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: Steve Dietrich who wrote (591057)	7/15/2004 3:57:59 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"So comparing same-sex marriage to interracial marriage is hardly an insult to the civil rights struggles of African Americans" Agreed. It has been compared to the civil rights struggles, and I thought that is what you were doing. So do you agree there is no comparison between gay "rights" to marry and the civil rights struggles of African Americans? "why isn't prohibiting people from marrying whatever sex they want a violation of everybody's rights?" Because genetic factors that result in different skin colors are different than who someone chooses to have sex with. Marriage between men and women creates a stable environment to create and raise a family. I don't believe homosexuality is a genetic component similar to race. "But sex is a genetic trait too." Playing word games, Steve? One's sex (male or female) is a genetic trait. Don't think there is any proof that sexual preference is. If this is your basis for determing wheter they should be able to "marry", then we should shift the argument to wheter sexual preference is genetic. But I don't think that is your view. "You've got nothing except that you just don't like the idea of same-sex marriages" I think it is a further break down in family values that is hurting America. It is also a slap in the face at all people who think marriage is an important institution. Marriage is not just two people who love each other and have sex with each other. It is the basis for forming a family. "They, like you, argued it would be harmful to the children among other things." Do you have any studies on kids with two moms or two dads? Would be interested to see these if you do. I think getting a perspective growing up from a mom and a dad is best. "state's began to allow it until the Supreme Court said every state had to allow and recognize it" So it wasn't the definition of marriage as you had stated. Certain states made it that way, and the Supreme Court said no way. You were a little shifty with your wording on that one. Thought you would have trouble showing the "definition" you spoke about. Just some bad laws that were against the constition. " And until recently, President Bush and Vice President Cheney agreed that this should be a state issue" 1) Until Mass supreme court wrote a new law. 2) See how state's rights are not ALWAYS right?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (591057)	7/15/2004 5:22:58 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

If not letting people marry whatever race they want is a violation of everyone's rights why isn't prohibiting people from marrying whatever sex they want a violation of everybody's rights? This is why: siliconinvestor.com Biologically, there is no such thing as "race". Humans are not fundamentally comprised of "blacks" and "whites" and "reds", etc. They are all one interbreeding thing. And so our former laws prohibiting their free association were all arbitrary, false according to our own human nature. Laws against acceptance of homosexuality are completely in harmony with human biological identity because ALL humans, whether created naturally or artificially, BY DEFINITION, are biological marriages of male and female. That is what we are. Put it into your pipe and smoke dat mess!