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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fresc who wrote (37000)	2/8/2005 4:41:56 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

fresc, With all do respect you are not arguing against anything I have said. The problem with this issue is multifacited. First we have a problem of concept contagion. "to the person you want to be a right, and its restriction a stiffling of freedom - not only on social and legal aspects based on equality, but also the right to happiness, to be able to choose one's partner in life. I agree with you completely on this portion of your comment. What you are missing is that this type of bond is available to persons in many circumstances of life that are not marriage. What you are describing is generally supported by the vast majority of human beings. Your insistance that it be labeled marriage and only marriage as some sort of fundamental human right is another matter. The question for us is whether or not it is essential and necessary to annex the term 'marriage' for all types of circumstances. If not, and if there are suitable similar forms that do not impinge the hetero-cultural identity then why do it? The complaints that it is a freedom and a legal right to do so, do not have the ring of liberty at all. I explained to you what marriage means in the sense of hetero-cultural Identity and you have managed to argue around those facts while insisting that your arguement is with what I have presented ... it is not, since I have no problem with gays living exactly as you have described. That does not change what it means to be in a heterosexual marriage which is far more than cohabitation with your soul mate, partner or whatever. If you are not able to deal with the more expansive realities of what marriage represents to the hetero-culture, your comments on the matter come across as narrow and agendized. Which brings me to another aspect of this issue. Somewhere down the lane the authorities on extreme left wing doctrine punched the marriage card and so every left winger in the world has to pretend that it is an inalienable liberty. It's not.