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: Rambi who wrote (445)	8/2/2006 3:48:05 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 1695

that post pretty much sums it all up for me

To: Rambi who wrote (445)	8/2/2006 6:02:22 PM
From: Brumar89	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. I see the same sex vs interracial marriage comparisons as being not very similar. Interracial marriage has existed for as long as races have lived near one another. It's mentioned in passing in the Bible for instance. It has only been banned for a particular period of time (a few hundred years) in some particular places. It was never banned everywhere even in the US and the ban only affected black-white marriages. Nor was it was ever banned in any other country that I know of. So the former bans on interracial marriage were unusual historical aberrations. Same sex marriages, however, weren't explicitly banned here or anywhere else. They didn't need to be explictly banned. They simply never existed as the institution of marriage was universally held to be the union of a man and a woman. BTW I would disagree that mixed race marriages are still looked upon in most places if not with outright rejection, with something that falls short of wholesale approval. There has been a real change in racial attitudes. I know the change isn't universal, but its very extensive and impressive to me. 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. I consider the "way its always been" to be more of significant than you do particularly when you consider the absoluteness of the historical record. It's not a situation where our culture didn't recognize same sex marriage but some others did. NONE did. EVER. I will be honest and tell you I can't tell you a reason why this is so. But the fact that it is so is an indicator that there must be a reason for it. And probably a good one. I'm sure that isn't satisfying but I will tell you a couple of other things I find disturbing about the whole gay movement. 1) All the advocates of allowing same sex marriage, when you question them, turn out also to advocate polygamy, group marriage, incestuous marriage, you name it. So the same sex marriage is a nose under the tent for making marriage a union of whomever for whatever reason. In your post you mentioned that gays can have stable families and raise healthy children. Well, that is probably true though we have little real evidence of it due to the rarity. But you make an assumption that same sex marriages will be gay couples. I think once you make marriage something other than the special thing it has been and any two or group of people who stand before a judge can be married, you'll have a lot more non-gay same sex marriages than gay ones. Remember that people who get married don't have to have a sexual relationship - that's just an assumption under our traditional view of marriage. Throw out our traditional view of marriage and marriage can be anything for any reason. I think if the pro-same sex marriage people have their way, eventually grandparents will marry their grand-children (as a group) to take advantage of the marital exemption on estates. Friends will marry one another to help them get health insurance, survivors insurance. Etc. etc. 2) There is another aspect of the same sex marriage and gay rights movement that bothers me. I've posted elsewhere about the big problem that the Boy Scouts has because a young gay guy, not a parent, wanted to be a scout leader and was refused. They are being denied the use of parks, facilities on military bases, schools, etc, and denied the right to be included in lists of charities employees can donate money to. A benign institution is being treated as if they are Nazis or the KKK for no good reason. I foresee this to be only the beginning. I can see religious institutions and churches of every sort having tax exemptions and deductability attacked, being denied the use of public facilities, and targeted as hate organizations. The early targeting of the Boy Scouts is a sign of much more to come IMO. 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? I'm sure they are nice folks, but are they suffering a harm by not being legally married?