SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (542924)2/19/2004 8:00:14 PM
From: Steve Dietrich  Read Replies (1) | 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.>>

Actually, according to my much revered document on the history of marriage, marriage was all about benefits:

In 1600, marriage for almost all Europeans and Europeans in America was primarily an economic arrangement negotiated between families in which family considerations of status, future economic stability, and prosperity were the most important considerations in selecting a potential spouse.

Steve Dietrich



To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (542924)2/20/2004 6:41:03 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
That is fine as far as it goes, but we permit marriage between the elderly, where one party is presumed menopausal. We do not inquire into whether a party to marriage is infertile, for example, by asking if he had a vasectomy or testing for low sperm motility. Indeed, we do not exact a commitment to procreate, as a civil matter: some couples simply choose not to. Thus, the Procreation argument is ambiguous, at best.........