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: Brumar89 who wrote (28559)	2/10/2004 4:26:03 AM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 793843

Sure, strange, odd, different. That's all <horrified gasp> queer means. It was bait, as I said, and bait has to be dressed up a little. Traditional meanings change all the time, and society as a whole is no worse for it. The Government is tasked to defend the rights of individual citizens, not to maintain the traditional meaning of institutions. There was a time when allowing women to work outside the home was seen as an assault on the traditional meaning of an institution. In some places it still is. I don’t see that our society is any worse off for having made that particular change, and I don’t see how it will be any worse off if we let a few gay people get married. I really don’t see what all the fuss is about. Who will be hurt if we let these people do this thing? If it makes them happy, and there’s no negative impact on anybody else, why not let them do it? Where’s the objection, really, unless you’re Jerry Falwell and you think God sends terrorists to blow up buildings in countries that tolerate faggotry. I wonder if Jerry has ever asked himself why God hasn’t sent a legion or two of evil ones to rain aircraft on Amsterdam. Probably not. You’d have to think a little to ask yourself that question, and thinking isn’t ol’ Jerry’s strong suit.