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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (28706)	2/10/2004 4:12:55 AM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 793927

I think it will hurt a good many people if they feel it has been imposed upon them by judicial fiat, without their consent. How do you mean "hurt"? I'm not talking about hurt feelings, I'm talking about quantifiable negative impact. We don't have the right not to have our feelings hurt. Changes to a major building block of society such as marriage should be debated, not just imposed. How would allowing gay people to marry "change marriage"? It wouldn't change my marriage, or yours, or anybody else's. It would just allow a few more people to marry. That wouldn't change any other marriage. Judicially extending marriage to gays on equal rights grounds would surely open the door to polygamy, which I believe would be very harmful to women, and culturally shocking to Americans. I think adult women are entitled to decide what would or would not harm them, and I don't think very many would choose to participate in polygamous marriages. Equal rights for women was a cultural shock to Americans. So was the idea of civil rights for people with dark skin. They got used to it. The US Government is tasked to protect the rights of individual citizens, not to prevent shock to those of delicate sensibility.