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: Lane3 who wrote (71347)	8/3/2003 12:15:07 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Of course they were discriminatory. If they hadn't been intended that way- they would not say "only people of the opposite sex can marry". And K, let's not forget the miscegenation laws. Lots of the prejudice in our society gets worked out in laws that seem innocuous- like the marriage laws. Miscegenation laws are gone, it is time to get rid of the Male/female requirement. If it were designed to be discriminatory, that requirement would not be there. I say we can still discriminate on the basis of age, because we have the compelling reason of consent. I see very few reasons to discriminate against other unions, though.