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: Slugger who wrote (13129)	10/20/2003 2:54:39 AM
From: Neeka	Respond to of 793689

We are simply two parents who don't want our daughter to be raised in a culture in which young men are taught that women have less intrinsic worth than men - or that the most basic unit of society can somehow be complete without a woman. Speaking from a woman's point of view, this reminds me of the Middle East and the way women are seen....or rather not seen......there. It is a very good point, and the concept is totally unacceptable and unworkable in modern society. M

To: Slugger who wrote (13129)	10/20/2003 3:40:04 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793689

Sticking to a "dual-sex marriage only" agenda doesn't preserve the value of women, nor the sanctity of the institution. Many dual-sex marriages do a splendid job of devalueing both on their own. • Men who marry "arm trophies" just for that specific reason • Women who marry for money (in which case, the women devalue themselves) • Marriages that stay together "only for the kids", even though partners despise each other • Dual-sex marriages where one partner is gay but wants/is pressured to keep up appearances • "Arranged" marriages (...the latter two being more rare but still taking place). In the instance of a "two-tux" wedding, women aren't in the picture beforehand, thus the act of performing the rite of confirmation does nothing further to impart any sense of (lesser) value upon women. In light of all the above, committing to a lasting union with the person you truly love is (at the very least) a bit more &#151 honest? "I don't understand how you can go from the "pursuit of happiness" straight to the right of a person to marry who (or even what) they choose to marry."

To: Slugger who wrote (13129)	10/20/2003 4:11:57 AM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 793689

I don't understand how you can go from the "pursuit of happiness" straight to the right of a person to marry who (or even what) they choose to marry. What could be more intrinsic to the pursuit of happiness than the right to marry the person you want to marry? The government has no right to constrain any individual from a desired course of action unless that course of action would violate the rights of other individuals. That's why we call it a free country, isn't it? There is only one meaningful question here, to me: would a marriage between two men violate any legal right of any other individual. If it doesn't, it's none of my business, none of your business, and certainly none of the government's business.