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: epicure who wrote (154259)	12/16/2004 4:33:41 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

No, I just mention the backlash as an added factor to take into account. There is no question of systematic segregation and discrimination, first of all. You trivialize the burden of Jim Crow to score rhetorical points. As far as I am concerned, marriage is primarily for the purpose of raising a family, and therefore should be encouraged as a fruitful union. Yes, we do not make people promise to procreate, but perhaps we should, and make those who do not intend to do so resort to civil unions. Yes, I favor homosexual adoption in preference to no adoption whatsoever, so maybe if the couple promises to raise a child I would allow them the marriage status. But by and large, I want to encourage the solemn undertaking of starting a family, not just making a greater interpersonal commitment.