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: KonKilo who wrote (1049)	8/20/2006 11:19:01 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1695

Marriage cannot become more debased than it already is. The heterosexuals have killed it- with their serial monogamy. I'm ok with letting it die. Either let the state marry everybody or nobody. The state shouldn't be in the business of guarding the "sanctity" of anything- that's "holiness" or "sacredness" after all- and we leave that to churches. I really don't care who marries whom, or who forms a life partnership with whom- as long as people find ways to live which keep them happy and which help them form stable families. I'd like for people to find more stable ways to live than marriage- marriage clearly isn't stable in our society- the divorce rate being what it is. I don't know what would be more stable, but perhaps we'll find something. Or not. I wonder how many of the "sanctity" of marriage folks, "defending" marriage from gay people, are divorced. It would be kind of a kick to know that- because I am guessing at least 50% of them have been divorced at least once. But I'd love to see some numbers. I imagine the hypocrisy would be entertaining.

To: KonKilo who wrote (1049)	8/20/2006 1:11:53 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1695

The point of the article is it isn't just a matter of gay marriage. It's a movement for: "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner" and for the legal recognition of: "queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households." That last describes a situation where one family of 2, 3, or more gay females and another family of 2, 3, or more gay guys would jointly decide to create and raise a child shared by the "households". Sound like a good idea for the child?