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: Gordon A. Langston who wrote (421120)	7/1/2003 10:56:53 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

I think that some matters are clearly destructive, such as sexual depredations against minors. Others are too harmless to make into matters of law, like bestiality, but too absurd to raise to a certain level: obviously, there is not the mental or social standing necessary to marry a dog. I would say that a balancing of rights should prevent burdening private householders from having to give lodging to homosexual tenants, if it is against their conscience, but that homosexuals would be protected when the housing did not have an intimate element, but was normally on the market. I think that the state is within its rights to discriminate against homosexuals in the matter of marriage, as long as the practical results are not discriminatory. Issues like gay adoption will likely be fought out over social science, bringing it to bear on what the best interests of the children involved might require. I would say that, in the end, it is likely to be allowed, on the sound basis that it is better to be raised in a non- traditional family than in an orphanage..........