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: epicure who wrote (1117)	8/21/2006 5:56:30 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

Did you mean to limit your comments about sex to just gay sex? As I recall, I meant them to apply to anyone. As matters stand, John Smith (heterosexual) and John Jones (homosexual) enjoy precisely the same rights when it comes to marriage. Nobody inquires into sexual preference at the City Marriage Bureau that grants licenses. Jones could list a lesbian as his bride, and no one would know or care. On that basis, it is problematical to find a basis of discrimination against anyone. Of course, you want to change the laws that stipulate that a marriage license is only available to a male and female, i.e, a bride and groom. I don't have to give you a reason, damn good or otherwise, why the law should not be changed. You have to give me a reason why it should be changed. The ball is in your court. So far I haven't heard any reason that I find is compelling. Maybe if you keep trying you will come up with one. (Hint: I don't find sexual gratification to be compelling at all). On second thought, you don't want to convince me. You want to convince those that can do something about it.