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: TimF who wrote (468)	2/4/2005 11:20:18 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Friends, relatives, ex-lovers, future suitors ect can recognize the relationship as a marriage without government/legal acceptance of it I don't know about your parents, but mine certainly wouldn't. What you are saying is similar to this: "Universities don't allow female students and hence graduates. But girls can take private lessons in exactly the same subjects, and people can recognize their education without us having to give them university degrees. Their friends etc can call their education 'university degree'" Do you see the problem here? 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. Nobody is asking the society for approval. Quite a few mixed race couples are married, and a significant part of society does not approve those either, especially where a Caucasian and an African are concerned. But they are FREE to marry each other. We are talking about the LIBERTY of marrying whom you want. Without the state preventing you from doing so. Approval has nothing to do with this. What they can't currently do is get the government to recognize and support this union. Yes. And why is that? I would be interested in your answer to the question above. My answer to that "Why?" would be "Because the majority finds it yucky". So do I, incidentally, but that does not give me, nor the majority, restrict a minority's freedom to marry their partners. 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... 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 Before you jump to conclusions about a soi-disant "logical fallacy", you might like to look back to what I wrote: "Denying homosexuals these advantages that anyone else can benefit from is obvious discrimination." I have called it DISCRIMINATION. Not a restriction of their freedom. Re other thread: Actually, I'd rather stay here, if Laz does not mind. Who knows, we might actually start talking about health care one of these days :-)