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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (154231)	12/16/2004 3:50:10 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

So it's a moral quest. And you think that penalizing folks legally, by not allowing them to marry, when they would like to be in long term relationships and have a real marriage for their friends and family, is a sensible way for those interested in a moral quest regarding the sexual behavior of others, to go about this, and to express the "fittingness" of things. Far from "valorizing," what you are discussing is stigmatizing (I love your euphemisms, though). You are arguing for marriage to be this thing, this precious and protected thing, that homosexuals can't have, because they aren't "normal" enough- and because they are so "aberrant" they really ought to be discouraged from being the way they are, and that's how you justify withholding what is legally given to those who aren't "aberrant". If that's "accepting" homosexuals, I don't know how much acceptance they can take. So, homosexuals can't have marriage because they are aberrant and they are aberrant because someone defines them as aberrant. Neat trick.