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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (13015)	10/19/2003 5:41:46 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793685

Even so, they all consider gay marriage an uncrossable line. That's a tough barrier. Personally, I can't see any point in marriage other than for the protection of children and even that now seems redundant given that we have laws to protect children, to the extent that we are able to protect them, whether their parents are married or not. I'm not much of a traditionalist so I can't relate to all the hysteria. "Two tuxedos at the altar" seems weird to me, too, but then so does a tuxedo and a gown, in many cases. Marriage is for fresh-faced kids who want to focus on raising a family.

To: Neeka who wrote (13015)	10/19/2003 9:57:51 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793685

same-sex marriage is something else I can't see why. If you believe in an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, I don't see how you can presume that the government has the right to tell people who they can marry. Institutions, no matter how sacred, do not have rights. Individuals do. Unless someone can prove that gay marriage will infringe upon their individual rights, why not just let 'em do what they want to do? Who are they hurting? I think it's pretty damned weird, myself, but what I think shouldn't be permitted to infringe on anyone's rights. If I thought an individual should be locked up without trial, that would not be cause to deny that person's rights. If 99.9% of Americans thought the same thing, that would still not be cause for denial of rights. The will of the majority is not sufficient cause to deny any individual a guaranteed right.