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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (198205)	8/24/2004 1:52:23 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577147

re: Then why did Bush say marriage was a state's issue back in 2000? Because he's a flip-flopper? John

To: tejek who wrote (198205)	8/24/2004 7:30:20 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577147

Not the freedom to marry...that's what's at issue. What does "the freedom to marry mean"? First you have to deal with questions about the definition of marriage but I'll put them aside for the moment. The parts about "the freedom to marry" that are really about freedom, are the ability/right to have a relationship, to claim someone as your spouse, to live together, to have sex, to have a ceremony and call it a wedding, and maybe a few other things along those lines. All of those gay people have and should have. Asking that the public recognize and support your decisions with those freedoms isn't asking for freedom, its asking for support and approval and recognition. Now an argument could be made that gay couples should get that support and approval and recognition. Perhaps the argument would be strong enough to convince the population and the government to support such changes in traditional societal institutions. But since the argument is about support and approval and recognition those who are making it shouldn't pretend that it is about freedom. Tim