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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (542837)	2/19/2004 6:22:32 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

This is an illegitimate approach because your requirement for 'reciprocation' ignores an even more fundamental level of reciprocation. To accept marriage we could quite easily add another, more fundamental requirement that not only must the people involved have the ability to agree to the union, but they must also be able to fulfill the agreement, responding to one another in such a way as to most reflect the biological nature of the humans that comprise the society in which they live-- even to potentially uniting themselves in the bodies of new humans. That requirement is most valid and not in the least arbitrary because it is what we are most fundamentally. If the most basic requirement of human reciprocation is ignored, then requirements above it are chosen arbitrarily. What you create here is not marriage, at least not in the most fundamental sense, but something altogether different, with a new basis undergirding it. We may as well form other marriages with yet additional rationales undergirding them. The basis of a marriage between a human and an animal need not be based upon something so trivial as whether an animal can sign a piece of paper. It can be based upon the same rationale that permits a human to own the pet in the first place. Your brand of "reciprocation" is not required because the truly reciprocal and human definition of marriage has been destroyed.

To: Neocon who wrote (542837)	2/19/2004 7:47:46 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

There is a purpose to marriage, Neo, and that purpose isn't glomming onto someone else's health insurance. Marriage existed long before the benefits gays are REALLY after. It is those material benefits, not marriage, that is the REAL issue for them. You can argue that example all you want; there already exist persons you are banned from marrying. If the purpose of marriage is to create new persons by procreation and provide those persons a home, how do you propose to do this with a "gay marriage"? And if you say this is an argument about what marriage is or should be, well, yes, that's exactly what it is.