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: Rambi who wrote (71410)	8/3/2003 9:54:45 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

My point is that the government has to tread very, very carefully when it decides to deny something to a group. When it actively decides to deny something to a group, yes. But I don't consider granting things to some people to be the same as denying them to others. Granting tax credits to taxpayers who have children isn't the same thing as denying tax credits to childless couples. Paying for a canal in Louisiana isn't the same as denying funds for a canal in Oregon. Denial has to be active. The marriage law isn't.

To: Rambi who wrote (71410)	8/3/2003 10:00:36 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I am on the opposite side from you with regards to children raised by gays but agree that it will be years before we begin to be able to tell. We're agreed on the lack of information, yes. Two points. One: is it in the best interests of the children to put them into situations where we have no idea what the consequeic will be for a generation? The New Math was bad enough, but that was only one area of life for about five years. I don't like making guinia pigs of children. Two: In the five thousand or so years of recorded history, you would think that if homosexual parentage were as good for children as hetereosexual, you would think that at least one major culture would have adopted or accepted it. Even the Greeks, who had a highly lenient attitude toward homosexuality, didn't accept homosexual marraige, and as far as I can tell didn't have long term homosexual cohabitation relationships. If this relationship worked for society and children, I think some civilization would have adopted it. That fact that none has stongly suggests -- doesn't prove, no, I agree, but strongly suggests -- that it is not a good thing for societies.