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 (72011)	8/7/2003 11:13:41 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I am sorry you are having a hard time grasping the argument" (Please don't! You're misrepresenting me!) ____________________ I am not having a hard time grasping the "argument". I am simply telling you that I find no relevance in it. The question is: Should people be discriminated against in a secular society, on the basis of their sexual orientation--as to their right to pledge a marriage union. Marriage is not a requirement for intercourse or reproduction. It is not a necessary condition for these things. Reproduction and the generation of offspring does not rely on a legal contract for its success. We had reproduction long before we had marriage contracts. Therefore, the "fitness" of people to reproduce does not bear logically on the question of whether or not certain people may be discriminated against in their application for a license. Nor are any other "inferior" or "superior" conditions relevant to the argument about the right to pledge a marriage union. The right to marry does not depend on the fitness to reproduce. Nor does reproduction depend on the existence of marriage laws. Certainly society may do whatever it chooses to do for whatever reasons. But reproductive fitness is not a good rationale for discrimination, IMHO.