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: Orcastraiter who wrote (38009)	2/22/2005 12:36:57 PM
From: SGJ	Respond to of 173976

Maybe he was hetero. He was rumored to have a son with Mary Magdelaine, who grew up in France. Its all in here: amazon.com

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (38009)	2/22/2005 2:19:27 PM
From: fresc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

<I am not afraid of homosexuality, but the state has no business promoting, in my opinion -- not any more than it does promoting other kinds of immorality or evil behaviors.> So J.W is lumping immorality or evil behaviors with Homosexuality. It's obvious you are very much afraid. Your hate for Gays is glaring. Sad.

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (38009)	2/22/2005 5:00:26 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

”We already live in a society that accepts and allows gay unions. The state does not sanctify the acts of individuals. Individuals are petitioning for rights that are granted to heterosexual unions, which are not granted to homosexual unions.” I have been advocating for the state to be fair and just regarding laws and benefits related to gay unions to be equivalent to heterosexual unions. This is what would be right and just by a blind justice system. This is easily resolved and would be accomplished in no time. This is the single legitimate issue for rational and just beings dealing with this topic. If not for the barriers you are placing before it, it would be done already. ” I have nothing to fear from gay people getting married.” That is not the issue. The issue is that you are actively promoting the ‘Gay Marriage’ cause, which is much more than a plea to the state to grant laws of equivelancy, and which fundamentally and coercively attempts to redefine the heterosexual worldview for heterosexuals. Marriage is the issue not equivalent benefits and recognition. ” It is a self-evident fact that noble human beings are endowed with the natural right to think, speak, and conduct themselves freely with regard to the well being of creatures and creation.” Marriage is a term that connects many things via its application but it doesn’t ring true as a right. Primarily: 1)It accomplishes the goal of legitimizing relationships for the state. 2)It also connects the world view of hetero-sexual family centered communities and states. The world view of history related to heterosexual-values, activity, and purpose; while the vision going forward is enmeshed with the progeny of continuity of direction. Is it the only way to accomplish these things? In the case of number 1, the answer is absolutely not. In the case of number two, the world view of gay families is one generational. To redefine marriage as inclusive of other groups coerces a change that is detrimental to the world view of the hetero-sexual family oriented communities. Your argument will carry more weight when you stop treating marriage as a synonym only of the legal union of a couple. Frankly, I think it is time for the state to get out of the marriage business all together. Make ‘civil union’ a requirement for any couple to be recognized by law and leave the term ‘marriage’ to what ever communities choose to define it according to their views on it. I doubt ‘gay marriage’ would even be a ‘cause’ under those circumstances.