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 : Polite Political Discussion- is it Possible? An Experiment. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (132)	7/28/2006 5:26:46 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

Oh, I should have clarified. I meant the conflation of issues is icky. I remember a case that was pretty sad, a roughneck who worked offshore being mistreated at work because he was gay, and the court said he couldn't sue for discrimination because homosexuals aren't entitled to civil rights protections. That's one end of the spectrum, just asking to be treated decently, nothing special. I can understand the argument "we've never allowed gays to marry," and that's true, regardless of whether or not that's a Good Thing. But to argue, "we don't have to treat gay people with dignity" is something else entirely. It's just too sad to even talk to people who think that way.

To: epicure who wrote (132)	7/28/2006 6:13:16 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

The first two lesbians married in Mass. 2 years ago, split up last week

To: epicure who wrote (132)	7/31/2006 2:27:30 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

Sorry, Kinky Friedman said it all. "I support gay marriage because I believe they have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us." Seriously, I can understand why the religious might sincerely object to the 'sacrament' of marriage being broken by such. Of course, since I'm an atheist, this argument has no force for me, but I recognise it does for some. To which I'd say, simply because something is legal does not make it compulsory: and any church not wishing to allow gay marriage surely has a complete right not to, if it's against the beliefs/rites/practice of that church. I'll leave it up to that church how to square the circle of telling some of its own religious adherents they're not good enough to get married there. Other than that, if two people want to enter into such a contract, why not. If there are tax breaks... well, maybe those can be rethought, if some are unfair. Or attached to children, if preferred. But I'd have thought any government taking a moral stance woudl prefer marriage (of two consenting adults) preferable to the alternatives, so might limit benefits thus. Over here we don't have any tax benefits to marriage, unfortunately. And my heart really doesn't bleed for insurance companies forced to pay extra 'survivors' pensions for the occasional gay 'widow' (er...?) , assuming said couple have paid the rates which would normally allow that. To me it's a rather frivolous subject anyway, and certainly not one or any particular angst in either direction... I'd generally rather err in the direction of fairness.