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: J. C. Dithers who wrote (1069)	8/20/2006 3:52:12 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

Marriage is like graduation. Everyone does it because everyone does it. I got married because of my parents, and because it was just easier financially. It's what people do, and since gays are people, I think they should be able to do it too. When I say marriage is debased, I am speaking about that wrt the idea that marriage is somehow too sanctified an institution to let gays in to. What marriage is to most people is a practical way of ordering things between people who live together which the government and employers recognize and give goodies out for. I think gays should get those goodies too, and you don't. I think your arguments are hopelessly flawed- since as we already know, they stem at heart from the "Because I say so" model. I don't want to keep anyone out- so I don't have to say "because I say so". I say let people be included unless there is a good reason to keep them out- and it should be a better reason than "it's the way we've always done it", or "it's not holy", "it makes me uncomfortable" or "because I say so."

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (1069)	8/20/2006 4:24:42 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1695

Excellent post! I'd have given it a recommendation, but I see that has been disabled on this thread.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (1069)	8/21/2006 9:07:09 AM
From: Suma	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

This may be the reason that gays seek to gain civil rights only bestowed on what is termed marriage..I don't think that the majority care what it is called as long as the rights are given. Rights and Protections Denied Same-Sex Partners Because same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, same-sex couples and their families are denied access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples. Among those are: The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship. The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents. The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate. The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup. The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships. Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits. The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will. The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job. Such inequities impose added costs on these families, such as increased health insurance premiums, higher tax burdens and the absence of pension benefits or Social Security benefits in the event of a partner's death. Some same-sex and transgender families consult attorneys to draw up legal documents such as powers of attorney, co-parenting agreements and wills, that will at least permit them to declare who they wish to make health care and financial decisions for them if they become incapacitated; how they wish to share parenting responsibilities or, in the event of a breakup, custody of a child; and what they want to happen to their property when they die. However, these are not a substitute for legal protection under law and cannot provide the broad range of benefits and protections provided by law.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (1069)	8/21/2006 12:55:37 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1695

Speaking of the no-fault divorce law changes you mentioned earlier, I don't recall the public debate over that issue so it may have been before a time I remember. Do you know if the advocates of no-fault divorce, irregardless of the effect on children, were social conservatives or social liberals? I think I know the answer. But the obvious answer invites the question, why should our society take more bad family policy advice from the same parties? Do we really want our whole society to be completely "Jerry Springer-ized"? I'm sure at least some social liberals now recognize the negative effect of divorce on children which comes from having a mother and father seperated in different households. Since the LGBT rights movement's Beyond Gay Marriage public proclamation calls for this explicitly - "queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households" - one would think people who recognize the ill effect of divorce on children would, at the least, not favor a similar negative situtation being imposed on a new set of children - this time by design before the child is even conceived! weeklystandard.com firstthings.com