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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (465)	2/4/2005 10:03:14 AM
From: fresc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Zonder. Are you sure you are not Canadian:) You seem balanced! Cheers

To: zonder who wrote (465)	2/4/2005 10:51:22 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

OT Not just the government. By friends, relatives, ex-lovers, future suitors, etc. Marriage is the way our societies legitimize and recognize a relationship. Without meaning to sound like a conservative here, marriage does fill an emotional and social need for the couple as well as the society at large who thereby recognizes their union. 1 - Friends, relatives, ex-lovers, future suitors ect can recognize the relationship as a marriage without government/legal acceptance of it, and then can refuse to recognize it even with government/legal recognition of it. 2- Recognition by friends, relatives ect. is not an issue of freedom. They are free to recognize and support as they wish. Legal recognition will not compel their acceptance, and if it did it would be a violation of their freedom. The definition of freedom is basically to do what you want to, when you want to, as long as it does not hurt anyone else. If Joe wants to marry Jim, and call him his "spouse", it does not hurt anyone nor infringe on anyone else's freedom. Therefore, he should be able to do so and if he cannot, he is less free than another man who can. And Joe and Jim can do whatever they want but they can't compel society to accept and support their decision and their relationship if society is unwilling to do so. They can marry if they want, I'm sure they could find people willing to officiate and some ceremony, and they can live together and have sex. What they can't currently do is get the government to recognize and support this union. If the government threw homosexuals in jail for holding a marriage ceremony than they would have their freedom infringed on but that isn't the case. You have not mentioned it, but there is also the practical and legal reasons why two people might want to be married. Being considered a "family" has quite a few advantages if you are applying for a mortgage or an insurance policy, inheritance laws favor the spouse over blood relatives, etc. Denying homosexuals these advantages that anyone else can benefit from is obvious discrimination. Not a bad argument for allowing such marriage, or at least some form of civil union, but it is a very bad argument for considering it a matter of freedom. Getting such benefits might be a matter of fair treatment, denying them might be wrong, but it isn't a freedom issue. Such issues may be considered as important as actual freedom issues, they may be considered justification for allowing such unions, but they don't make denying legal recognition to such unions to be an infringement on freedom, and presenting them as if they do amounts to an example of the logical fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. Re off-topic - Sure, we could take this somewhere else. Let me know. Suggestions - IF your looking for a thread that isn't that busy and could use the traffic. Subject 53436 Or if you want a busy thread with a lot of other people who might join in Subject 473 Subject 53920 Or maybe you have some thread you would prefer. Or if you think this conversation won't last long maybe we just leave it here. Its only worth moving if either Laz objects or if it drags on for awhile. I'll hold off on the Padilla issue until we decide. Tim