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: Neocon who wrote (71244)	8/1/2003 4:27:10 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

So do you propose torturing people to find out what their motive is? Of course not. There's no reason why you have to torture a couple in their eighties to determine that there are no kiddies in their future. In any event, it's none anyone's business what anyone's motive is when it comes to civil marriages. But there's no reason why Bush, while he's in the process of defining marriage, has to single out homosexuals. He can use his bully pulpit to denounce all the other non-child-producing marriages, as well. He said he had a bunch of lawyers working on it. Let's clean the whole thing up while we're at it, not just find a way to legitimize excluding gays. Indeed, one cannot get married by a priest in this country, and, I suspect, others, without pre- nuptial counseling to ensure that the parties understand what is expected, so I would say that they are doing their bit for well- grounded marriage. Yes, I believe that is so. Religious marriage ceremonies enable different couples and different subcultures to define marriage however they choose. And it enables organized religions to make and enforce their own rules. This, IMO, is a good thing. The Pope can keep his nose out of how non-Catholics ground their marriages. It is non- issue, and has no bearing on the question of homosexual unions....... I strongly disagree that it has no bearing. Many of those who are so strongly objecting to homosexual unions are arguing that marriage is about raising families. It is dishonest and hypocritical to make that argument while celebrating or at least overlooking other marriages that have no intent to produce kids. You're right that it does not speak to the validity or desirability of homosexual unions, but it says buckets about the "thinking" of many of those who are objecting to them. They need to come up with a more cogent argument. The only arguments I've heard are: 1. Yuck. 2. Marriage is for raising families. 3. We've always done it this way. 4. God said so. I can relate to the first one. If that's how people feel, they should just say so, not try to dance around it. As for the third and fourth, well, you know how much weight I put on them. Which leaves the third, which is the one I'm arguing is dishonest. And unfair.