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 (510)	8/4/2006 3:45:44 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1695

Very thoughtful and well-said on opposition to gay marriage. I do think that many people of good-heart who oppose change have difficulty articulating their reasons (setting aside those with religious objections or those who condemn homosexuality). For the rest, I think it comes down to a vague uneasiness of what consequences might be wrought in the social fabric by radical change of marriage. Not a one of us can fully comprehend this fabric that holds society together. It is far too intricate to grasp as a whole. Stated laws are but a miniscule part of it. It's origins are largely lost in antiquity. Yet it regulates our every action. Every morning when we wake, we face the day with confidence that we will do what we ought to do, beginning with our rituals of hygiene and dress, and that so will everyone else. This is no better illustrated than on the highway as you drive to work. You are surrounded by thousands of strangers traveling at high speeds in lethal machines, yet you have absolute confidence that everyone around you will do exactly as you expect at all times. Only very seldom is this pact broken and then there is chaos. This protocol goes far beyond traffic laws and enforcement. (Most urban commuters know that state police disappear during rush hour). It runs the gamut of courtesy, kindness, helpfulness, consideration, respect, and a host of similar virtues. We do what we ought with great confidence that all these strangers will too. If we at times encounter road rage (which law enforcement cannot stop) it just serves to remind us how fragile the social fabric is, and how dire it would be if it unwound. This orderliness holds throughout the day in all of our interactions with others. We don't fully know what makes this work so well in a nation of 300 million diverse citizens. It isn't laws, which rarely need to be invoked day-by-day. We aren't forced to help others, sometimes at the risk of our lives, but we do it because we ought. Gay marriage may seem far afield from what I am describing, but I don't think it is. Marriage itself is laden with oughts, which is its very nature to begin with (picture the reluctant groom being pushed to the altar to sanction a relationship). We could hardly imagine what our society would be like if there was no such thing as marriage, which creates the family unit -- mother, father, and children. We just know that marriage is deeply embedded in the social fabric as union of man and wife. So this is what I think largely informs opposition to gay marriage. Wo don't want to pull on that thread (marriage) to change it fundamentally. We don't know what will happen if we do. We fear that if we pull too hard or too far, the entire social fabric may begin to unravel. We don't want to take the chance. So we frustrate the good and decent gay couples who desperately yearn for marriage. They in turn dismiss our fears as irrational. But here is the irony I see in that: First, by pushing so hard for marriage, gays validate the crucial, exalted position that traditional marriage holds in the social fabric -- which is why they want in. Second, the gay's validation that marriage is so important confers reasonableness and rationality upon our fear of changing its very nature. In other words, their argument is self-defeating. Perhaps gay-marriage advocates could make more headway if they switched to a softer sell: "Hey, marriage is no big deal and it's falling part anyway, so go why not let us get in on the end."

To: Brumar89 who wrote (510)	8/5/2006 1:55:33 AM
From: RMF	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1695

In 30 years gay marriage will be common place. It was just 40 years ago that homosexuality was never mentioned publicly except in police blotters. Today the acceptance of gays grows more prevalent all the time. Kids born in the last 20 years probably wonder what the Big Deal about gay marriage is all about and those same kids will be the lawmakers of the future. In 1890, people were saying the same things about women voting that they're saying about gay marriage today. It would "tear apart the fabric of society". In 1940 the idea that blacks and whites should be integrated was considered unimaginable and if it ever happened it would surely, "tear apart the fabric of society". In 1910 if a doctor had said he had done a successful heart transplant he would have been dragged out and hung, along with his patient, for an act so heinous that it "defiled the very fabric of society". Times change, people change... and the fabric of society reconfigures and all in all things end up better than they were before.