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 (542)	8/4/2006 1:17:39 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1695

Im not sure why you think mixed race marriage has been acceptable. Mixed race marriages involving Indians (and for the last century orientals) have always been legal and have been socially acceptable for generations. It was only black-white marriages which were legally banned most places and socially disapproved of. This was an historically unique situation because of the slave situation in the US. But I can tell you that even these existed. I know because they existed in my own family tree. A couple generations of my family, which until I moved away lived in the same county in IL almost non-stop for about 150 years, crossed the river to get married in Jackson MO where there was no legal ban. Once the 1/8 line was crossed the ban did not apply. There the ideal solution would have been to get the state out of the race business, not the marriage business. As for sexless marriages, sex is far more of a motivator now than before when marriages were arranged for practical purposes. Again, I think that's one of the changes that has brought us to this point. We marry for love. In a way, the changes you fear- all those convenience arrangements-- were far more prevalent in other times. Friends, huge age differences, granddaughters living with grandfathers; your objection (and one that would need to be dealt with) is that now you are concerned public money would support these. Why not? Not just public money, corporate pensions, health benefits, you name it. Those convenience arrangements will become more prevalent once the traditional definition of marraige is throw out the window and literally anyone can marry anyone. Yes, I do think there is harm. Anytime people are treated as less than equal, it is harmful. And gays are still treated as deviates and a problem. I will tell you my opinion is strongly that things like the gay marriage push and the war against the Boy Scouts (and who knows what other institutions in the future) have hurt the gay movement. They have for me. I have no problem with legalization and social toleration. But I now view the gay movement primarily as a tool to attack, demonize, and destroy traditional social institutions.