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 (470)	2/5/2005 12:01:29 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

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'" No what I am saying is not like that. If young women could not get educated at and otherwise participate in a university then they would be kept from doing something they want to do. Legal and societal recognition of a marriage is not something that the people getting married want to do, it is something that the people getting married want other people to do for them. 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. They are asking for government recognition and acceptance at a minimum, but really they are asking society for approval as well. Really the two are separate issues, they are somewhat intertwined but not the same thing as I pointed out before. Society can support what the law does not accept or oppose what the law allows for or even what the law demands. What they can't currently do is get the government to recognize and support this union. Yes. And why is that? Because a majority of people disagree with it. but that does not give me, nor the majority, restrict a minority's freedom to marry their partners. No restriction of freedom is involved. I have called it DISCRIMINATION. Not a restriction of their freedom. You said - "I have not followed your posts on the subject. And sorry, but I do find marriage to the person you want to be a right, and its restriction a stifling of freedom" Message 21013201 But maybe your talking about how in this post you have not called it a restriction on freedom. OK. If your dropping that line than I'm pretty much done. My whole point was that failing to legally recognize homosexual marriage was not a denial of, or infringement against freedom. I was not arguing against such recognition (or for it), merely that it was not an issue of freedom. Tim