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 (471)	2/5/2005 10:01:34 PM
From: fresc	Respond to of 42652

<<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>> You just don't get it! Sad!

To: TimF who wrote (471)	2/7/2005 5:35:17 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42652

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 Bingo. What seems to be the difference between denying women university degrees (telling them to get lessons in same courses and tell the world their education is the same as a university degrees) and denying them a marriage license and act (telling them to do everything married couples do and tell them world they are no different than a married couple)? :-) really they are asking society for approval as well. No, they are not. They are asking what everyone else has a right to do - to marry the person they love. Whether you approve of that choice or not is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not you have the right to impose your choices on them. I can give you loads of examples of things that are NOT approved by the society, yet ARE legal. That is because, western democracies are built on the assumption that the majority's tastes and preferences are not a valid reason to limit the freedoms of minorities. Which is exactly the underlying reason for the move to ban homosexual marriage in the US - that the majority, who are not homosexuals, finds it yucky. No restriction of freedom is involved. Denial is not a very effective debate technique, imho. The freedom that is restricted, obviously, is the freedom to marry the person of your choice. >>>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" I think you wrote that without reading back what my sentence was referring to. What I did not call a freedom was the legal and practical reasons for which two people would want to be legally married, rather than informally live together - Insurance, inheritance, etc. You then said: "Getting such benefits might be a matter of fair treatment, denying them might be wrong, but it isn't a freedom issue." Message 21016895 To which I replied: "I have called it [denying homosexuals these legal and financial advantages] DISCRIMINATION. Not a restriction of their freedom" siliconinvestor.com Please pay attention. This reminiscence is a waste of time. My whole point was that failing to legally recognize homosexual marriage was not a denial of, or infringement against freedom. I realize that, and it is still false.