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: DMaA who wrote (28264)	2/6/2004 9:06:30 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794490

I figure a lot of gay women who are going to live together all their lives anyway will do it, and the stereotypical randy tomcat gay man won't. When I was a kid, my grandmother rented out the "little house" behind her home to the other type of stereotypical gay male couple, one of the men a hairdresser and the other a closeted career military clerk employed at Keesler Air Force Base. "Everybody knew" and nobody cared. And this was in Biloxi Mississippi back when black people couldn't even swim on the beach much less eat at a white restaurant. Even my husband, who used to be Libertarian but is morphing into Religious Right, wouldn't really care as long as they don't try to change marriage to better suit the preference for gay men to keep having multiple partners. I have no idea how they'd accomplish that, but expect it will be over women's dead bodies.

To: DMaA who wrote (28264)	2/6/2004 9:13:24 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 794490

It is anything but simple. I agree with that. If one accepts how marriage has evolved, how it is currently practiced, then it's hard to draw a line at gays sharing the wealth. Right now I can marry on my death bed some nice young fellow who's down on his luck and whom I'd like to help out and my pension will be paid to him as my survivor for the rest of his life, fifty or seventy years or so. That's the way the system works and people use it for just such "corrupt" purposes. It's really hard to look the other way on something like that while concurrently deny more traditional marriage benefits to longtime life partners. I can't draw that line. If we had the will and the means to somehow restore marriage to what it was "supposed" to be, that would be different. But we don't. So excluding just gays from the trough is impossible for me to justify. I agree with LB that the country is not ready for it yet, but it will get ready sooner or later because nothing else save the total reinvention of marriage makes sense.