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 : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ichy Smith who wrote (8602)	2/25/2006 1:32:16 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 37865

Peter, Can you tell me exactly which rights the legal term 'marriage' confirms upon Gays they do not already have or would not have with an equal and equivalent term ? Frankly the equivalent to married exemption on the tax form works just as well as the spousal exemption as far as I can tell... and is frankly more powerful... I only bring this up because 1)I really really really really .... really really really really... really really really really ... phew... really really really really have no objections to gay 'unions' having EXACTLY IDENTICAL rights as heterosexual 'unions' .... 2) seems to me many gay activists especially seem to infer that the mere 'term' marriage confers special rights beyond EXACTLY IDENTICAL. I am at a loss to understand what they are in that context which of course bestows survivor benefits, medical decision rights etc. etc etc.. 3)I often get the feeling that requiring the term 'marriage' is some sort of silly posturing 'on principle' or worse some attempt to 'stick it to the man' for past injustices.. 4) All in all I really do not care beyond the fact that a lot of time and effort is wasted on this topic... that could better be spent on some more tangible issue.. and that does bother me... 5) Why would gays not be satisfied with EXACTLY IDENTICAL rights as heterosexual unions BUT own their own 'special term' that was NOT available to heterosexuals ? I truly do not get this. As to the possibility of 25% electoral control... Well maybe the reaction is going to be folks like me that think gays should have EXACTLY IDENTICAL rights are going to get very very tired of what seems a not very flexible stance on the gay side. (I know you will say the inflexibility is on the other side). There is a difference between tradition and rights that in my view the gay community is missing. I hope they do cut off their noses to spite their faces... I would hazard that many think as I do. The problem reverts back of course to the sham of a free vote that Mr. Martin held on the issue.. Had the vote been truly free the issue would have been put paid to irrespective of the outcome... unless this is like the neverendum ? Kids time now.. Later. Al