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: SecularBull who wrote (543650)	2/22/2004 1:29:28 AM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

Old enough to vote, 18. I think many states still let people marry before then, but I believe we should raise it to 18 for all states. Let's say 18 you can vote, marry, and join the armed services. I'd keep drinking at 21, if I ran the zoo.

To: SecularBull who wrote (543650)	2/22/2004 8:10:05 AM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 769669

What's an adult? My late brother defined "adult" in todays society as a person who has reached the age of forty or has moved out of the home of his/her parents, whichever comes first ;)

To: SecularBull who wrote (543650)	2/22/2004 7:00:37 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

Kevin is lying, as usual. Here is the problem with the "contract" response, Sec. Marriage is NOT a contract between mere adults. It used to be a contract between a man and woman. But there is no ability to unilaterally break a contract unless the contract stipulates such an ability. Yet marriages are unilaterally broken all the time. So obviously the contractual nature of marriage is viewed as arbitrary. That is only because we no longer understand marriage. In truth, marriage is indeed a contract. It gains its contractual nature ONLY because it takes place between a man and a woman. The fundamental basis of the contract is that each human is himself composed of an unbreakable biological "contract" between mom and dad. In other words, Mom and dad is literally what makes you up and they are fused into you in such a way that they can never be broken. Both have a responsibility to you and to each other. What homosexuals wish to do is throw away the rock solid, objective and unchangeable biological fact of marriage, rendering the contractual nature of marriage completely arbitrary. The truth is, if marriage can be fundamentally altered so that it is non-heterosexual, then what little "contractual basis" for it sticks around only because we say it sticks around - and you dang well know we don't be saying it sticks around that much. Marriage is already easily broken, at least in law, and there is no reason why it cannot be even more easily broken until it becomes meaningless. So if, as we see, marriage is not objectively a real contract, then on what basis can we deny a woman and a dog marriage? On none! The basis of marriage can be altered, since there is no real objective contractual basis for any kind of marriage other than heterosexual marriage. This means three guys can literally marry based upon a flimsy "agreement". And a woman and a dog can marry on the basis of the same relationship in which she owns the dog in the first place. Marriage is whatever you wish it to be, as long as a person wishes it to be a marriage. Effectively, marriage will have died. No way around it.