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: RMF who wrote (553)	8/5/2006 9:50:21 AM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1695

In 30 years gay marriage will be common place. I think you are probably correct. By that time we will have open borders, a huge welfare state, whites will be a special-interest minority, English will be a regional dialect, the military will be shrunk to a peacetime militia, and our society will be one of the most permissive on the globe. Or so extrapolation of trends would suggest. Hope you enjoy it. I'm afraid I won't be around.

To: RMF who wrote (553)	8/5/2006 10:32:49 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1695

I was just telling someone the other day about how invisible homosexuals were when my parents were raising me. There were "confirmed bachelors"- wink wink, and those maiden aunts who lived together, but no one EVER talked about being gay, and the people who were certainly weren't supposed to express it, or mention it, or do anything that might make other people know they were. It's amazing how far things have come (and healthy, imo)- and I think gay marriage will be common place in the future, as you do.

To: RMF who wrote (553)	8/5/2006 11:00:10 AM
From: Rambi	Respond to of 1695

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. I have two boys, 25 and 23, and you are right. Of course, some of this is just a reflection of what they hear at home. You will still find kids from homes that speak derogatorily of gays who will end up prejudiced, but overall the trend I see in the schools I work is to shrug about it all. I do still hear religious objections- but I live in the Bible belt, and while I may not agree, I respect those convictions.

To: RMF who wrote (553)	8/5/2006 5:33:23 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

I don't agree at all. When the public has been given an opportunity to vote on the issue, gay marriage has always lost. In the long run, the will of the people will prevail. When people realize that the advocates of gay marriage want more than just gay marriage but a radical restructuring of the meaning of marriage it will become even more unpopular. Not every liberal issue succeeds. The Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified. In the 1800's, there was a "free love" movement and there were free love communes (like the Oneida Society) established in the US. Someone named Victoria Woodhull, the "high priestess of free love" ran for President as a free love candidate. This movement produced nothing except probably postponing womens suffrage. Liberal ideas which are too radical and seek the destruction of long established beneficial institutions do not succeed. 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". Some may have said this but if was really that unpopular, the amendment allowing female suffrage would never have passed, like the ERA didn't. 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". I'm sure a lot of people in many parts of the country thought this. The civil rights movement didn't succeed by promising to destroy established institutions though, it succeeded by seeking the goal of extending those institutions to a class that has been denied entrance. 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". No he wouldn't. He would have been lionized. Why would anyone have objected in 1910. There is no moral issue involved in heart transplants. For that matter there were no moral issues involved in black-white intergation of female suffrage either. However, all traditional codes of morality have a big problem with homosexuality.