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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (53115)	11/7/2006 7:45:56 AM
From: Ichy Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Gay Marriage would harm Heterosexual marriage because it means that being a Homosexual would be normalized, it would remove a huge plank from the preaching platform of the religious community, who raise huge amounts of money preaching hatred. It might also decimate the numbers of people going into the Catholic priesthood. The other big danger is that if Gay couples move to the suburbs and start renovating and cleaning things up and making their homes look wonderful and well decorated, there will be a serious shortage of "Football/baseball/hockey time" as heterosexual women demand their husbands keep up. Those are the biggest dangers.

To: Cogito who wrote (53115)	11/7/2006 12:20:54 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

I'm against changing the definition of marriage period, but I do think it could be legitimately changed by legislation and if it were to be changed thats the way it should be done. The imposition of changes by judicial fiat I am totally opposed to, though the gay marriage proponents don't care how it gets forced on society. The gay marriage proponents should be trying to get referendums passed on its behalf instead of trying to coerce society. I still haven't figured out how gay marriage is a threat to anybody, though. It wouldn't be compulsory. It wouldn't stop heterosexuals from getting married. I keep hearing that we need to defend the institution of marriage, but I don't see how expanding it would really harm it. Among objections - in no particular order: 1) It's a primarily bogus issue affecting a tiny sliver of society, most of whom really just want to game the system and extend spousal insurance/retirement benefits to a good friend/lover. It's bogus because most gay people don't have any desire to marry - I base that on public expressions I've heard. Most gay people who "want" to marry have no intention of observing marriage the same way the majority does - that is by being faithful to a partner. Gay marriage would lead to large numbers of sham marriages for the sake of insurance/retirement benefits - in fact most gay marriages would be sham marriages. 2) Changing the traditional definition of marriage opens a door wide to polygamy, group marriage, and down the slippery slope, trans-species and child marriage. Most supporters of gay marriage acknowledge this and display hostility to the institution of marraige (that's one of the reasons they like the idea - they know its a mockery of the institution), though hypocritically they don't act on their beliefs and renounce their own marriages. 3) I think gay marriage proponents intend down the line to use gays as a club against traditional religious teachings - denoucing the Bible as hate literature, attacking churches tax exemptions, charitable deductions, use of public property (banning for example the use of parks for church picnics) etc. Just as the Boy Scouts are being targeted for not allowing an unmarried young gay guy to be a scoutmaster.

To: Cogito who wrote (53115)	11/8/2006 7:03:43 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

It's not just a question of changing the definition by judicial fiat, since the issue has been on ballots in many states, and is again on the ballot this time, in Colorado And how does voting for such a legal definition of marriage signify either a phobia or hatred? If you think it does apparently pretty good sized majorities of quite a few states are either phobic or haters. If you think it doesn't then do you agree that the term "homophobia" is inappropriately used here?