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: Brumar89 who wrote (433)	8/2/2006 1:37:49 PM
From: the_wheel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

I thought polygamy was accepted practice in the Muslim countries. It may be limited to the elite, I don't really know. I thought they were allowed up to four wives. Yep, four: en.wikipedia.org <In the modern Islamic world, polygamy is mainly found in traditionalist Arab cultures, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for instance, whereas in secular Arab states like Lebanon and non-Arab Muslim countries, Turkey and Malaysia for example, it is banned or rare, respectively.>

To: Brumar89 who wrote (433)	8/2/2006 2:26:58 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

My comparison of same sex and mixed race marriages wasn't about their qualities as much as the reaction to them, which is often emotional and irrational, and where the test of time proved those reactions to be meaningless in the case of mixed race. UNfortunately, mixed race is still looked upon in most places if not with outright rejection, with something that falls short of wholesale approval. I believe it's that "Other" mentality that is so hard for all of us to resist. The institution of marriage makes lots of sense to me (it must, since I have been married 30 years). It provides a structure of stability for children and for society in general, but you lose me when you bridge from that to the exclusion of gays. Is there another reason than "because it's always been that way". There is nothing that prevents gays from being stable family units and raising healthy children in your post that I can see. We aren't replacing the man-woman marriage, we are expanding it to include others who want that relationship. Your objections seemed to fall in the "fear of change" category. Probably my opinion is also colored by emotion somewhat also; we are close to several gay couples in long-term committed relationships. I can see no reason to deny them the privilege of marriage just because they aren't like me. They pose no threat to marriage for me. What am I missing?