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 (72065)	8/8/2003 9:32:45 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Gay nups just might save institution By Leonard Pitts Jr. So what is it you have against gay marriage? I'm not talking to the guy next to you. He doesn't have a problem with it. No, I'm talking to you, who is fervently opposed. The number of folks who agree with you is up sharply since June, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Texas. As recently as May, 49 percent of us supported some form of gay marriage, according to the Gallup Organization. The figure has since dropped to just 40 percent. That's a precipitous decline. So what's the problem? What is it that bothers you about gay people getting married? Don't read me that part in Leviticus where homosexuality is condemned. I mean, that same book of the Gospel mandates the death penalty for sassy kids and fortune tellers, by which standard the Osbourne children and Miss Cleo should have been iced a long time ago. I read The Book. I believe The Book. But I also know that it's impossible to take literally every passage in The Book, unless you want to wind up in prison or a mental ward. So don't hide behind the Bible. Let's just be honest here, you and me. Why do you oppose gay marriage, really? It just feels wrong to you, doesn't it? At some visceral level, it just seems to offend something fundamental. Hey, I understand. It's one of the emotional sticking points for us heterosexual types, this primeval "ick" factor where homosexuality is concerned. I won't try to talk you out of it. I will, though, point out that once upon a time, the same gut-level sense of wrong - and for that matter, the same Bible - was used to keep Jews from swimming in the community pool, women from voting and black people from riding at the front of the bus. All those things once felt as profoundly offensive to some people as gay marriage does to you right now. The issue has been vaulted to the forefront in the last few days. Political conservatives have been galvanized by it. President Bush says he wants to "codify" marriage as a heterosexual union. And the Vatican has told Catholic legislators that they must oppose laws giving legal standing to gay unions, unions the church describes as "gravely immoral." Which is funny, given the level of sexual morality the church has demonstrated lately. Anyway, the reasoning seems to be that gay people will damage or cheapen the sanctity of marriage and that this can't be allowed because marriage is the foundation of our society. I agree that marriage - and I mean legal, not common law - is an institution of vital importance. It stabilizes communities, socializes children, helps create wealth. It is, indeed, our civilization's bedrock. But you know something? That bedrock has been crumbling for years, without homosexual help. We don't attach so much importance to marriage anymore, do we? These days, we marry less, we marry later, we divorce more. And cohabitation, whether as a prelude to, or a substitute for, marriage, has gone from novelty to norm. We say we shack up because we don't need a piece of paper to tell us we are in love. I've always suspected it was actually because we fear the loss of freedom. Or because we're scared to bet on forever. I'm not trying to beat up cohabitators. A long time ago, I was one. But it strikes me as intriguing, instructive and poignant that gay couples so determinedly seek what so many of us scorn, are so ready to take the risk many of us refuse, find such value in an institution we have essentially declared valueless. There's something oddly inspiring in their struggle to achieve the social sanction whose importance many of us long ago dismissed. So tell me again why it is you don't want them to have that? I mean, yeah, some people say they are a threat to the sanctity of marriage. But I'm thinking they might just be its salvation. * Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald, One Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla., 33132; e-mail: lpitts@herald.com.

To: Lane3 who wrote (72065)	8/8/2003 9:55:42 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

I was only a child in the sixties, and I was born and raised in California, where no one cared about state's rights anyway. :-) I don't believe I ever heard my parents mention them. They were very liberal, so pesky things like state's rights probably didn't seem very important to them in the great scheme of things. I have certainly noticed the phenomenon of coded words- after all I see it all the time on SI- but I hadn't really thought about it in terms of what I support- I suppose I probably had acted upon it, on an intuitive level, but I never really put it into words. (For example, when writing about Israel, I am very careful to express my ideas that we shouldn't be giving them as much aid as we are in terms that don't attract certain nameless people who don't want to give aid to Israel because they are CLEARLY antiSemitic people). I loved the way you articulated this.

To: Lane3 who wrote (72065)	8/8/2003 11:28:29 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The fact that some people use a concept for their own uses doesn't invalidate the concept. I happen to believe in states rights for reasons having nothing to do with segregation, but because it is clear to me that the more remote from the voters a government decision is made, the more likely it is to be abusive and tyranical. I oppose bussing because it perpetuates discrimination. The fact that other people support these concerns for other motives doesn't bother me, and I certainly don't feel "fooled" any more than I feel "fooled" when I advocate the schools teaching students how to write and somebody goes off and uses those skills to write The Anarchist's Handbook, The Turner Diaries, and romance novels. A concept is not responsible for the the people who believe in it.

To: Lane3 who wrote (72065)	8/8/2003 1:46:12 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"I'm not suggesting, as you clearly recognize, that everyone who supports the amendment is a bigot." I don't like "code" words either. They are typically used to try to dress up a sow's ear. The circumstances aren't always what they are presented to be either. When you have opposing sides that are both speaking in code and through an agenda veil it becomes even more of a struggle to find clerity on issues. Let's cut to the quick and identify the underlying issues. What are the sow's ears that are being dressed and what are the agendas that are being veiled. You simply need to take a contra view of each side. What does side A say about side B and visa versa. Each side is pretty good at exposing the other. There are bigots involved, but not everyone on one side is acting out of "hate." There are agendas involved but not everyone wants to destroy "family values."