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: Johannes Pilch who wrote (543526)	2/21/2004 1:18:54 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

Well, I didn't think you could distort and dodge more than previously, but I underestimated your love of Clinton semantics. The claim in the article, which you seem to adore, is that homosexual marriage is both a cause and effect of the decline of marriage, as seen in the increase in nonmarital births. Do you dispute that the article is saying that? This suggests that gay marriage is both an effect and a cause of the increasing separation between marriage and parenthood. As rising out-of-wedlock birthrates disassociate heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes conceivable. If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with. You never responded to my questions of your supposed "logic" in denying that you'll stated or supported a cause/effect relationship. One thing cannot cause another unless there is a cause/effect relationship. If gay marriage has ANY influence on this so-called decay of marriage, then it helps cause that decay. Pretty unambiguous. Boy, I'm not sure why the other rightists around here seem to worship you. Maybe it is that they just don't understand how full of it you are. Maybe it's because you write so much like Queen Ann. A sprinkling of distorted 'facts' with lots of spiffy insults, in a convoluted, self-serving jumble of legalese where you seeming never state ANYTHING concrete, nor ever argue the facts. All you ever do is bob and weave. I'm thinking you started off in law school, but got kicked out for arguing...