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 (591)	8/5/2006 8:35:09 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

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. ? Gay marriage was legalised in the UK some months ago. I don't think most people cared much, only the fundis on both sides. I've never heard any hint of any other agenda using this as a wedge issue for any other changes, not any attempt. That may be the ear or hope of some tiny minority but it's nowhere in mainstream and IMO very unlikely anything ever will be. And even if it were... I can't see anything such passing Parliament, not in my lifetime. However, all traditional codes of morality have a big problem with homosexuality. Some, not all. Some don't mention it, or don't seem to care, and one of the classic foundations of western philosophical thought regarded male-male love as the purest and finest. But leaving this aside, so what? Traditional thought didn't have a whole lot to say about flying, except that it would be bad because it usurped God, is pretty well silent on (say) computers, cars and the whole industrial revolution thing, and in Western thought regarded surgery as a mortal heresy. Also we designated women as chattels and appurtenances of their father or husband with no right to think, own or act independently (unless noble, powerful and very strong-willed plus without a senior male relative). And thought owning slaves was fine, right and justified by tradition and the bible because the sons of Ham were designed by God to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. Tradition is not and should not govern our lives, and all that it should teach us is history. Learn from it, maybe... but we should not be ruled by it.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (591)	8/6/2006 2:13:44 AM
From: RMF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1695

Brumar, before I consider your other points, can you tell me what you mean by a "radical restructuring of the meaning of marriage"? I always thought that gay people just wanted to be allowed to be married the same way that straight people wanted to be married. If they go into the hospital they'd like their significant other to be treated like the wife or husband of a straight person. If they get insurance they'd like to be able to get the same coverage of their significant other as a straight married person would. If they die they would want their significant other to be treated under the law the same way that the spouse of a straight person would. Do you think those things would amount to a radical restructuring of marriage?