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: one_less who wrote (71868)	8/6/2003 3:43:35 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

It was deceitful and vain, but pardonably so. After all, you are a dad. Who wants to look like a schmuck in front of his girls?

To: one_less who wrote (71868)	8/6/2003 4:20:41 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Some of us see the marvelous order in the universe, and think that it attests to some kind of Deity in which is rooted a cosmic order. Others look at the chaos around the edges, and think that they discern patterns created by accident, masking the fundamental disorder of the universe. The answer is not obvious, and both views are plausible on their face. For those who think that there is a cosmic order, it is reasonable to infer moral implications from the visible world, insofar as everything has a purpose and proper use. This can be naive and somewhat overdrawn, or critical and suggestive, even to those who do not really buy it. This moral order is necessarily hierarchical--- some things are better, some worse, although the worse may not be inherently bad. In a liberal democracy, the majority is allowed to prevail unless it imposes something which is sectarian and dogmatic on society. However, if the moral judgment is reasonable and philosophical, it does not violate the First Amendment. Also, as long as the proposition passes muster, the varied motives of the electorate are not relevant. That is, even if a number of people vote based on the Bible, it would not matter as long as the proposition depended upon a Natural Law argument. Therefore, if it is necessary to prevent a single state from changing the definition of marriage, I support the idea of a Constitutional amendment to define marriage. If it not necessary, then not. Far from denouncing it, it seems to me wise to examine all of the legal terrain pertaining to the issue........