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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (225925)	3/23/2005 1:03:47 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1573941

re: Equal protection can't be extended to NAMBLA. So why gay marriage? I've never said I was for gay marriage... in fact it's a non-issue to me, one of those silly things like the 10 commandments on courthouse steps. I really don't care. Social mores and the perception that someone (the boy) may be hurt is the reason NAMBLA won't be legal. You want to paint things as black and white, so you choose far out analogies. The law is always changing, always shades of gray. Equal protection under the law is a very good thing, and it's applied in a pragmatic manner based on societies mores. Law is art not science. Well said. I might add that Ten uses NAMBLA, an org. that is abhorrent to most Americans including gays, as a scare tactic. See......if you let the gays get married how far behind can boy love be? In another time, it was the country club syndrome......if you let the Catholics in, can the Jews be far behind. But Ten is not talking race or religion........if he did, he would be booed out the door in 21st America much like Emile is. No, its much better to use pedophilia, a condition described as a sickness and a prime example of arrested development by psychologists, to make your point. Of course, everyone hates pedophiliacs.......once you've got the hate rolling how hard is it to extend it to all gays? Bingo! You have your scapegoat! ted

To: Road Walker who wrote (225925)	3/23/2005 1:35:14 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573941

JF, Equal protection under the law is a very good thing, and it's applied in a pragmatic manner based on societies mores. So who determines "society's mores"? The majority, or a judge who overrules the majority based on "equal protection"? I'd say when the majority of Californians voted to make gay marriage illegal, they made a clear statement of what "society's mores" are. I only use NAMBLA as an analogy of what might be possible (but likely won't be a reality) when a judge overrules "society's mores" based on "equal protection" and his own biases. Tenchusatsu