheists getting married. That doesn't detract from the the fact that religion is the inception of the concept of marriage. Sure it does. In a legal sense, if society permits same sex marriages through law, they can. There is no fundamental requirement that laws must be tied to some religous foundation. I think that we could both cite a religion [mainstream] that has prohibited membership or role based on race. I hope that we're not going to carry that forward because it has it's inception in religion. The problem is that it wont take 50% more participants to devastate the system financially. Easy to claim hard to prove. 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. ..... There's no reason to play semantics games with the word "discriminate". There are legal restrictions against certain types of discrimation, e.g., you can't discriminate based on sex. That's illegal. You can discriminate against people that wear brown shoes, that's legal [maybe dumb, but it's legal]. You might even discriminate against women, but claim that it was because she wears brown shoes. You can "win" with such a tactic. Nearly every year I read of a little test of sending a black couple and separately a white couple to rent an apartment. They dress them up the same and they fill out the forms with the same background information. Every year they show that the apartment wasn't available when the black couple applied and was available when the white people. Whether the person leasing the apartment has a "win" strategy or a policy of "discrimination" is a matter of perspective. 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 There's acually lots of things that are not said in the definition. But let's look at "c" ....for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. Two ways to look at that. Marriage itself is founding a two person family. It doesn't say any thing one way or another about sexual orientation. Children? There are heterosexual couples that don't want or can't have children; they aren't precluded from marriage. Plus it's certainly possible for homosexual couples to have children, either through natural birth or adoption. Then there's "a" Marriage....1 a : the state of being married. Don't you just love dictionaries. How much clearer can you get? So far, two out of three of the definition don't say anything at all about sexual orientation. Then there's "b", mentions "husband and wife"...it doesn't say exclusively husband and wife. Notice also nothing in any of the definitions says or implies anything about religion. I see no mention of horn yodeling And I see no mention of sexual orientation. Heterosexual couples have been known to engage in that practice. Then there are the practical problems. Suppose one day your loyal employee, John Doe comes into the office and says he got legally married over the weekend to Bret Smith or maybe Justine Jones. He even shows you the marriage record....You going to ask what is between Bret or Justine's legs? How about if Bret went through a sex change operation...is that a heterosexual or homosexual marriage? If Bret went through a sex change operation and got married to John in a mainstream church is that good enough for you? jttmab