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: J. C. Dithers who wrote (413)	8/2/2006 11:56:28 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 1695

I'm not insisting it's an absolute right. I don't know where you came up with that. IMO there are no absolute rights. You get the rights the state allows you to have. All other "rights" are imaginary. What I'm saying is that when you create a right, which the state allows, even if you want to call it a "privilege", and you deny access to that right or "privilege" to some people, you better have a good reason.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (413)	8/2/2006 1:23:21 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

Furthermore the institution of marriage is ancient and has evolved into its present form over a long period of time. It is also an institution that is universal, found in every culture and country throughout human history. And finally it is a profoundly important institution because it provides an ideal framework for producing and raising children, not to mention largely governing the relation of the sexes to one another. Same sex marriage has never existed in any country or culture in any human history (until the past few years in a few places dominated by very liberal post-Christian westerners). It's not that same sex marriage was ever banned. The union of man and woman has always been the definition of marriage. Everywhere. To change that is an extremely radical act of social engineering. Comparing same sex marriage to interracial marriage is comparing apples to oranges. Intermarriage between two groups - divided by race or not - is the norm when groups live in the same country. That's why there is no firm geographic dividing line between the races. In fact, interracial marriage existed in this country long before it was outlawed - in those states where it was outlawed - and had to be explictly banned in order to prevent it. Re. alternate forms of marriage that have existed somewhere: Over time, countries and cultures throughout the world have almost entirely abandoned polygamy, which was probably always rare. It is only legal in a few countries and is very rare there. Arranged (by parents) marriage has traditionally been common in some parts of the world. But it is definitely in decline as it is contrary to the concept of women's rights, which is an idea which has been gaining strength for a long time.