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 (398)	8/2/2006 9:48:52 AM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1695

So if you advocate that the state should not recognize gay marriages and bigamy, or you believe that bigamy should be illegal, and if you support the continuation of the status quo, you are indeed using the coercive power of the state to get what you want. Oh, I see. If my state asks me in a binding referendum if I am for or against capital punishment, whether my answer is yes or no, either way I am using coercive power to get what I want. Gee, I don't see how I can win. Unless I stop voting altogether.

To: epicure who wrote (398)	8/3/2006 7:03:16 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

If gay marriage is not allowed by the state and heterosexual marriage is, then the coercive power of the state has been used against gay marriage Democratic will of the majority, or a majority of their representatives... that may not be a 'justification' to ban it, as such, but it's a reason (even if those voting against do not have individual rational reasons). None of us can choose which laws we will or won't follow, and that's part of the compromise democracy requires. Calling it 'coercive' seems overly strong, to me.