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: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (67808)	6/5/2006 3:33:32 PM
From: JeffA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

A vote for the Gay Marriage Amendment does not make one a gay basher. Nor homophobic, nor anything. It makes one a supporter of the term and meaning of the word and intent of marriage. I don't care if two men or two women consider themselves married, I will never consider them as such because it does not make sense. They can be legally united as a couple, enjoy the same benefits socially, but I would never consider it a marriage. Just does not compute with the way I was raised and my views. So, the way people are voting on this Amendment means nothing to me. I would not place too much stock in it costing people votes. It's does have the religious right upset, but I consider myself part of that faction just a wee bit and I totally disagree with the viewpoint and the boycotts and everything else. It's not ours to judge.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (67808)	6/5/2006 3:35:06 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"Republicans are walking into the gay marriage trap set by Democrats." I agree. I dred the irresolvable slippery slope of social issues that are riding on the back of this. Since we have some laws about marriage, it leaves the door wide open to battle it, and the piggy back social issues, without any real resolution until the end of time. I would much prefer that we legislate partnerships and leave social commitments and corresponding labels to the groups or communities wherein they have meaningfulness. If some wacko church wants to marry you to your horse, I could give a hoot, as long as we don't try to legislate it or call it a 'legal' right in anyway. If you want to call it the 'same' as a marriage between a man and a woman, I will simply disagree and go my own way. I can see it now. We've gotten into an irresolvable dilemma of legal debate about when something is human and when it's not... not because we really don't know but because we have legislation about abortion. Now we enter even worse nonsense over when a marriage is real and when it is not. I am for stripping all legislations and laws about social relationships except as they apply to a contract between entities. Other than that, let people carry on their silly ceremonies and call their relationships whatever they want.