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: Ilaine who wrote (94023)	1/6/2005 8:46:13 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793743

If you're arguing that marriage is no different than cohabitation other than a "little piece of paper," let's just stop right there. Yes, that's close enough to what I've been arguing. More like asking, actually. Maybe I should have said "little piece of paper" instead of "isolate the marriage variable" and "simple fact of being married" and we could have spared ourselves this colloquy. This discussion started with my comment on Sowell's assertion that non-marriage was a restriction in freedom, that individual couples could effectively customize a suitable non-marriage, and therefore non-marriage would be just fine for gays. I was surprised by his favorable treatment of non-marriage but questioned why he seemed to ignore the obvious issue of why, then, should non-marriage not be equally suitable for straight couples. I asked the thread why, under Sowell's scenario, straights would marry. The only answer I got was so their kids wouldn't be ridiculed for being illegitimate. I do not find that compelling. More like damning with faint praise that it comes down to this: marriage is more than a little piece of paper; it's a shield against those who would use it to punish innocent children.