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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (86839)	11/18/2004 8:56:06 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794496

It’s about defining acceptable grounds for the majority to restrict the liberties of a minority. I don’t believe that simple dislike constitutes acceptable grounds for such restriction, no matter how large the majority is. So you favor legalizing prostitution? How about incest? There has never been an unfettered legal right to "marry the person you want to marry." Seems to me we're discussing where the line should drawn. The great majority of Americans believe the line should be drawn at gay marriage. This may change over the next several decades, but for now, the will of the people must be respected.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (86839)	11/18/2004 9:24:54 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794496

The biological reasons for disallowing degrees of consanguine marriage are weak, since we can now tell, in most cases, if there is a danger of the parties carrying recessive genes and breeding genetically penalized infants, and also since, if that were a consideration, sterilization could ensure they never have natural children. And yet no one argues that cousins be allowed to marry, much less siblings. Why? There must be some who would want to, but we shrink back, because family relations would be harmed by constant worry about sexual experimentation, especially when there is an age difference, and therefore a particular danger of exploitation. In other words, the taboo helps to solidify family relations and provide a "safety zone" where conflicts over sexuality are less likely to arise. Gay marriage seeks to rid us of the notion that heterosexuality is normal, otherwise, civil union would satisfy the complaints of gay couples. Heterosexual marriage is primarily, though not exclusively, formed for the sake of establishing families, not for easing the situation of couples. Heterosexuals do not want to undermine this aspect of marriage any further. They do not want to normalize "barren marriage", and while they may be prepared to say that homosexual adoption is better than institutionalization, they are not prepared to give up a preference for a father and mother. In other words, they want to express their preference for family formation, and the value of both father and mother.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (86839)	11/18/2004 12:32:13 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794496

No but there should be. A gigantic question. There is no question here about same-sex marriages doing anyone any harm Marriage is a foundational institution. It's impossible to predict the consequences of radically redefining the parameters of it. But at least it should be incumbent on the radicals to make the argument that the benefits of the change outweigh the risk. It's fair and we want it isn't an argument any more than a tantrum is a negotiation tool. Nor should it be up to skeptics to make any case to conserve the institution as is. We've got 6,000 years experience on our side and that counts for something.